# A detriment or a benefit to fat acceptance?



## stan_der_man

This is my first attempt at creating a poll, so forgive me if I totally screw this up... :blush:

This poll is not a critique of these artists works, but more a question about what sort of perception images like these might convey to the "general public" about what Fat Acceptance represents, or perhaps what Dimensions represents. I chose these images from the front page of Dimensions, and these images in particular because they are depictions of exaggerated fatness, presumably fatness to the point of immobility. These aren't the most exaggerated of depictions, but typical in many ways of images often found in "Expansion" sites.

Example images are as follows:






















The question posed is:

As far as possible perceptions towards fat acceptance go, are images such as these...

1) a detriment

2) a benefit

3) are of no effect


----------



## stan_der_man

Oops, I forgot to add that this is an anonymous poll... Also, I would be interested in stated opinions one way or another...:bow:


----------



## tonynyc

I don't see the images as a detriment-the nice thing about Dims is the variety of audience that it caters to. You have folks that may be into the "Expansion" site images and those that are not. For me personally-not my cup of tea ;but, if it makes some folks happy....


----------



## Chimpi

Without a thorough or otherwise moderately detailed explanation or response, I think most people that are unaware of fat acceptance and "this world" will find those pictures to be completely fetish related, disgusting and/or negative. Personally, I think the complete opposite, but that's just me. However, I do feel that in the broad spectrum of fat acceptance, the pictures alone represent a positive (or beneficial) interpretation as to what some aspect of fat acceptance is about. No matter how well you color code it or butter it up, an explanation of fat acceptance will have a different effect on different people, and they're going to feel one way or another about it no matter what; of course, changing their views of such a thing will take effort on their part and an open mind, but that's neither here nor there.
I think if we're in it to extend fat acceptance to the rest of the world, we should include those of us or those parts of us that find those images enticing, erotic and possibly even a required aspect of relationship with those of us that enjoy those photos/circumstances. Fat acceptance should not necessarily be anti-objectification; I think that's a common problem with many people is that objectification is so horrible that it should not be included in anything. Fat acceptance should include all walks of fat positivity and fat personification - those pictures included. Fat acceptance is about fat acceptance - those pictures are fat pictures. I think that's the simplest way I can describe that.

That, and the artists are really damn good and others should be aware of such artwork. :happy:


----------



## LillyBBBW

I don't think anyone is going to look at thos pictures and gasp out loud, "OMG, size acceptance!!!" I think people will look at them and say, "OMG, what a frreak show!" The first time I saw pictures like this, it was years ago, I thought they were created by someone who was trying to make fun of fat people. I didn't connect it with eroticism at all.


----------



## AnnMarie

Interesting topic, Stan!

I say no effect because fantasy art of the equivalent on the "skinny" side of life wouldn't make anyone think that that was how things really are, but exactly that, an extreme fantasy. 

While I realize that our world isn't nearly as accepted or understood, I still think that a reasonable, open human being would take many things into account before they make their call on what this is really all about. If they're not open, they judged us all long before they got to the art.

I wouldn't want to pretend we're something we're not just because it's sometimes uncomfortable for some.


----------



## goofy girl

LillyBBBW said:


> I don't think anyone is going to look at thos pictures and gasp out loud, "OMG, size acceptance!!!" I think people will look at them and say, "OMG, what a frreak show!" The first time I saw pictures like this, it was years ago, I thought they were created by someone who was trying to make fun of fat people. I didn't connect it with eroticism at all.



I agree with Chimpi that the artwork is very well done, but LillyB you pretty much sum up my thoughts.


----------



## elle camino

well seeing as i've seen those actual images before, used on other forums to demonstrate how gross fat people look (supposedly), voted detriment.


edit: also personally, they just make me incredibly sad.


----------



## superodalisque

i think they can be a detriment because they underline the lampooning of fat female sexuality that has always been present in society. they are the usual big joke--pun intended. even though i respect everyone's right to express themselves and i also respect the underlying fantasy life that people have a right to, i feel sad that this stuff is actually made generally by men who claim to admire and respect fat female beauty. i feel as a fat woman i am sexy feminine and beautiful, not an object of jokes and ridicule. where is the love and respect?


----------



## swordchick

I'm with you on this. It is so sad.



superodalisque said:


> i think they can be a detriment because they underline the lampooning of fat female sexuality that has always been present in society. they are the usual big joke--pun intended. even though i respect everyone's right to express themselves and i also respect the underlying fantasy life that people have a right to, i feel sad that this stuff is actually made generally by men who claim to admire and respect fat female beauty. i feel as a fat woman i am sexy feminine and beautiful, not an object of jokes and ridicule. where is the love and respect?


----------



## stan_der_man

For the sake of (at least to attempt...) keeping neutral and letting the conversation go as it may, I'm not going to state my opinions per se. I would like to say again, I mean no insult to the artists, as works of art these pieces are interesting in their own right.

Two questions I'd like to pose (to be answered or simply thought about...) for anyone who either takes a neutral stand on the effect to size acceptance but mostly to those who take a stance that these images have a positive effect are:


*Would you hang an image like this (a clothed one presumably...) in your place of work (office, cubicle etc...) or house or any other public place?

How do you think "average" people would react to these images?

How do you think an image like this would effect the attendance of a BBW dance if it were used on a flier?
*


----------



## fiore

I said benefit - it's a cute cartoon exaggeration. They strike me as very happy/silly images. They're not scary or intimidating or threatening or vilifying. They're not overly sexual. They are a bit whimsical and have a good sense of humor. I personally wouldn't hang them anywhere but I wouldn't be shocked if I saw that someone else had posted them. These drawings are sugar-coated fantasy - perfect for beginners! haha


----------



## superodalisque

1. no i wouldn't hang it

2. average people would be either horrified or they'd laugh their ass off 
depending on the number of brain cells they had.

3. i definitely would not attend that dance, as much as i love dancing


----------



## mossystate

Let's just say I would hope that no person who is just entering the ' size acceptance ' classroom would run into this stuff, until they were well on their way of understanding, and well on their way of understanding themselves.

This stuff, to me, for me, is aggressive and ugly. I do not see anything but ridicule and defeat. I don't care about the talent of the people doing it. I don't care that some think this stuff is the best thing since sliced cheese. 

There is objectifying ' art ' all over the place, whether the focus is fat...thin...whatever. I know that there can never be one ideal in terms of how people are represented. It will always be here ( Dims...the planet ) . I get that. I get that no one person can define size acceptance. I will always hate it and never accept it. I get to to do that, or, not do that. Enjoy. Just please be sure to set your excitement aside every now and then to really understand the other ' side '. To simply say..." hey, all viewpoints are accepted "...serves no one...not well, anyway.

If I were to recommend certain sites online, I would have to do more than a bit of explaining. I could never just give a struggling fat woman, for example, the link to this site, without that initial handholding. There is a lot of powerful stuff, not all of it safe for fragile folk.


----------



## tonynyc

*
I agree a very talented artist reminds me of Robert Crumb;but, Crumb was also very controversial in his own right. 

Now in terms of your question- which of these drawings would be acceptable in a workplace- perhaps the last one with the BBW on the desk. I do think that there would have to be drastic modifications in the drawing to be accepted in a business environment.

1. The model would have to be clothed in business attire.
2. The inclusion of other figures of different shapes and gender to promote a Diversity theme.

As for the other two more "risky" drawings - it depends on the type of Size Acceptance event that is being promoted and the audience that one want to attract. 

*




fa_man_stan said:


> For the sake of (at least to attempt...) keeping neutral and letting the conversation go as it may, I'm not going to state my opinions per se. I would like to say again, I mean no insult to the artists, as works of art these pieces are interesting in their own right.
> 
> Two questions I'd like to pose (to be answered or simply thought about...) for anyone who either takes a neutral stand on the effect to size acceptance but mostly to those who take a stance that these images have a positive effect are:
> 
> 
> *Would you hang an image like this (a clothed one presumably...) in your place of work (office, cubicle etc...) or house or any other public place?
> 
> How do you think "average" people would react to these images?
> 
> How do you think an image like this would effect the attendance of a BBW dance if it were used on a flier?
> *


----------



## ashmamma84

Just a mess. That's my honest reaction when I look at drawings like this. To me it helps to perpetuate negative stereotypes about fat women. We are nothing more than gluttons, feeding at a trough. 

I would never hang anything like this in my place of work or home -- these pieces are just not my cup of tea. It has nothing to do with appreciating or reveling in the fat female form, in my eyes. And I think "average sized" people would probably experience a good amount of shock and awe as well (and maybe a bit of disgust). Oh and if I saw this kind of stuff on a flier of a dance, I wouldn't attend. I'd think it was some kind of sick joke being played on fat women and stay my ass away. 

I guess that's my whole issue with these drawings. I am too proud to be taken for a joke and for people who aren't in fat acceptance, seeing something like this might make them figure this is all we've got, so to speak.


----------



## superodalisque

tonynyc said:


> *
> I agree a very talented artist reminds me of Robert Crumb;but, Crumb was also very controversial in his own right.
> 
> Now in terms of your question- which of these drawings would be acceptable in a workplace- perhaps the last one with the BBW on the desk. I do think that there would have to be drastic modifications in the drawing to be accepted in a business environment.
> 
> 1. The model would have to be clothed in business attire.
> 2. The inclusion of other figures of different shapes and gender to promote a Diversity theme.
> 
> As for the other two more "risky" drawings - it depends on the type of Size Acceptance event that is being promoted and the audience that one want to attract.
> 
> *




its interesting that you mentioned "The Crumb" who is one of the most hostile cartoonists when it comes to women. i think his headless big butted women being ridden vigorously by men are particularly expressive of his orientation. that frames the reference perfectly in terms of these other drawings as well when it comes to the respect level. but actually none of them resemble the style of crumb. it doesn't have the same level of energy even though the cartooning is fine.

you'd get fired if it was in the workplace because it looks like sexual harrassment even if you did include thin girls of different races in equal poses and conditions.


----------



## fiore

I feel like every time I post I end up playing devil's advocate!! HA HA.


----------



## AnnMarie

fa_man_stan said:


> \*
> 
> How do you think an image like this would effect the attendance of a BBW dance if it were used on a flier?
> *




hahaha, who would do that??? These pictures are extreme fantasy images, they're not representative of real people or potential clientèle. I wouldn't go to a "normal" bar if they used images of scared women tied to a wall either, but I don't think that's an image they'd be choosing unless it was representative of what they're all about. 

I still think it's an interesting topic, but c'mon Stan... that's one Goliath-like step beyond what those images are created for. Beautiful art in their own way, but fantasy in all ways. They're somewhere on the equivalent scale, for those so into them, as a woman with a dildo inside her in a gyno shot. Would you hand THAT on your wall? 

HER BOOBS ARE HELD UP BY A SWING IN THE CEILING!!! 

Just trying to stay grounded here.


----------



## steely

I don't understand it.It certainly doesn't give me positive feelings.


----------



## mossystate

AnnMarie said:


> ... as a woman with a dildo inside her in a gyno shot.




uhoh...* races to weight board to delete my latest picture *


----------



## FreeThinker

mossystate said:


> uhoh...* races to weight board to delete my latest picture *


*races to get there first*


----------



## AnnMarie

mossystate said:


> uhoh...* races to weight board to delete my latest picture *



I didn't name names. But..... yeah.


----------



## MisticalMisty

I would never hang the exaggerated figures like the examples you've given..however I did purchase Fish's book and on my bedroom wall are 6 different prints of beautiful ladies in the water...

I think there are examples of the complete and total fat fantasy and I believe there are the more true to life examples. 

I think that art is art. I'm not sure that it's a benefit or a detriment. If people are going to be narrow minded and believe that the "fat world" is what's represented in those pictures, well then I'd have to question their ability to distinguish fantasy and reality.


----------



## Cors

I love big women but I find these pictures disturbing, particularly the second one. SuperO put it across very well. 

This actually reminds me of the pride versus progress discussion that comes up ever so often in the LGBTQ community. Some think that flamboyant gay men dancing and prancing around in leather costumes and waving rainbow flags can give clueless straight people the wrong impression, and they argue that in order to gain acceptance, we should instead focus on appearing as "normal" as possible. Others think that we should not go out of our way to placate the conservatives at the expense of alienating some members of our own community.


----------



## FreeThinker

fa_man_stan said:


> This poll is not a critique of these artists works, but more a question about what sort of perception images like these might convey to the "general public" about what Fat Acceptance represents, or perhaps what Dimensions represents.



Before responding to the poll, I just want to make clear that I am answering the question I think I am answering.

You are asking how images such as those included will make the Fat Acceptance movement look to the "general public".

I take this to mean people who are neither supporters nor bashers, but people for whom the issue of fat acceptance was never even a blip on their radar.

Also, are you talking about the effect of these images being seen in the context of a fat-accepting venue (such as Dimensions), which may inadvertently imply Fat-Acceptance's (or Dims) endorsement, or do you mean just out in the world, without a message of fat-acceptance attached?


(Not meaning at all to be picky, Stan, but I've sometimes selected a poll option that I ordinarily wouldn't have chosen due to my not having grasped the question, and we don't get to change our votes on these things.)


----------



## Ash

fa_man_stan said:


> For the sake of (at least to attempt...) keeping neutral and letting the conversation go as it may, I'm not going to state my opinions per se. I would like to say again, I mean no insult to the artists, as works of art these pieces are interesting in their own right.
> 
> Two questions I'd like to pose (to be answered or simply thought about...) for anyone who either takes a neutral stand on the effect to size acceptance but mostly to those who take a stance that these images have a positive effect are:
> 
> 
> *Would you hang an image like this (a clothed one presumably...) in your place of work (office, cubicle etc...) or house or any other public place?
> 
> How do you think "average" people would react to these images?
> 
> How do you think an image like this would effect the attendance of a BBW dance if it were used on a flier?
> *



First I'd like to say that the distinction really needs to be made, in all of our minds and in this whole fatty scene, that size acceptance and extreme weight gain/extreme fatness/the sexualization of the extremely fat body are not the same thing. The images you've posted have nothing to do with size acceptance. At all. They are tangible illustrations of a sexual preference or fetish (I won't start that argument here). They have nothing to do with activism or the rights of fat people in the slightest. 

To further my point while addressing your questions, I'd say that that very few sane people wish to advertise their sexual kinks in the workplace. I'm sure that even the average mainstream male doesn't care to post Playboy centerfolds in his cubicle. And, as you well know, a fully clothed fat woman can be just as exciting to an FA as a naked centerfold is to a man with mainstream tastes in women. Further, even mainstream clubs and bars wouldn't use a naked Playboy model to advertise for an event either. These highly sexual images aren't appropriate for your average social event, fat or otherwise. 

I'm sure "average" people would react to images like these negatively. But we're used to that, aren't we? If you're going to be interested in fat sexuality, you have to admit that it is in no way mainstream or even widely socially acceptable (yet). So of course the average college student or work colleague is going to react negatively. Their reactions are based in confusion and shock. And even if it weren't, graphic depictions of fat sexuality would still be private, personal things because graphic depictions of ANY sexuality are private and personal. 

The most important point here, though, is that fat sexuality and size acceptance are separate entities all together. Assuming that one defines or damages the other isn't accurate, and using images like this and assigning them enough power to represent size acceptance in a negative light is like using mainstream porn to represent women's rights.


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus

I absolutely hate pictures like this!!HATE HATE HATE them. They are a detriment to size acceptance and I would never put any art like that up on my walls.

Now, Paul Delacroix's art - I have some - I hang it - I'm proud to know him. It depicts the beauty of a BBW without the "freak show" aspect these pictures depict.


----------



## SocialbFly

fa_man_stan said:


> For the sake of (at least to attempt...) keeping neutral and letting the conversation go as it may, I'm not going to state my opinions per se. I would like to say again, I mean no insult to the artists, as works of art these pieces are interesting in their own right.
> 
> Two questions I'd like to pose (to be answered or simply thought about...) for anyone who either takes a neutral stand on the effect to size acceptance but mostly to those who take a stance that these images have a positive effect are:
> 
> 
> *Would you hang an image like this (a clothed one presumably...) in your place of work (office, cubicle etc...) or house or any other public place?
> 
> How do you think "average" people would react to these images?
> 
> How do you think an image like this would effect the attendance of a BBW dance if it were used on a flier?
> *



I am answering these kinda backwards as i have to find some info on the web before i answer the others first...

ok...average people dont see the humor or the "cuteness" in these at all, i ask you too, would you show them to coworkers, i wouldnt, i think they stereotype fat women, all you need is bon bons...i wouldnt hang them, show them, own them...

i wouldnt attend a dance with these women on the fliers for they can't dance can they? While this is an assumption, i know the problems i have, i cant imagine these women have any less issues...


these pictures to me are more stereotypically fetish related...bbws breaking furniture due to their weight, slings holding huge breasts up, just watching tv or sitting at the computer...notice all of these are singular events...no one is with them at all, how sad...

my response of what i do like to see is coming as soon as i find a pic i am looking for...

these pics made me sad...i dont see them as loving for anyone except the artist, he loves that, finds that appealing, and i am glad he likes it, we all have to have what we find attractive, but i dont to agree with it.


----------



## superodalisque

interesting responses Stan especially in relation to your previous post on another thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by fa_man_stan 
...

Coming back to my original statement that I feel this “fatopia” of Dimensions encourages us, in subtle ways to disregard the possible health effects of gaining weight, and encourages weight gain to the maximum… I’ve confronted “The Webmaster” with this question only to have my post deleted (actually the whole thread was deleted…) I pose this question yet again…

Why is the prominent front page of the Dimensions Forums, “The Library” filled with all the weight gain fiction categories out in the open? Why is the Dimensions.com home page filled with all the Wilson Barbers weight gain stories, or with stories about 900 lb dudes, or the Fanta-Sizer Gallery, by Bed Benders Inc… (most of which depict extreme proportions I might add…)? True, there are other stories, but there are also plenty of stories (news and otherwise) and prominent “fat girl” artists who’s art never sees the light of day on the Dimensions home page. Maybe as you responded last time… I just “don’t understand.” You are an articulate guy “Webmaster”, you can do better than that. What you are trying to do is subliminally influence this community into accepting the extremes of weight gain... turn this place into a "belly-butt Babylon"... at the expense of attempting to mainstream fat acceptance... admit it.

Go ahead, delete my post again… prove my point… 


excuse the sloppy way i quoted you
__________________


----------



## Durin

I think I put down that it would have no impact. Fantasy is Fantasy.


----------



## SocialbFly

Felecia, many of us share your feelings.

That being said, i would like to show you the work of Eva Hannah, her Fat Ladies art work show fat women as beautiful, happy, and in everyday activities, that is who i am, that is how i want to be seen...

i dont want to be seen as a solitary fat woman striving to find a connection in a world that doesnt see me or understand me, and i think the original pictures, while i am not coming down on them, don't describe me at all...and it isnt who i want to be seen as....

but an Eva Hannah Fat Ladies, i would have happily posed for and would love to see... 

View attachment ItsPartyTime.jpg


View attachment kellys.jpg


----------



## Wayne_Zitkus

*



Would you hang an image like this (a clothed one presumably...) in your place of work (office, cubicle etc...) or house or any other public place?

Click to expand...

* 
Clothed or not, posting pictures like that at my workplace would be considered grounds for termination, so the answer is "no". 


*



How do you think "average" people would react to these images?

Click to expand...

* 
With more than an average amount of disgust.


*



How do you think an image like this would effect the attendance of a BBW dance if it were used on a flier?

Click to expand...

* 
Attendance by BBws and BHMs would go down, and attendance by fat-bashers would go up.

Some people may find tose images arousing or humorous, bus as a life-long FA, I find them to be repulsive. I don't know the individuals wo drew them, but judging by those pictures, I suspect that they hate women...


----------



## MsGreenLantern

I look at it as a fat woman and it makes me sad, much as the other women stated. I think it's very objectifying and most anyone I'd show these to in my daily life, skinny or fat, would find them distasteful or funny at very least.

I understand the concept of why some people find this sort of thing erotic, but it really paints an unpleasant slovenly picture of fat women, and do we really need something like that for the 'movement'? I find the silly inflation renderings of anime babes funny, but I don't know... they could only hurt the cause. If so many fat women find them unappealing, think how skinny people would take it.

Moderation is what it's about. Inflate a skinny character or self-made cartoon to realistic fatness, not sad horrifying blobs who couldn't move. Even people with real mobility issues don't look like that.


----------



## superodalisque

SocialbFly said:


> Felecia, many of us share your feelings.
> 
> That being said, i would like to show you the work of Eva Hannah, her Fat Ladies art work show fat women as beautiful, happy, and in everyday activities, that is who i am, that is how i want to be seen...
> 
> i dont want to be seen as a solitary fat woman striving to find a connection in a world that doesnt see me or understand me, and i think the original pictures, while i am not coming down on them, don't describe me at all...and it isnt who i want to be seen as....
> 
> but an Eva Hannah Fat Ladies, i would have happily posed for and would love to see...



thats beautiful. its a shame when there is so much positive stuff around that could be used that a broader base of people could appreciate that its not what is at the forefront.


----------



## superodalisque

MsGreenLantern said:


> I look at it as a fat woman and it makes me sad, much as the other women stated. I think it's very objectifying and most anyone I'd show these to in my daily life, skinny or fat, would find them distasteful or funny at very least.
> 
> I understand the concept of why some people find this sort of thing erotic, but it really paints an unpleasant slovenly picture of fat women, and do we really need something like that for the 'movement'? I find the silly inflation renderings of anime babes funny, but I don't know... they could only hurt the cause. If so many fat women find them unappealing, think how skinny people would take it.
> 
> Moderation is what it's about. Inflate a skinny character or self-made cartoon to realistic fatness, not sad horrifying blobs who couldn't move. Even people with real mobility issues don't look like that.



i think there is place for it on dims but does it really have to, and does it represent most people here? especially when there is the cost of losing people who really need to and want to be here. can't we just ease them into the water instead of dunking them in and holding them under? can't we give them a way to discover themselves, including this side of them , thats not quite such a shock to the system in the very beginning?


----------



## Cors

SocialbFly said:


> Felecia, many of us share your feelings.
> 
> That being said, i would like to show you the work of Eva Hannah, her Fat Ladies art work show fat women as beautiful, happy, and in everyday activities, that is who i am, that is how i want to be seen...
> 
> i dont want to be seen as a solitary fat woman striving to find a connection in a world that doesnt see me or understand me, and i think the original pictures, while i am not coming down on them, don't describe me at all...and it isnt who i want to be seen as....
> 
> but an Eva Hannah Fat Ladies, i would have happily posed for and would love to see...



I really, really like these pictures! I showed it to my friends, who are "average" people, and even they can appreciate how happy and beautiful those women are!


----------



## SocialbFly

Cors said:


> I really, really like these pictures! I showed it to my friends, who are "average" people, and even they can appreciate how happy and beautiful those women are!



Awww, thank you for saying that, i bought a small picture of hers when i was in Australia...i just love her stuff and wish i could afford a reallllllllllllllly big one, i would hang it high!!!


----------



## superodalisque

Ashley said:


> First I'd like to say that the distinction really needs to be made, in all of our minds and in this whole fatty scene, that size acceptance and extreme weight gain/extreme fatness/the sexualization of the extremely fat body are not the same thing. The images you've posted have nothing to do with size acceptance. At all. They are tangible illustrations of a sexual preference or fetish (I won't start that argument here). They have nothing to do with activism or the rights of fat people in the slightest.
> 
> To further my point while addressing your questions, I'd say that that very few sane people wish to advertise their sexual kinks in the workplace. I'm sure that even the average mainstream male doesn't care to post Playboy centerfolds in his cubicle. And, as you well know, a fully clothed fat woman can be just as exciting to an FA as a naked centerfold is to a man with mainstream tastes in women. Further, even mainstream clubs and bars wouldn't use a naked Playboy model to advertise for an event either. These highly sexual images aren't appropriate for your average social event, fat or otherwise.
> 
> I'm sure "average" people would react to images like these negatively. But we're used to that, aren't we? If you're going to be interested in fat sexuality, you have to admit that it is in no way mainstream or even widely socially acceptable (yet). So of course the average college student or work colleague is going to react negatively. Their reactions are based in confusion and shock. And even if it weren't, graphic depictions of fat sexuality would still be private, personal things because graphic depictions of ANY sexuality are private and personal.
> 
> The most important point here, though, is that fat sexuality and size acceptance are separate entities all together. Assuming that one defines or damages the other isn't accurate, and using images like this and assigning them enough power to represent size acceptance in a negative light is like using mainstream porn to represent women's rights.




i agree with you whole heartedly. maybe dims needs to rethink what its frontpieces look like and the impressions it gives. is this really an SA oriented site or is it a feeding and gaining site? what is it really? what does the mission statement say? maybe its time for dims to come clean about what exactly it really is. but i disagree when you say "we" are used to it. it depends which "we" we are talking about. are we talking about people who've been here for a long time, or the people who need us and are just discovering the place. i dont think its a good idea to put this stuff in thier face first thing. it can be discouraging to a lot of people who have no idea what its about, even if its their own fantasy. that would be like shoving porno at someone as soon as they come through your door.


----------



## fffff

I see no difference between these drawings and any other bondage porn featuring nude women with inflated breasts, thin or otherwise. 

It's degenerate porn that has no empathy for the women portrayed. Even though they're imaginary women, these kind of pictures are very invocative of an extremely anti-women attitude.


----------



## fffff

superodalisque said:


> i agree with you whole heartedly. maybe dims needs to rethink what its frontpieces look like and the impressions it gives. is this really an SA oriented site or is it a feeding and gaining site? what is it really? what does the mission statement say? maybe its time for dims to come clean about what exactly it really is. but i disagree when you say "we" are used to it. it depends which "we" we are talking about. are we talking about people who've been here for a long time, or the people who need us and are just discovering the place. i dont think its a good idea to put this stuff in thier face first thing. it can be discouraging to a lot of people who have no idea what its about, even if its their own fantasy. that would be like shoving porno at someone as soon as they come through your door.



I admit I stay away from the majority of pornography posted here, because I'm just not into porn, but the more things like this I see the more it bothers me. 

I'm a psych student and I've worked with a lot of women and girls in pretty much every size trying to get them to love themselves and there bodies. I've had my own struggles with accepting my body, and like everyone I have good and bad days. However, I look at things like this and I see nothing that resembles what I would consider acceptance of any sort. 

It's no different than a smutty playboy cartoon. It does nothing for women, it only serves as jack-off material for men.


----------



## olwen

I voted have no affect because ulitmately, as a political tool (used to advance fat acceptance), these kinds of images are useless. It would be like throwing one's sexuality in the face of someone who isn't interested or doesn't care. The person would walk away thinking "this dude is crazy" and would either not give it a second thought, or just be really annoyed. If someone already thinks fat is bad then showing them images like that are a waste of time. I honestly never think of fat acceptance as having sexual issues at it's core, but rather civil rights ones. And yes, a sexual issue can be a civil rights issue, but unless fat admireres and fat fetishists are being jailed and denied basic rights for their sexual chioces it's not relevant here.

However, if we are talking about sexual politics, then it's a detriment. If we are all trying to get mainstream society to accept and validate these kinds of fantasies, then their function would only be to make fat admiration visible, nothing more, and even then it wouldn't represent all FAs, because not all FAs have such extreme deires. It's impossible to represent all FAs in such a way. As a parallel, if I wanted to try to make BDSM more acceptable in mainstream society I wouldn't show people pictures of extreme bondage either because it would do more harm than good. People can and do bring their own judgements about it to the table, and there's not much I can do about that unless they ask for clarification. Then that's my chance to educate and inform. That's about all I could do.


----------



## BigBeautifulMe

This is the fat art on my wall at work:

View attachment botero_monalisa.jpg


Well, not this EXACT painting, as I would have to be rich , but a very, very good imitation of it bought in Paris on the street near the Louvre. 

(It's Botero's version of the Mona Lisa, for anyone who doesn't recognize it. )


----------



## chunkeymonkey

LillyBBBW said:


> I don't think anyone is going to look at thos pictures and gasp out loud, "OMG, size acceptance!!!" I think people will look at them and say, "OMG, what a frreak show!" The first time I saw pictures like this, it was years ago, I thought they were created by someone who was trying to make fun of fat people. I didn't connect it with eroticism at all.



You nailed my thoughts..... I often wonder if my friends and family veiw me the way those pictures look in cartoon especially after gaining 50 lbs in the last year and a bit.


----------



## Santaclear

To me they're just fetishy drawings, definitely kinda odd (since I'm not at all into the fetish) but I wouldn't go so far as to call them a detriment even tho some would use them as that (as elle camino noted.) Nor would I say they're in any way a benefit, except maybe to those who find 'em a turn-on. I believe in free speech and free expression so I'd hate to see them censored.

So I vote "no effect." Even tho they do have SOME effect. And as Ashley wrote in her excellent post, I believe "average" people would react negatively, yes.


----------



## FreeThinker

Tangentially-related thread on objectification.

Some comments in this thread led me to dredge up the old one, thinking it may be relevant.


----------



## Ruby Ripples

AnnMarie said:


> hahaha, who would do that??? These pictures are extreme fantasy images, they're not representative of real people or potential clientèle. I wouldn't go to a "normal" bar if they used images of scared women tied to a wall either, but I don't think that's an image they'd be choosing unless it was representative of what they're all about.
> 
> I still think it's an interesting topic, but c'mon Stan... that's one Goliath-like step beyond what those images are created for. Beautiful art in their own way, but fantasy in all ways. They're somewhere on the equivalent scale, for those so into them, as a woman with a dildo inside her in a gyno shot. Would you hand THAT on your wall?
> 
> HER BOOBS ARE HELD UP BY A SWING IN THE CEILING!!!
> 
> Just trying to stay grounded here.



Absolutely agree here Annmarie. The first thought I had, was that these pictures are fetish stuff, and nobody would seriously ever expect them to be on a wall, or advertising a dance, good grief. 

I got the impression Stan that you didnt get the reaction you perhaps wanted to your first post, so pushed it more in your second.

My opinion is that these pictures would have a negative effect on some people, and a neutral effect on others. All depends on the person.


----------



## Brenda

I find images like this extremely disturbing and upsetting. Fantasy or not it is degrading to women and unlike bondage pictures of thin women the ropes cannot be untied. 

Brenda


----------



## stan_der_man

AnnMarie said:


> ...
> I still think it's an interesting topic, but c'mon Stan... that's one Goliath-like step beyond what those images are created for. Beautiful art in their own way, but fantasy in all ways.
> 
> ...
> 
> Just trying to stay grounded here.



I'll grant you AM, the images I posted above are for the most part "fetish" images in the eyes of many (however one might be inclined to define the word fetish...) And yes the question of whether or not these images would be used in any sort of advertising (in this case BBW dances) is probably far fetched but not entirely without merit (the clothed images in particular). How many images of unrealistically thin women have you seen in advertising? Would an image like this one shock anyone?







This could be a advertisement for some sort of boutique, or a "Pro-ana fetish" image... Unlikely, yes but not completely absurd.



FreeThinker said:


> Before responding to the poll, I just want to make clear that I am answering the question I think I am answering.
> 
> You are asking how images such as those included will make the Fat Acceptance movement look to the "general public".
> 
> ...



Truly, I'm trying to keep this as generic as possible. A person sees these images... wherever, however. These images are on a publicly accessible website BTW... with no warnings. A person then learns about fat acceptance... or vice versa. Would an image like this be an influencing factor?




Ashley said:


> First I'd like to say that the distinction really needs to be made, *in all of our minds and in this whole fatty scene, that size acceptance and extreme weight gain/extreme fatness/the sexualization of the extremely fat body are not the same thing*. The images you've posted have nothing to do with size acceptance. At all. They are tangible illustrations of a sexual preference or fetish (I won't start that argument here). They have nothing to do with activism or the rights of fat people in the slightest.
> 
> ...



Yes, that is true Ashley... in our minds. We've heard these topics over and over again, we've seen images like this to one extent or another. We (the Dims community) for the most part are well versed in these matters and have it sorted out in our minds. I'm talking about the general public, or people who just "discover" us or the subject of fat acceptance.





Ashley said:


> ...
> The most important point here, though, is that fat sexuality and size acceptance are separate entities all together. Assuming that one defines or damages the other isn't accurate, and using images like this and assigning them enough power to represent size acceptance in a negative light is like using mainstream porn to represent women's rights.



I completely agree with you Ashley. But many in the "general public" even have trouble separating, sexuality, and whether "porn" is empowering or a detriment to women's rights or not. I'm not attempting to assign these images any sort of power. Don't those images practically do it themselves? A powerful image doesn't necessarily need any assigning of power.





superodalisque said:


> interesting responses Stan especially in relation to your previous post on another thread



Sheesh! What are you trying to do by quoting this over again... piss off the webmaster and get me banned...!? 



> Originally Posted by fa_man_stan
> ...
> 
> Coming back to my original statement that I feel this “fatopia” of Dimensions encourages us, in subtle ways to disregard the possible health effects of gaining weight, and encourages weight gain to the maximum… I’ve confronted “The Webmaster” with this question only to have my post deleted (actually the whole thread was deleted…) I pose this question yet again…
> 
> Why is the prominent front page of the Dimensions Forums, “The Library” filled with all the weight gain fiction categories out in the open? Why is the Dimensions.com home page filled with all the Wilson Barbers weight gain stories, or with stories about 900 lb dudes, or the Fanta-Sizer Gallery, by Bed Benders Inc… (most of which depict extreme proportions I might add…)? True, there are other stories, but there are also plenty of stories (news and otherwise) and prominent “fat girl” artists who’s art never sees the light of day on the Dimensions home page. Maybe as you responded last time… I just “don’t understand.” You are an articulate guy “Webmaster”, you can do better than that. What you are trying to do is subliminally influence this community into accepting the extremes of weight gain... turn this place into a "belly-butt Babylon"... at the expense of attempting to mainstream fat acceptance... admit it.
> 
> Go ahead, delete my post again… prove my point…





> excuse the sloppy way i quoted you
> __________________


[/quote]

No worries Super-o, what you need to do when you make a quote, goes something like this... Actually you can also bold it very easily... like this...

begin quote... (quote) (b)


> *
> Coming back to my original statement that I feel this “fatopia” of Dimensions encourages us, in subtle ways to disregard the possible health effects of gaining weight, and encourages weight gain to the maximum… I’ve confronted “The Webmaster” with this question only to have my post deleted (actually the whole thread was deleted…) I pose this question yet again…
> 
> Why is the prominent front page of the Dimensions Forums, “The Library” filled with all the weight gain fiction categories out in the open? Why is the Dimensions.com home page filled with all the Wilson Barbers weight gain stories, or with stories about 900 lb dudes, or the Fanta-Sizer Gallery, by Bed Benders Inc… (most of which depict extreme proportions I might add…)? True, there are other stories, but there are also plenty of stories (news and otherwise) and prominent “fat girl” artists who’s art never sees the light of day on the Dimensions home page. Maybe as you responded last time… I just “don’t understand.” You are an articulate guy “Webmaster”, you can do better than that. What you are trying to do is subliminally influence this community into accepting the extremes of weight gain... turn this place into a "belly-butt Babylon"... at the expense of attempting to mainstream fat acceptance... admit it.
> 
> Go ahead, delete my post again… prove my point… *



...end quote (/b)(/quote)




Ruby Ripples said:


> ...
> I got the impression Stan that you didnt get the reaction you perhaps wanted to your first post, so pushed it more in your second.
> ...



Actually, it was my third post where I "pushed it"... Assuming that you are insinuating my intent was to bias this poll in favor of "detriment"... I think the numbers speak for themselves.

Also what I find interesting... I'll double check to make sure... I have yet to see any posts explaining how these images could a benefit to fat acceptance. Other than the one "nude" image. These are simply images of extremely fat people. Anybody labeling these images "fetish" is doing just that... "empowering" these images with the label "fetish".


----------



## bmann0413

Well, the only one I like is the first one because I think it's adorable. But that's just me. lol

But the other ones, I find them weird. It doesn't really look it CAN benefit size acceptance. But it's not really for size acceptance. It's just a fantasy that the artists happen to like. But average folks would see this as repulsive... because I've seen some comments on some of these pictures from average folks.

But oh, well, to each their own, right?


----------



## stan_der_man

What I find interesting... I'll double check to make sure... I have yet to see any posts explaining how these images could be a benefit to fat acceptance. Just to be the "Devil's advocate" here... Other than the one topless image (showing nipples...) (well OK... maybe also the one with her boobs in that strap thingie...) these are simply images of extremely fat people in clothing in fairly typical poses. Arguably, images such as these could "benefit" fat acceptance by desensitizing people to the aesthetic of an extremely fat person. If you've seen these images anything less is not so shocking. Is that a particularly far fetched concept?

Really, other than the size of these people, what makes these images "fetish"? They aren't in any particularly "obscene" poses, even the nude one is simply topless... I wish Butch were here... She had a really good post about the validity of labeling something "fetish" and how it is a tenuous definition at best.


----------



## HeatherBBW

Sandie_Zitkus said:


> I absolutely hate pictures like this!!HATE HATE HATE them. They are a detriment to size acceptance and I would never put any art like that up on my walls.
> 
> Now, Paul Delacroix's art - I have some - I hang it - I'm proud to know him. It depicts the beauty of a BBW without the "freak show" aspect these pictures depict.



I think it's highly irresponsible and ignorant of you to call anybody's art a "freak show". They are fat fantasy art and something interesting/sexy in his mind. You might not like it, but have a little respect.


----------



## HeatherBBW

Honestly, I find this thread completely horrific.

It's clear that those images are derived from sexual fantasies of the artist and he shares them for those who also find them appealing. Just as with any art, if you don't like it. Don't look.

The fact that you'd even stir up a thread to find out if these images are viewed as part of the size acceptance movement is nutty. Size acceptance and Sexuality acceptance are two completely different animals.

This being outside of the weight board and displayed is probably shocking to those who have no inclinations towards weight gain fantasies. So the purpose of this thread has in no way a chance to be positive... so why post it?

Since when do we have the right to judge what someone should find sexually appealing? Whether it be extreme bondage, cross-dressing, foot slaves or weight gain.. it's just not the place.

Stan, I'm really surprised at this poll and then your follow up questions. For instance, the one about putting it on a workplace wall or a dance flyer. I actually VERY MUCH enjoy these images, they are parallel with many of my own sexual fantasies. But I'd never put something on my office wall that was based on my sexuality. I also wouldn't push my sexuality into my business life as I do run BBW dances in MA. If I were setting up Swinger Feeder/Feedee parties, then maybe that image would apply. But to ask otherwise, is just a reach for answers you know will be non-affirmative. It just boggles my mind that you'd even consider creating this poll and follow up questions. Also, these images do NOT need to be nude to be sexual. These are fetish based because they depict an extreme that is parallel with weight gain, giantess and immobility fantasies. I think most people know this already, these types of pictures haven't been in hiding around these parts. I think most people "get it" that they are sexual and enact the fetish. One of many that can be derived after the initial preference/predilection for fat women. I say this because I believe that being an FA is a preference, not a fetish. But the fetishes that tangent off from the main preferences, are exactly that.. fetishes.

Overall, I am also shocked at the disdain of many of the posters here. Some who I consider personal friends. What happened to "To Each Their Own", since when are we saddened, grossed out, freaked out enough to express it publicly when you know that it might very well be the fantasy of some of those who may read your very thoughts. 

I feel very much attacked in this thread because I am one of the people who enjoy such artwork... I even like artwork that's even farther in extremes. Part of my sexual fantasies (I stress FANTASY) is to be bigger then an entire room. So big that I need a special house. Will I ever be that fat? No. It's impossible. But is it wrong for me to fantasize about it or if I had artistic talent, to draw it? Why should I need to know that my fantasies (which are personal and in my own head until posts like this) are disgusting to you? Overall, I'm just shocked.

I remember finding artwork such as this when I was a young teen and I thought I was the only one who had such fantasies. It made me feel like I wasn't alone in my sexuality. It was a huge POSITIVE discovery for me. One many of you wouldn't understand because you don't share my fantasy. But I'd expect or expected a little more liberal acceptance of each others kinks or fetishes around here.

So sexuality acceptance, sure. Size acceptance, no.

But in closing, I feel that if you express such hateful response to viewing such images is being intolerant of others sexual preferences. I guess I expect more from fat women and our admirers.. as we are constantly put down for the life we live and the aesthetic preferences of our partners. We are criticized for our lifestyle and choices - so now we become those very people who made the lives miserable of so many fatties and FAs? 

Mood = Pissed Off & Hurt.


----------



## mossystate

The argument of , " if you don't like it, don't look ", goes both ways. If you know, by clicking on this thread and seeing the first post and the pictures attached, that this is going to be a horrific experience for you...then why continue reading?

Words are actually, overall, easier to pass on than pictures. Heather, you like the pictures and think they are a benefit. Some of us do not. Don't think anybody has called for the banning of such pictures, unless I have missed something? I really have no basic issue with whatever turns any persons crank ( I have my own ' interesting ' fantasies ), but, to act like these images are not really powerful, and just stay in some magical locked box, with the combination known only by certain people...well...come on. Some of us are mulling over the question of how a thousand different issues/ideas...etc...affect how size acceptance is viewed. 

I do understand how personal you feel this, since such images speak to something deep in you. Maybe understand that some of us can't simply chalk these images up to personal preferences. We are having a conversation. " Don't like it, don't look ", pretty much stops the conversation.


----------



## exile in thighville

this is like asking if any kind of unconventional fetish image were shown to the public, would it say ick? yes, because the public is easily horrified by what it doesn't understand. most people do not realize fetishes are unexplainable. these images say _nothing_ about fat acceptance. if someone were to catch a member of this board with one, i'd hope that person would remind them of the differences between fantasy and reality, and the harmlessness of Weird Sex Pics.


----------



## stan_der_man

HeatherBBW said:


> ...
> Stan, I'm really surprised at this poll and then your follow up questions. For instance, the one about putting it on a workplace wall or a dance flyer. I actually VERY MUCH enjoy these images, they are parallel with many of my own sexual fantasies. But I'd never put something on my office wall that was based on my sexuality. I also wouldn't push my sexuality into my business life as I do run BBW dances in MA. If I were setting up Swinger Feeder/Feedee parties, then maybe that image would apply. *But to ask otherwise, is just a reach for answers you know will be non-affirmative. It just boggles my mind that you'd even consider creating this poll and follow up questions.* Also, these images do NOT need to be nude to be sexual. These are fetish based because they depict an extreme that is parallel with weight gain, giantess and immobility fantasies. *I think most people know this already, these types of pictures haven't been in hiding around these parts. I think most people "get it" that they are sexual and enact the fetish.* One of many that can be derived after the initial preference/predilection for fat women. I say this because I believe that being an FA is a preference, not a fetish. But the fetishes that tangent off from the main preferences, are exactly that.. fetishes.
> 
> ...



First bolded quote...

Is my asking of these questions any different than asking why Lane Bryant doesn't use models that could truly be considered large sized... models that are representative of the size of many, if not most of their customers? I am familiar that you run BBW dances on the East Coast. If I remember correctly, most of the images you have depicted on your advertisements (a little red devil girl and another image drawn by Fish...?) are images of (approx.) midsized women. Why don't you have caricatures of larger sized women? A larger caricature would be more representative of many of the women that attend your events. I'll tell you why... because you probably made a business decision that such an image wouldn't "market" as well. Are you truly surprised at the results Heather? I didn't have to ask the questions I did to "reach" for further results one way or another. The numbers were already becoming lopsided by the time I asked those questions. I was honestly curious as to what people would say beyond just getting a bunch of numbers. Besides... The most "unfair" of questions are usually the ones that people don't like the answers to. Would it be more fair of a poll if I rephrased it to, "Who finds these images to be arousing?" and place that poll in the Weight Board? Would you be curious to see that? How different do you think the results would be?


Second bolded quote...

My question, as still left unanswered by our fearless leader... If most people "get it" that these pictures are shocking (I'm not calling them fetish... you and others are labeling them as such...) then why are they in such a prominent position here in Dimensions (i.e. on the main page, and vividly described in print in the Library...)?

That is simply all I have been asking on this and other threads, and I am not getting an answer!


Also Heather, I don't think you should take this personally. Obviously people have differing opinions about all sorts of things, art especially. I think the feelings and opinions of these images have been around for a long time but never articulated in such a way. As shocked as you may be about how these people feel, they are probably just as shocked by how you feel about this subject. I know this will sound cocky... maybe many of them just didn't have the huevos to tell it to your face. At least now you know. That's where understanding begins. I'm not trying to belittle what you enjoy Heather but I think you also should respect where I'm coming from and from the obvious numbers, where other people are coming from.

As I said before, if you are really that upset by all this... just delete this thread and it will all go away.


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus

HeatherBBW said:


> I think it's highly irresponsible and ignorant of you to call anybody's art a "freak show". They are fat fantasy art and something interesting/sexy in his mind. You might not like it, but have a little respect.



Everybody has an opinion, just like............well you know. These are freak show pictures. IMO. And remember, art is subjective. Stan asked, I gave my opinion. If you don't like what I said - tough. That's life.

And you assessment of those of us who don't like this kind of art is also very ignorant. People look at pictures/art and either like it or don't. You telling me I'm irresponsible (very interesting word in this instance) is confusing at best. Irresponsible to who? Extremely fat women who live an immobil life because they and/or their partners wanted them eat to immobility? Don't tell me it doesn't happen because it does. Who then live a life of depression and pain because at the extreme weights some of these people get to it's impossible for them to even walk?? It makes ME irresponsible for not liking these pics and saying so? Honestly I hold the artist and people who promote and buy this kind of art with promoting extreme weights like this and by doing so possible being responsible for promoting this kind of fantasy/reality. 

Seeing these pics is disturbing at best and reminds me of a post not so long ago here from someone who had fantasire of feeding women to death. That thread in my opinion had no place here or anywhere. These pics remind me of that thread. They are both sick, sadistic pictures/words that promote torture and death of women. Masogynistic art comes to mind. 

You can like whatever kind of art you like or not, and so can I. But for you to lob attacks at the people who dislike this art is ignoant and maybe you should give Stan an answer to his question since you seem to see something in this art many of us do not.


----------



## exile in thighville

fa_man_stan said:


> Is this what "moral relativism" is...?
> 
> 
> TraciJo taught me that phrase... :bow:



Uh, elaborate? 

Another note, these _are_ fetish pics. They portray women of unrealistic proportions in fantasy situations. They're probably not used on fliers because women this size do not attend dances...or exist.

Anyway, I'll underline in bold for you...taking pictures created for fantasy, a SUBJECTIVE attraction, out of fantasy context, and putting it in an objective situation that requires logic and regulations will only create chaos. These pictures have as much to do with any realistic situation involving fat acceptance as pictures of three-boobed women have to do with breast cancer awareness. If your idea of "moral relativism" is uh, apples vs. oranges, then yeah.

Are you asking if it's harmful for these pics to exist because someone who was thiiiiiis close to accepting fat people might come across one and go FUCK THAT, THEY'RE ALL PERVS? Is that what you're asking?


----------



## exile in thighville

Sandie_Zitkus said:


> Everybody has an opinion, just like............well you know. These are freak show pictures. IMO. And remember, art is subjective. Stan asked, I gave my opinion. If you don't like what I said - tough. That's life.
> 
> And you assessment of those of us who don't like this kind of art is also very ignorant. People look at pictures/art and either like it or don't. You telling me I'm irresponsible (very interesting word in this instance) is confusing at best. Irresponsible to who? Extremely fat women who live an immobil life because they and/or their partners wanted them eat to immobility? Don't tell me it doesn't happen because it does. Who then live a life of depression and pain because at the extreme weights some of these people get to it's impossible for them to even walk?? It makes ME irresponsible for not liking these pics and saying so? Honestly I hold the artist and people who promote and buy this kind of art with promoting extreme weights like this and by doing so possible being responsible for promoting this kind of fantasy/reality.
> 
> Seeing these pics is disturbing at best and reminds me of a post not so long ago here from someone who had fantasire of feeding women to death. That thread in my opinion had no place here or anywhere. These pics remind me of that thread. They are both sick, sadistic pictures/words that promote torture and death of women. Masogynistic art comes to mind.
> 
> You can like whatever kind of art you like or not, and so can I. But for you to lob attacks at the people who dislike this art is ignoant and maybe you should give Stan an answer to his question since you seem to see something in this art many of us do not.



This is bad all around. You don't deserve an opinion on the pics because they weren't made for you. They serve no other function than for the people who want to see them. They don't care if you think they're disturbing. They will tell you: DON'T LOOK. Say I come across a picture of a guy shoving acorns up a trannie's p-hole. That might disturb me, sure. You know what the acorn fetishist would say to that? DON'T LOOK. Welcome to porn.


----------



## William

A Determine not for Fat Acceptance but for areas like Dimensions. Ideology like those photos are what keep areas like Dimensions pariahs in the eyes of most of the rest of Fat Acceptance. When I post on Fat Acceptance Blogs I have to be very careful of who I let know that I post on Dimensions.

William


----------



## exile in thighville

mossystate said:


> The argument of , " if you don't like it, don't look ", goes both ways. If you know, by clicking on this thread and seeing the first post and the pictures attached, that this is going to be a horrific experience for you...then why continue reading?
> 
> Words are actually, overall, easier to pass on than pictures. Heather, you like the pictures and think they are a benefit. Some of us do not. Don't think anybody has called for the banning of such pictures, unless I have missed something? I really have no basic issue with whatever turns any persons crank ( I have my own ' interesting ' fantasies ), but, to act like these images are not really powerful, and just stay in some magical locked box, with the combination known only by certain people...well...come on. Some of us are mulling over the question of how a thousand different issues/ideas...etc...affect how size acceptance is viewed.
> 
> I do understand how personal you feel this, since such images speak to something deep in you. Maybe understand that some of us can't simply chalk these images up to personal preferences. We are having a conversation. " Don't like it, don't look ", pretty much stops the conversation.



It's not...I don't think you guys are getting this. Heather's right that this thread is horrific. Look, I'm gonna draw this on the chalkboard.

1. Do the pictures make your dick hard/pussy wet Y/N

2. If you answered no, get on with your life. Do not stop to gawk or question the people with hard dicks/wet pussies. They don't know why either; they're busy and want you to Go Away. If you've come across these pictures it was a total accident, in this case, Stan's judgment. You will go on living, the masturbators will go on masturbating.

The number of forcibly and/or magically immobilized persons in the world will not go up because you've stumbled onto a piece of feeder fantasy art. The children are safe.


----------



## Santaclear

William said:


> A Determine not for Fat Acceptance but for areas like Dimensions. Ideology like those photos are what keep areas like Dimensions pariahs in the eyes of most of the rest of Fat Acceptance. When I post on Fat Acceptance Blogs I have to be very careful of who I let know that I post on Dimensions.
> 
> William



That's their problem, not ours, for taking such a narrow uninformed view of this place. There's plenty of diversity here.


----------



## exile in thighville

steely said:


> I don't understand it.



And you never will. Move along.


----------



## exile in thighville

Cors said:


> I love big women but I find these pictures disturbing, particularly the second one. SuperO put it across very well.
> 
> This actually reminds me of the pride versus progress discussion that comes up ever so often in the LGBTQ community. Some think that flamboyant gay men dancing and prancing around in leather costumes and waving rainbow flags can give clueless straight people the wrong impression, and they argue that in order to gain acceptance, we should instead focus on appearing as "normal" as possible. Others think that we should not go out of our way to placate the conservatives at the expense of alienating some members of our own community.



Those dancing and prancing people will never be "normal" enough for homophobes, so why should they curb what they like to do?

Anyway, the pictures disturb you because you're not jacking off to them and that's the only thing there is to do with them.


----------



## exile in thighville

Sandie_Zitkus said:


> I would never put any art like that up on my walls.



I would never pour chicken soup onto a piece of chocolate cake. I would never hammer 12 nails into my skull. I would never put on Interpol's Our Love to Admire. Do you want to hear more and more stuff I would never do? There are thousands. Let's see...I would never duct tape my balls to my anus. I would never put a wok in my dresser. I would never put a camera in a microwave...


----------



## kioewen

Detriment.


----------



## Santaclear

The pictures are intended as erotic art, and like 'em or not they're in no way detrimental to fat acceptance. They have nothing to do with fat acceptance, really. They are about fat but not necessarily acceptance.


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus

exile in thighville said:


> I would never pour chicken soup onto a piece of chocolate cake. I would never hammer 12 nails into my skull. I would never put on Interpol's Our Love to Admire. Do you want to hear more and more stuff I would never do? There are thousands. Let's see...I would never duct tape my balls to my anus. I would never put a wok in my dresser. I would never put a camera in a microwave...



You know what? Stan asked I gave him an answer. Period. There is nothing else to discuss.


----------



## Wild Zero

I initially voted "detriment" and while I still can't say that the images advance size acceptance I think such "fetish" art has a positive impact on size acceptance.

I guess it has to do with when and why you come looking for a place where fatness is accepted and encouraged. I found Dimensions when I was like 13 or 14 and at that age it's clear how I found it and the sections of the site I gravitated to. As I grew up, checked out things beyond the Weight Room and started reading the boards it quickly became apparent that there was more to this whole being an FA thing than wank fantasies.

My girlfriend, on the other hand, found Dimensions through the forums and friends fairly recently. From our conversations it seems that her conception of the site comes from the forums, a community for fat people to discuss size acceptance issues and provide support. Her view of the fantasy artwork and stories seems to be that they're for the most part silly and fairly divorced from the "real" Dimensions.

So yeah, if you're looking for size acceptance and you find Dims; maybe seeing drawings which are clearly an extreme fantasy isn't the end of the world. And if you're a teenage boy looking for fantasy material maybe using both hands to browse the rest of the site will have a positive impact on your future relationships.

But yeah I really don't see how asking if someone would display the artwork at their job is a fair question. I don't think anyone who was all there would post a photo or drawing of his/her scantily clad girlfriend, whether she was Karen Carpenter or the girl with a ceiling swing bra, in their workplace.


----------



## William

Hey

I do tell them that Dimensions is one of the the last bastions of Freedom of Speech in the Fat Community!!

William





Santaclear said:


> That's their problem, not ours, for taking such a narrow uninformed view of this place. There's plenty of diversity here.


----------



## NancyGirl74

I think what we all forget is that Dimensions is a haven of sorts. There is the "Dim's way" of seeing things and there is the "real world" way of seeing things when it comes to being fat and size acceptance. Here at Dimensions 300lbs is on the small side. For the rest of the world that's huge. Here at Dims feeding a partner or choosing to gain weight in order to be fat or fatter is not only acceptable but encouraged. Everyone in the outside world is doing their utmost to lose weight. So, yes, here these pictures represent a sexual fantasy but out there where the rest of the world resides they are jokes. If they are posted at work its in the back room for coworkers to snigger at or on the company refrigerator as a reminder to someone to stick to their latest diet. Chances are pictures like these are being forwarded from one cell phone to another with the caption, "OMG Look at this!" So, inside the safety walls of Dimensions these images are understood (even if they aren't approved of by some) but out there...the collective average folk are not open minded enough to say, "Golly, I'm sure that picture represents an individuals sexual desire towards extremely fat women." No, they are thinking "Ewww" and that, in my opinion is a detriment to Size Acceptance.


----------



## Chimpi

HeatherBBW said:


> I remember finding artwork such as this when I was a young teen and I thought I was the only one who had such fantasies. It made me feel like I wasn't alone in my sexuality. It was a huge POSITIVE discovery for me. One many of you wouldn't understand because you don't share my fantasy. But I'd expect or expected a little more liberal acceptance of each others kinks or fetishes around here.
> 
> So sexuality acceptance, sure. Size acceptance, no.



I hope you will pardon me for using your words, Heather, to make my point a little more clear. You were able to put into words what I was not able to.
This paragraph here from Heather is exactly what I was intending to insinuate but failed to do so (I think...?). There are many, many people with fetishes and fantasies that correlate with the pictures in the first post. Those same people like to feel that they're not alone in their feelings and fantasies, and that feeling of not being alone can go a very long way.
I think fat acceptance is different than size acceptance. Size acceptance deals with all things of all sizes, not just fat people. Fat people, thin people, "average" people, anorexic people, etc etc... Fat acceptance deals with all things fat related and nothing else. Fat acceptance - I think (since it's important to note that) - is about demanding respect for all rights of fat people; actual, reality-based acceptance as well as being excepted for all types of related fetishes and fantasies. As far as I am aware, it's perfectly acceptable to have a fetish involving two thin women and nothing more when it comes to "average" males. Many women might find this disgusting and repulsive, but that in no way changes the fact that men find that sexually appealing and fantasize about it.
Where those pictures do not, in my opinion, further size acceptance in any way, those pictures do represent an aspect of fat culture that should not be ignored and thrown aside; away from all aspects of fat acceptance. Those of us with such fetishes/fantasies deserve the same acceptance as everyone else, and as Heather points out, knowing the little things can go a long way to helping any cause. After all, look at how much she does for the fat/size acceptance movement - were she not to have her fantasies and fetishes, she might not be nearly as dedicated.
Of course most people will be horrified at the sight or thought of those types of pictures. (Personally, I didn't think they would go over so horridly within our own community, but that's just me) That's to be expected, and even as a person that enjoys such circumstances as the ones depicted in those pictures, I am fully aware of how much of an outcast I am and how unwelcome many of my fantasies are. The fact of the matter remains that it's a part of me, it's a part of other people, and if someone was to get a glimpse of fat acceptance as a whole, such fantasies and people should be encompassed with the whole picture and not thrown aside. But again, that's just me. 

Again, Heather, I hope it's okay for me to use that as a good example of what I was trying to get at. I hope I explained it well enough...

*EDIT:* I'd just like to point out (since I haven't said it yet) that the question was whether they're of a detriment or benefit to _fat acceptance_ - not size acceptance - and I see the two as completely different areas of acceptance; though it is arguable that you some times have to take one with the other (and that can go both ways).


----------



## Chimpi

Sandie_Zitkus said:


> Seeing these pics is disturbing at best and reminds me of a post not so long ago here from someone who had fantasire of feeding women to death. That thread in my opinion had no place here or anywhere. These pics remind me of that thread. They are both sick, sadistic pictures/words that promote torture and death of women. Masogynistic art comes to mind.



At this point, I am not sure whether I am going to get an answer out of you or not, but I would actually like to hear your explanation as to why they are "sick, sadistic pictures/words that promote torture and death of women?" What about the pictures make them that way? That might very well just be your _opinion_ of them, but you stated it as if it's a fact.
It's a fact that in the first picture, she's smiling.
It's a fact that in the second picture, she's surprised and possible horrified, but definitely surprised.
It's a fact that in the third picture she's bashful and blushing.
It's a fact that in the fourth picture she seems accepting and interested.
In no way do I see any of the pictures, as the artist portrayed them, as evidence that the women in the artwork (yes, I realize they're not real people) are suffering, except _maybe_ the second one. As the artist depicted the characters, they seem to be happy and content.
Are they being tortured because they're at weights far beyond what you would like to ever be (and any human being will ever really be able to be)?
Are they promoting the death of women because it's "so obvious" that they were forced to be those sizes by a feeder - there's no other explanation - and being that size is dancing with death itself?
I'd like to understand why....

I see them as personifications of what I fantasize about (sometimes, not all the time - far from). I see the artwork as depictions of very, very fat women (that may have been fattened up by another person intentionally, or may have been fattened up by themselves intentionally/unintentionally) in unrealistic, albeit positive situations. They seem to be making the best of what they're given and that's exactly what I strive for in my actual life. They're all sizes of women that I would personally like to come into contact with, but since I know it's physically impossible to be such sizes and proportions, I understand that it is fantasy material. I'm okay with all of that and I feel good that others feel the same as I do.
I think they're drawn well and I think they're presented well. Those types of pictures have certainly helped _me_ on my road to fat acceptance; they have certainly helped Heather on her road - why can they not be and are they not a part of fat acceptance?

I'm sure a logical response to this will be "well, you like the pictures, so of course you will see that." I do not see them as evidence of any promotion of torture or death of women.

*Sigh* Here I am trying to grasp concepts and I'm late for work.


----------



## LillyBBBW

fa_man_stan said:


> First bolded quote...
> 
> Is my asking of these questions any different than asking why Lane Bryant doesn't use models that could truly be considered large sized... models that are representative of the size of many, if not most of their customers? I am familiar that you run BBW dances on the East Coast. If I remember correctly, most of the images you have depicted on your advertisements (a little red devil girl and another image drawn by Fish...?) are images of (approx.) midsized women. Why don't you have caricatures of larger sized women? A larger caricature would be more representative of many of the women that attend your events. I'll tell you why... because you probably made a business decision that such an image wouldn't "market" as well. Are you truly surprised at the results Heather? I didn't have to ask the questions I did to "reach" for further results one way or another. The numbers were already becoming lopsided by the time I asked those questions. I was honestly curious as to what people would say beyond just getting a bunch of numbers. Besides... The most "unfair" of questions are usually the ones that people don't like the answers to. Would it be more fair of a poll if I rephrased it to, "Who finds these images to be arousing?" and place that poll in the Weight Board? Would you be curious to see that? How different do you think the results would be?
> 
> 
> Second bolded quote...
> 
> My question, as still left unanswered by our fearless leader... If most people "get it" that these pictures are shocking (I'm not calling them fetish... you and others are labeling them as such...) then why are they in such a prominent position here in Dimensions (i.e. on the main page, and vividly described in print in the Library...)?
> 
> That is simply all I have been asking on this and other threads, and I am not getting an answer!
> 
> 
> Also Heather, I don't think you should take this personally. Obviously people have differing opinions about all sorts of things, art especially. I think the feelings and opinions of these images have been around for a long time but never articulated in such a way. As shocked as you may be about how these people feel, they are probably just as shocked by how you feel about this subject. I know this will sound cocky... maybe many of them just didn't have the huevos to tell it to your face. At least now you know. That's where understanding begins. I'm not trying to belittle what you enjoy Heather but I think you also should respect where I'm coming from and from the obvious numbers, where other people are coming from.
> 
> As I said before, if you are really that upset by all this... just delete this thread and it will all go away.



I think this would depend on how you interpret Acceptance. If Dimensions were one big giant public relations campaign to put the best face forward, hide the cracks in the ceiling and sell clean fat to the public then I might agree with you. (Or possibly I might not because I don't think I would hang around here so you wouldnt have to look in my face anyway) The pervasive wisdom seems to be that fat is only acceptable under certain conditions. People who carry purse dogs, go to church and have memberships at the Y are really what fat is all about but anybody who limps, eats the last cookie or lets their blubber show then it's okay to hold contempt for them. They are a detriment to us all. I think people who are looking for a tidy little place where those dreadful stereotypes don't exist would not find that here on Dimensions or anywhere else. Striving for such a place to promote size acceptance is in and of itself a detriment to size acceptance because it places emphasis on the wrong things. Fat people are human beings who should be able to live and choose just as anyone else does and should be judged solely on their individual character and individual actions. The idea that if a fat lady robs a bank that this is a detriment to size acceptance is beyond absurd. Just as rediculous as the idea that black folks, southerners, Arabs, women or kids who ride skateboards deserve to be punished because one of them did something that society doesn't approve of. And nodding along with it is like walking briskly backwards to keep up, the REAL detriment to size acceptance.

ETA: Oh and about the medium sized BBW charicature thing. At one time Heather had a 500 pound SSBBW sitting on the moon as her ad so i don't think there is anything covert there. I think it's just a matter of trying to appeal to BBW's of all sizes of large, not just the supers or the curvy ones. And a 500 pound bbw dancing to techno would be false advertaing in my view.


----------



## BothGunsBlazing

Not nearly as detrimental and depressing as I find this thread to be. 

http://www.dimensionsmagazine.com/forums/showthread.php?t=52455

I don't know if I'd say it was detrimental or not. I guess depending on what you're into, it could go either way. Some will embrace it and some will be alienated by it, I guess that is just how life goes.


----------



## stan_der_man

exile in thighville said:


> Uh, elaborate?
> 
> Another note, these _are_ fetish pics.
> ...



No Dan, you are labeling these images "fetish" pics as are all the others. Is an image of an extremely large woman dressed in clothing any more "fetish" than an average sized woman in equal clothing in an equivalent pose? That is like saying a scantily clad fat woman is more "obscene" than an "average" sized scantily clad woman, just because the first woman is fat. It seems to me that the people supporting the notion that these images (at very least) have no effect on people's perceptions of fat acceptance (granted, whatever that may be...) are doing the same sort of labeling that websites like YouTube do to remove videos of fat women and not those of thin women in videos that are otherwise equal.

So let's attempt to take the "fetish" out of the equation... Lets say we have an image of a very nice looking extremely large woman who is well dressed and on a mobility scooter... I wonder if Heather would put an image like this on one of her dance fliers? If she wouldn't, she is just like the marketing folks who decided not to put large sized mobility scooter people in the advertisements for Wall-E... Only Heather can answer this question of course.

And I'm still not getting an answer to my ultimate question. If "everybody" seems to know these images are such shocking and privately cherished types of "fetish" images... Why are they on the front pages of Dimensions, out in the open? Why is this sort of fiction posted prominently in multiple categories also on the front page of the forums if these writings are the written equivalent of such "shocking fetish"?


----------



## Webmaster

fa_man_stan said:


> ...I chose these images from the front page of Dimensions, ...



That's a very misleading statement. Those images are quite obviously not on the front page of Dimensions. You may get to them via some link. Overall, I think the question is misguided and reaching. 

First of all, Dimensions is not a general size acceptance site. It is a site that celebrates big beauty with all its implications, and that includes people's fantasies. 

Second, if you really want to, you can poke such holes into just about any group or movement. For example, Gay Rights are a legitimate political movement. I don't think you'd then post big close-ups of explicit sexual acts on their forums and ask if such imagery is not detrimental to the cause. Communities and their sexuality are two different issues.


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus

If you want an answer I'll give you one. 

How are these pictures of torture of women? They are "fantasized" (is that a word) art of something that in reality would be torturous to a woman to experience. Do you think being a woman that size in reality would be fun (for the woman)?? And I'm just guessing here but if a woman was any of the sizes depicted in reality - her heart could not handle that for too long.

There are all kinds of art that depicts women being tortured, mamed, dismembered etc., all in the name of art. This is just another one of those catagories. If I had a painting of a women being dismembered but she was smiling - does that mean she's enjoying it? No. It means the artist is enjoying the fantasy and in his head he fantasises that she enjoys it too. Right? I mean - look she's smiling it can't hurt too much right??

In this country you are allowed to do anything as long as you call it "Artistic Expression." That doesn't mean I have to like it.






Chimpi said:


> At this point, I am not sure whether I am going to get an answer out of you or not, but I would actually like to hear your explanation as to why they are "sick, sadistic pictures/words that promote torture and death of women?" What about the pictures make them that way? That might very well just be your _opinion_ of them, but you stated it as if it's a fact.
> It's a fact that in the first picture, she's smiling.
> It's a fact that in the second picture, she's surprised and possible horrified, but definitely surprised.
> It's a fact that in the third picture she's bashful and blushing.
> It's a fact that in the fourth picture she seems accepting and interested.
> In no way do I see any of the pictures, as the artist portrayed them, as evidence that the women in the artwork (yes, I realize they're not real people) are suffering, except _maybe_ the second one. As the artist depicted the characters, they seem to be happy and content.
> Are they being tortured because they're at weights far beyond what you would like to ever be (and any human being will ever really be able to be)?
> Are they promoting the death of women because it's "so obvious" that they were forced to be those sizes by a feeder - there's no other explanation - and being that size is dancing with death itself?
> I'd like to understand why....
> 
> I see them as personifications of what I fantasize about (sometimes, not all the time - far from). I see the artwork as depictions of very, very fat women (that may have been fattened up by another person intentionally, or may have been fattened up by themselves intentionally/unintentionally) in unrealistic, albeit positive situations. They seem to be making the best of what they're given and that's exactly what I strive for in my actual life. They're all sizes of women that I would personally like to come into contact with, but since I know it's physically impossible to be such sizes and proportions, I understand that it is fantasy material. I'm okay with all of that and I feel good that others feel the same as I do.
> I think they're drawn well and I think they're presented well. Those types of pictures have certainly helped _me_ on my road to fat acceptance; they have certainly helped Heather on her road - why can they not be and are they not a part of fat acceptance?
> 
> I'm sure a logical response to this will be "well, you like the pictures, so of course you will see that." I do not see them as evidence of any promotion of torture or death of women.
> 
> *Sigh* Here I am trying to grasp concepts and I'm late for work.


----------



## LillyBBBW

fa_man_stan said:


> No Dan, you are labeling these images "fetish" pics. Is an image of an extremely large woman dressed in clothing any more "fetish" than an average sized woman in equal clothing in an equivalent pose? That is like saying a scantily clad fat woman is more "obscene" than an "average" sized scantily clad woman, just because the first woman is fat. It seems to me that the people supporting the notion that these images (at very least) have no effect on people's perceptions of fat acceptance (granted, whatever that may be...) are doing the same sort of labeling that websites like YouTube do to remove videos of fat women and not those of thin women in videos that are otherwise equal.
> 
> So let's attempt to take the "fetish" out of the equation... Lets say we have an image of a very nice looking extremely large woman who is well dressed and on a mobility scooter... I wonder if Heather would put an image like this on one of her dance fliers? If she wouldn't, she is just like the marketing folks who decided not to put large sized mobility scooter people in the advertisements for Wall-E... Only Heather could answer this question of course...



This is not a good argument. Thin people in wheelchairs weren't used in ads for Studio 54 or Soultrain either and nobody accused them of anything. This is reaching.


----------



## stan_der_man

LillyBBBW said:


> I think this would depend on how you interpret Acceptance. If Dimensions were one big giant public relations campaign to put the best face forward, hide the cracks in the ceiling and sell clean fat to the public then I might agree with you.
> 
> ...



I do agree with you Lilly, and defining exactly what "acceptance" means is tricky I'll grant you that.

But as for making Dims "public relations" campaign... I think there could at very least be a better attempt at it... Maybe being a little more sensitive about these sorts of images perhaps, or presenting them in a different way? Images of very fat women don't have to be "offensive", they also don't have to be labeled "fetish", I think it's the way it's being gone about. Why is attempting to "mainstream" fat acceptance (again... whatever that is...) in a more subtle way so controversial? I think the people saying that we (myself in this case...) "don't get it", perhaps don't get it themselves.


----------



## SamanthaNY

I see a lot of parallels between this thread and the 'rules' thread on the WLS board. In both, there are beliefs that Dimensions should exhibit a, b and c because those things are true to size acceptance (or fat acceptance - take your pick). 

1. What exactly is 'fat acceptance'? 
2. Who said Dimensions was all about acceptance?

As members, we enjoy what's here, or we don't. Dimensions hasn't promised to be about any one thing - that's why there's so much to be found here. Trying to turn it into what YOU think it should be ("fat fantasy pics don't belong on the front page!"; "we should be able to talk supportively about wls!") is futile. Dimensions is NOT a website *of* the acceptance community. It is a website that many of us just happen to use. It has a specific design which meets one man's wishes, and a lot of people's needs, but a lot of that falls far outside *any* concept of acceptance. And there's nothing wrong with that outside of the fact that it's not spelled out. 



> My question, as still left unanswered by our fearless leader... If most people "get it" that these pictures are shocking (I'm not calling them fetish... you and others are labeling them as such...) then why are they in such a prominent position here in Dimensions (i.e. on the main page, and vividly described in print in the Library...)?
> That is simply all I have been asking on this and other threads, and I am not getting an answer!


Where is it written that shocking (your term) pictures must have a specific location? "Most people" didn't make this website. They don't run it. You won't get an answer to your question, Stan. And... if what I've said is true - why should you?


> I know this will sound cocky... maybe many of them just didn't have the huevos to tell it to your face. At least now you know. That's where understanding begins. I'm not trying to belittle what you enjoy Heather but I think you also should respect where I'm coming from and from the obvious numbers, where other people are coming from.
> As I said before, if you are really that upset by all this... just delete this thread and it will all go away.


*This part is beyond cocky, it's out of line. Stan - you have NO right to make the assumption that people here have *anything* to say directly to Heather about her likes and dislikes, much less anything negative. This is NOT about Heather, yet you to single her out and indicate she is a poster child for these poll results. You do a complete disservice to all the people who responded to this poll by interpreting their answers to suit your own agenda, and slamming Heather in the process. Deleting the thread isn't going to take away your rude and completely outrageous insults. You owe Heather an apology.*

I'm not against you, or the information you're trying to convey, Stan. But - you're going at it the wrong way, and you're escalating the pressure in order to get what you want. That's only going to result in hurt feelings and damaged relationships - much as it did with private board discussion. Pull back, before that happens again.


----------



## Risible

Stan, what's your point here? It seems in part that you are making an attempt to embarrass and/or scold Conrad because he allows extremes (and extreme is subjective) of fat fantasy on his website?

I voted neutral. There are some who, upon seeing the images you began this thread with, would react very negatively, and there are some who would react similarly to the plumper on your right biceps. Those who revile fat people are gonna use any excuse to scorn them - these images (and others like them) aren't going to push them over the edge into hating fat people.

I have fat art adorning a wall in my home - you've been there often enough, you've probably seen it. It's a cartoon drawn by an ex-boyfriend depicting me and a friend as fat superheroes. It's been there occupying a large space of the wall for years, yet if it has had a negative impact on anyone, I haven't heard of it. BTW, if I had more fat art, say a commissioned piece by Fish, etc., featuring an expanded Dee, I would happily display it, provided it were suitable for viewing by kids. Fat art isn't for the workplace, though; it's not appropriate, too personal. Images of the family and the dog are fine, but I wouldn't impose any of my political or social preferences on work.

The image examples you posted are all of fat women - I have to say, a recent paysite update post on the Paysite board featured a fat male model; I've also seen artwork of fat males, and there is an ever-growing number of stories featuring BHMs in the Library. Look upon these as women objectifying men if you wish (as opposed to women being objectified); I see it all as an expression of fat fantasy.


----------



## Webmaster

fa_man_stan said:


> But as for making a Dims "public relations" campaign... I think there could at very least a better attempt at it... Maybe being a little more sensitive about these sorts of images perhaps?



Well, if you want to go a path of making certain that no one is offended, ever, then yes, we should purge all fantasy and all pictures and speak only in pleasant, politically correct terminology. We should also make sure that no one makes overly fat-positive comments (that could offend some people) and not allow profile pics and avatars that suggest above-average fatness (that could offend). We should also make certain all potential site visitors know that we are very much aware of negative health issues and work very hard towards remedying that by eating less and dieting, and that we generally view sexuality as something not to be flaunted or talked about. We should also state emphatically that we do not tolerate unapproved or excessive fantasies and invite discussion as to what should be allowed. Further, we should apologize right upfront to anyone for anything and everything that might offend them, their families and friends, their employers or any unrelated third parties.

Either that, or we can simply state that we like and admire fat people, with all that is involved.


----------



## MisterGuy

El oh el at this thread. As if "normal" people come here anyway. Neutral, who gives a shit.


----------



## LillyBBBW

fa_man_stan said:


> I do agree with you Lilly, and defining exactly what "acceptance" means is tricky I'll grant you that.
> 
> But as for making Dims "public relations" campaign... I think there could at very least be a better attempt at it... Maybe being a little more sensitive about these sorts of images perhaps, or presenting them in a different way? Images of very fat women don't have to be "offensive", they also don't have to be labeled "fetish", I think it's the way it's being gone about. Why is attempting to "mainstream" fat acceptance (again... whatever that is...) in a more subtle way so controversial? I think the people saying that we (myself in this case...) "don't get it", perhaps don't get it themselves.



Yes but we are what we are. We've got our pontifs, politicians, pests and perverts among us. I think it's a mistake to try to cleanse our ranks of the unsightly to try to entice acceptance from people who don't feel it's necessary for them to undergo the same process to be accepted.


----------



## supersoup

at the end of the day, dimensions is doing what Conrad set out for it to do. it's a haven and a meeting place for fat people and the people that love them to come and convene. there are many many facets to fat love and sexuality, and THANKFULLY, you can explore most of them here. when i first signed up for the forums two years ago, i spent the majority of my time in the library, reading everything i could. i *still* go in and read most everything that is posted. i love learning about any facet of fat sexuality that i can, and no, i'm not "into" the majority of it. it doesn't trip my trigger, but you better believe that every time i log on here, i'm grateful for this place existing so those that are into the extremes have somewhere to be. i don't care what anyone says, when it comes to extremist fantasies, whether they deal with fat or not, don't look if you don't like it is the best policy. it is not your right, duty, or job to judge anyone that is into anything deemed extreme. i think it's bullshit to call anyone here a freak show for what turns them on. in any community...fat, gay, straight, thin...there are 'extremist' facets to sexuality, and they should be respected just like vanilla sex is. whatever turns you on, turns you on. it's ridiculous to tell someone their fantasies are a freak show...it's fantasy.


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus

It seems the term "freak show" has struck a nerve with people. First of all I was not calling anyone that, I said the art reminded me of one. And Stan asked for opinions - I gave mine. It doesn't mean I called any of you freaks - I said it was the art I found disturbing.

I am very sorry if anyone got upset by what I posted. It was not my intention.


----------



## Tina

fa_man_stan said:


> This is my first attempt at creating a poll, so forgive me if I totally screw this up... :blush:
> 
> This poll is not a critique of these artists works, but more a question about what sort of perception images like these might convey to the "general public" about what Fat Acceptance represents, or perhaps what Dimensions represents. I chose these images from the front page of Dimensions, and these images in particular because they are depictions of exaggerated fatness, presumably fatness to the point of immobility. These aren't the most exaggerated of depictions, but typical in many ways of images often found in "Expansion" sites.
> 
> Example images are as follows:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The question posed is:
> 
> As far as possible perceptions towards fat acceptance go, are images such as these...
> 
> 1) a detriment
> 
> 2) a benefit
> 
> 3) are of no effect



Giving an analysis, based upon what I think the average, non-SA-minded person would think. My husband (Biggie) has drawn many pictures of fat women, some quite extreme, so obviously it's not something I think is freakish.

I think it depends upon what the person who sees it already thinks of fat people. 

If they disdain and dislike fat people, SA will fly right over their heads, and it will mean nothing to them anyway, so it won't damage Fat Acceptance. To these people, it's damaged anyway. So they will see it as just a disgusting example of twisted minds.

To those who are open to the idea of SA, but don't know much about it, these images might turn them off, but I would hope they're intelligent enough to sort it out and see it as being different from people deserving rights, and to be able to live without being discriminated against. To them, it might be just some sort of freakish, unpleasant manifestation of an aberration. To others, they might just shrug and think, "whatever."

Of course, there are a number of fat women who look at these photos and become very uncomfortable, for a number of reasons. Maybe they'd never want to be that fat because they dislike their fat. Maybe they'd never want to be that fat, because while they don't dislike their fat, they have been at higher weights and it is a difficult life when size causes physical pain and limited mobility. And then there will be some who just are not down with the objectification of women and the idea that a woman isn't good enough as she is, she must be bigger. Variations with men, too, who will either be turned off or on by it. 

All of these variations leave a lot out and are simplistic for the sake of brevity, but ultimately, I don't think these images harm SA. I think for many 'average' people who see them, it's just further evidence that there are weird people out there.


----------



## HeatherBBW

mossystate said:


> The argument of , " if you don't like it, don't look ", goes both ways. If you know, by clicking on this thread and seeing the first post and the pictures attached, that this is going to be a horrific experience for you...then why continue reading?
> 
> Words are actually, overall, easier to pass on than pictures. Heather, you like the pictures and think they are a benefit. Some of us do not. Don't think anybody has called for the banning of such pictures, unless I have missed something? I really have no basic issue with whatever turns any persons crank ( I have my own ' interesting ' fantasies ), but, to act like these images are not really powerful, and just stay in some magical locked box, with the combination known only by certain people...well...come on. Some of us are mulling over the question of how a thousand different issues/ideas...etc...affect how size acceptance is viewed.
> 
> I do understand how personal you feel this, since such images speak to something deep in you. Maybe understand that some of us can't simply chalk these images up to personal preferences. We are having a conversation. " Don't like it, don't look ", pretty much stops the conversation.



I think you've misunderstood what I was trying to say. I am saying that Dimensions houses material from vanilla to extreme. If the extreme images bother you, then don't look. People know they are there, but apparently take the time to view them with disgust. This makes no sense to me. If there were images anywhere that I found unappealing, I'd just not look or I'd look away. As for comparing it to me reading the posts here and becoming more horrified as I continued, I don't think it compares to the same thing I was trying to say.

I also didn't say the pictures were a "benefit" to size acceptance. I don't think they are a detriment nor a benefit. I thought I was clear in my opinion in my post. I said they are about sexuality and that they were unfairly highlighted in a thread to ask whether they were a detriment or a benefit, when the poster knew where the chips would fall in this particular forum area of Dimensions. I feel almost like the thought was "The people who like/tolerate/enjoy/fap to these images deserve to be called out as the freaks that they are and that they are setting back size acceptance.". If you can step into my shoes a moment and look it from the angle that those pictures were part of your sexuality and clearly nothing to do with size acceptance, how you'd feel? You'd maybe feel like your sexuality was being scrutinized in the very place where you thought it was ok to be you. 

I don't and never have expected people to be in the same extremist box as me. I know that some of my fantasies are unobtainable, shocking and definitely not mainstream. But, I am tolerant of all types of sexuality. If something someone did in their fantasy/sex life was something I wasn't into, I wouldn't deem it disgusting or vile. I'd just not try to learn about it more if it didn't interest me. I certainly wouldn't judge images of that very fantasy in a public forum either. What consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes and in the bedroom is their own business.


----------



## LillyBBBW

HeatherBBW said:


> I think you've misunderstood what I was trying to say. I am saying that Dimensions houses material from vanilla to extreme. If the extreme images bother you, then don't look. People know they are there, but apparently take the time to view them with disgust. This makes no sense to me. If there were images anywhere that I found unappealing, I'd just not look or I'd look away. As for comparing it to me reading the posts here and becoming more horrified as I continued, I don't think it compares to the same thing I was trying to say.
> 
> I also didn't say the pictures were a "benefit" to size acceptance. I don't think they are a detriment nor a benefit. I thought I was clear in my opinion in my post. I said they are about sexuality and that they were unfairly highlighted in a thread to ask whether they were a detriment or a benefit, when the poster knew where the chips would fall in this particular forum area of Dimensions. I feel almost like the thought was "The people who like/tolerate/enjoy/fap to these images deserve to be called out as the freaks that they are and that they are setting back size acceptance.". If you can step into my shoes a moment and look it from the angle that those pictures were part of your sexuality and clearly nothing to do with size acceptance, how you'd feel? You'd maybe feel like your sexuality was being scrutinized in the very place where you thought it was ok to be you.
> 
> I don't and never have expected people to be in the same extremist box as me. I know that some of my fantasies are unobtainable, shocking and definitely not mainstream. But, I am tolerant of all types of sexuality. If something someone did in their fantasy/sex life was something I wasn't into, I wouldn't deem it disgusting or vile. I'd just not try to learn about it more if it didn't interest me. I certainly wouldn't judge images of that very fantasy in a public forum either. What consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes and in the bedroom is their own business.



I agree. It's like holding up a picture of some ugly dude at a 4th of July celebration and asking if he's a benefit or detriment to America. Everybody who thinks he's ugly and his hairstyle outdated will click YES but it's a joke to consider that a serious question. The dude has nothing to do with anything.


----------



## supersoup

Sandie_Zitkus said:


> If you want an answer I'll give you one.
> 
> How are these pictures of torture of women? They are "fantasized" (is that a word) art of something that in reality would be torturous to a woman to experience. Do you think being a woman that size in reality would be fun (for the woman)?? And I'm just guessing here but if a woman was any of the sizes depicted in reality - her heart could not handle that for too long.
> 
> There are all kinds of art that depicts women being tortured, mamed, dismembered etc., all in the name of art. This is just another one of those catagories. If I had a painting of a women being dismembered but she was smiling - does that mean she's enjoying it? No. It means the artist is enjoying the fantasy and in his head he fantasises that she enjoys it too. Right? I mean - look she's smiling it can't hurt too much right??
> 
> In this country you are allowed to do anything as long as you call it "Artistic Expression." That doesn't mean I have to like it.



except some people ARE INTO THIS. some women and or men WOULD LOVE TO LOOK LIKE THIS. also, horror of horrors, some people don't see this as torture, but rather as pleasure. no, you do not have to like it at all, but you also don't need to be going out of your way to make those that do like it feel like they are lacking in the humanity department. judging someone's sexuality is ridiculous.


----------



## LoveBHMS

I have to agree with those that have said that sexuality and acceptance are not related.

I can be sexually aroused by larger men, by watching men eat, and by watching men gain weight, and STILL think those same fat guys should pay for two airline seats. Thinking fat people should pay for the two airline seats might make some posters here file me under "not size acceptancey enough" but nobody is going to question my sexuality. 

Since everyone seems to remember "Canklegate", I think it's notable/interesting to use myself as an example of this. Those events led people to believe I was not of sufficient size acceptance to post here, yet nobody at any point during that dustup said "Oh, she must not really dig on fat guys." For that matter, I'd long before posted about having had an intimate experience with a SSBBW, and it was never brought up. 

As such, I voted "neutral" and don't think that pornographic images are in any way related to size acceptance. They might well be positive in the manner that Heather said---that somebody with latent or emerging fat sexuality might benefit from seeing them and knowing that somebody "gets it".

Also, it's important to mention that feederism and erotic weight gain may exist separately. IOW, some people become sexually aroused by gaining weight, it's not always necessary to have a partner. Some people love the thought, or the reality, of weight gain. It's not always about forcing or manipulating a woman (or man) to gain weight, it's also about the man or woman who gets off on gaining and being bigger. It's interesting how the anti-fetish crowd assumes these women were forced to become this size or that their size is the result of having been fed, rather than assuming they achieved this size of their own volition.


----------



## Ash

Sandie_Zitkus said:


> If you want an answer I'll give you one.
> 
> How are these pictures of torture of women? They are "fantasized" (is that a word) art of something that in reality would be torturous to a woman to experience. Do you think being a woman that size in reality would be fun (for the woman)?? And I'm just guessing here but if a woman was any of the sizes depicted in reality - her heart could not handle that for too long.



You are making a lot of assumptions here. How do you know that being that size would be "torturous" to all women? Just because it isn't your thing doesn't mean it isn't someone's. Many women here (myself included) fantasize about being extremely fat. It's a thing. A kink. You might hate the idea of being fat to that extreme, but not all of us do. 

So, yeah, torture? Maybe that is your reality, but it isn't mine.


----------



## TraciJo67

LoveBHMS said:


> I have to agree with those that have said that sexuality and acceptance are not related.
> 
> I can be sexually aroused by larger men, by watching men eat, and by watching men gain weight, and STILL think those same fat guys should pay for two airline seats. Thinking fat people should pay for the two airline seats might make some posters here file me under "not size acceptancey enough" but nobody is going to question my sexuality.
> 
> Since everyone seems to remember "Canklegate", I think it's notable/interesting to use myself as an example of this. Those events led people to believe I was not of sufficient size acceptance to post here, yet nobody at any point during that dustup said "Oh, she must not really dig on fat guys." For that matter, I'd long before posted about having had an intimate experience with a SSBBW, and it was never brought up.
> 
> As such, I voted "neutral" and don't think that pornographic images are in any way related to size acceptance. They might well be positive in the manner that Heather said---that somebody with latent or emerging fat sexuality might benefit from seeing them and knowing that somebody "gets it".



Sorry, Stan. Gotta sidetrack for a second.

I'm married to an Indian man, and I have an Indian child.

That doesn't mean that I'm not, or can't be, racist. 

I hate when people justify themselves by saying "I'm not ______ because my best friends are ______". A does not always equal B. In fact, when people use this kind of reasoning, I very nearly ALWAYS suspect them of exactly the opposite. Because those are the kind of folks who also use the "I'm not (insert negative attribute here) BUT ..." and what follows almost always refutes the first part of that sentence.


----------



## BothGunsBlazing

It cannot be reiterated enough that to most everyone else, this site as a whole is a freak show. You could have the most extreme fetish and desire or none at all .. the fact is .. if you're here, you're freaky enough to have discovered this site by being fat or liking fat or just being bizarre enough to be like omfggooglefatlol

so, basically, it blows my mind how quick people are to rip apart other peoples desires and fantasies on here. Those pictures aren't detrimental. It's that attitude described above that is.

oh and just wanting to add that people who do have these fantasies of either being that fat or fattening some one up in such a way are not sitting there like MWAHAHAHA *twirls 'stach* NO REGARD FOR HEALTH. MUST FEED. MUST KILL. ONLY ORGASM MATTERS.

hell no, this is like the most conflicting feeling EVER. 

peeinbedthreadssoldseperately


----------



## HeatherBBW

fa_man_stan said:


> First bolded quote...
> 
> Is my asking of these questions any different than asking why Lane Bryant doesn't use models that could truly be considered large sized... models that are representative of the size of many, if not most of their customers?
> 
> _*Yes, extremely different. You are asking me whether showing a true depiction of the actual clothes wearer is the same as showing sexual images in common areas.*_
> 
> I am familiar that you run BBW dances on the East Coast. If I remember correctly, most of the images you have depicted on your advertisements (a little red devil girl and another image drawn by Fish...?) are images of (approx.) midsized women. Why don't you have caricatures of larger sized women? A larger caricature would be more representative of many of the women that attend your events.
> 
> *We have had all sizes of the "HB Girl" she has been as small as 200 lbs and as big as 600 lbs. The current image we use is around 25-30 years old and 300-350lbs which would be the middle/high end of those who attend our events. Do you think that girls that are size 14/16 or younger or older then the age of the depiction will feel excluded from my events? I say no. It's clear what we do and we don't hide it. We have photographic evidence of our events that show women from size 1x-10x of all ages. We aren't about trying to be mainstream. We are about providing a place for big girls to come out and enjoy their evening and for men who prefer bigger gals to come meet and mingle with them.
> *
> 
> I'll tell you why... because you probably made a business decision that such an image wouldn't "market" as well. Are you truly surprised at the results Heather?
> 
> *You probable answer is very incorrect, as I've just explained above. As for the results, no I am not shocked in the least. Once again, you are missing my point. I am saying you used sexual images (whether you care to believe they are because they are clothed or not), that have nothing to do with size acceptance at all and asked if they were a benefit or a detriment. Then you asked silly questions as to whether or not people would use sexual images to paper their work walls or flyers for non-sexual dances.*
> 
> I didn't have to ask the questions I did to "reach" for further results one way or another. The numbers were already becoming lopsided by the time I asked those questions. I was honestly curious as to what people would say beyond just getting a bunch of numbers.
> 
> *Why? Did you want people to agree with you that you think these images are inappropriate and shouldn't be linked/housed/viewed at Dimensions.Com? Did the replies give you the validation you seek in spite of the fact that it could potentially hurt people in the process?*
> 
> Besides... The most "unfair" of questions are usually the ones that people don't like the answers to. Would it be more fair of a poll if I rephrased it to, "Who finds these images to be arousing?" and place that poll in the Weight Board? Would you be curious to see that? How different do you think the results would be?
> 
> *Yes it would be more fair if you turned the images into a poll that was regarding sexuality.. because they are SEXUAL in nature. Whether you posted it here or the weight board, I could give a crap. I just know the results here would be different then in there. I also have NO problem with people finding the images disturbing sexually or non-arousing. I just don't think that those who are aroused by them should feel any guilt because close-minded people think we are keeping the "fat man/woman down" by liking such images that pertain to our SEXUALITY and have NOTHING to do with size acceptance.*
> 
> 
> Second bolded quote...
> 
> My question, as still left unanswered by our fearless leader... If most people "get it" that these pictures are shocking (I'm not calling them fetish... you and others are labeling them as such...) then why are they in such a prominent position here in Dimensions (i.e. on the main page, and vividly described in print in the Library...)?
> 
> That is simply all I have been asking on this and other threads, and I am not getting an answer!
> 
> *Maybe the fearless leader has too many things in his day to answer such a question when he's been clear that this site would be a reflection of what he sees as the vision of Dimensions. Dimensions Online is an extension of the paper magazine that was once in print. It contained articles about health, fashion, fat fiction both weight gain and non-weight gain related, fat pictures both pro-weight gain and/r or neutral. Maybe some of you don't know this because you've never seen the magazine, but that is the way it was. I remember waiting for a new issue to come out, not to see the pictures of the fat women but to look at the extreme pictures and hope that the featured story in that issue was going to be about weight gain. Then I'd scour the personal ads looking for cute boys that also liked the same thing as me. Probably a completely different ritual then other subscribers. But it had something for me and something for them.*
> 
> 
> Also Heather, I don't think you should take this personally. Obviously people have differing opinions about all sorts of things, art especially. I think the feelings and opinions of these images have been around for a long time but never articulated in such a way. As shocked as you may be about how these people feel, they are probably just as shocked by how you feel about this subject.
> *
> I take it personally and you refuse to understand my issue here. The fact that you used extreme images that relate to a sexual fetish (one that I have) and asked if they were part of size acceptance when you must have clearly known in your own adult mind, that they have NOTHING to do with size acceptance and you should be learned enough being you have been around Dimensions awhile, to know that these images are sexually stimulating to some and that they aren't used for size acceptance ads or posters.*
> 
> I know this will sound cocky... maybe many of them just didn't have the huevos to tell it to your face. At least now you know. That's where understanding begins. I'm not trying to belittle what you enjoy Heather but I think you also should respect where I'm coming from and from the obvious numbers, where other people are coming from.
> *
> Wow, what an a--hole thing to say. The obvious numbers mean that you are allowed to stand in front of the line and throw bigger rocks? Am I not to take that personally too Stan?
> 
> You once again lose the point. I don't care if the people I hang around don't dig the same things I do sexually or if they agree with them. I already know most don't and I don't expect them to. What I do expect is maybe some understanding or tolerance that people are different and to each their own. My shock is that they'd spill out such highly negative responses in boards where they know they'll be heard by people that do have those preferences.
> 
> Basically, you are forcing the hand of us all by posting such a ridiculous poll that must be your selfish attempt to have people agree with you is hidden behind the attempt to be being pro size acceptance. This poll never served size acceptance positively in any way, shape or form. *
> 
> As I said before, if you are really that upset by all this... just delete this thread and it will all go away.
> 
> *Oh boy, now you are the victim eh? Has poor Stan's post or posts that he finds appealing been deleted to your dismay? When has Conrad ever been so close-minded to delete a thread based on people differing in opinions? If these boards are so wronged to be viewed like that, then why are you here? Seriously Stan, I've lost all respect for you.*



putting some text here so I can put my post up all within the quotes


----------



## LoveBHMS

TraciJo67 said:


> Sorry, Stan. Gotta sidetrack for a second.
> 
> I'm married to an Indian man, and I have an Indian child.
> 
> That doesn't mean that I'm not, or can't be, racist.
> 
> I hate when people justify themselves by saying "I'm not ______ because my best friends are ______". A does not always equal B. In fact, when people use this kind of reasoning, I very nearly ALWAYS suspect them of exactly the opposite. Because those are the kind of folks who also use the "I'm not (insert negative attribute here) BUT ..." and what follows almost always refutes the first part of that sentence.



Ok, _clearly_ you missed the very point I was making about the disconnect between sexuality and fetishism and acceptance.

I was bascially holding my online persona up as an example of this disconnect. 

My point was that fat sexuality (which is where these images come from) and size acceptance are unrelated.


----------



## Santaclear

fa_man_stan said:


> And I'm still not getting an answer to my ultimate question. If "everybody" seems to know these images are such shocking and privately cherished types of "fetish" images... Why are they on the front pages of Dimensions, out in the open? Why is this sort of fiction posted prominently in multiple categories also on the front page of the forums if these writings are the written equivalent of such "shocking fetish"?





Webmaster said:


> That's a very misleading statement. Those images are quite obviously not on the front page of Dimensions. You may get to them via some link. Overall, I think the question is misguided and reaching



Ditto to what Webmaster sez. I looked all over the "front pages" of Dimensions and couldn't find these pictures. Your framing the questions in terms of the pictures being "on the front page of the site" seems bogus, Stan.

Furthermore I find the idea that every single thing on the site either has to be a "benefit" or "detriment" to size acceptance simplistic and super confining. You're campaigning against diversity.


----------



## Ash

> My question, as still left unanswered by our fearless leader... If most people "get it" that these pictures are shocking (I'm not calling them fetish... you and others are labeling them as such...) then why are they in such a prominent position here in Dimensions (i.e. on the main page, and vividly described in print in the Library...)?
> 
> That is simply all I have been asking on this and other threads, and I am not getting an answer!



Stan, I'm really not sure what you're trying to accomplish here. 

First of all, Dimensions is not a size acceptance board. It isn't a fat fetish board. It's both. Believe it or not, these two concepts can (and have for many, many years) coexist. I, for one, wholeheartedly believe in size/fat acceptance while still being into some extreme aspects of fat sexuality. It can happen, and I have no guilt about either of those interests. You may not understand extreme fat fetish, but it is a part of these boards, and it does have a place here for discussion. 

Fat admiration--in its most simple, vanilla, "I just like fat chicks" facets-- is STILL shocking to the mainstream. Most of the people who find Dimensions are looking for it. Those who run across it accidentally are shocked. But that doesn't mean we should hide the boards behind a happy bunnies and rainbows facade to protect people from being offended. Fat girls are your thing, and you're not ashamed of it, right? Well extreme weight gain is my thing, and I'm not ashamed of it either. Frankly, I don't care in the slightest if it's shocking to some. 

Like it or not, these images do have a place here. But so does size acceptance. These concepts aren't mutually exclusive.


----------



## Brenda

""Since everyone seems to remember "Canklegate", I think it's notable/interesting to use myself as an example of this. Those events led people to believe I was not of sufficient size acceptance to post here, yet nobody at any point during that dustup said "Oh, she must not really dig on fat guys." For that matter, I'd long before posted about having had an intimate experience with a SSBBW, and it was never brought up.""

Fucking fat men and having some fat chick got you off does not give you the merit badge of size acceptance. It means nothing. I recall one man who used to attend bbw dances in NY who loved to fuck the fatties but would be the first to spew fat hate all over them given half a chance.

He was a fat fetishist only, like you.


----------



## HeatherBBW

Sandie_Zitkus said:


> Everybody has an opinion, just like............well you know. These are freak show pictures. IMO. And remember, art is subjective. Stan asked, I gave my opinion. If you don't like what I said - tough. That's life.
> 
> And you assessment of those of us who don't like this kind of art is also very ignorant. People look at pictures/art and either like it or don't. You telling me I'm irresponsible (very interesting word in this instance) is confusing at best. Irresponsible to who? Extremely fat women who live an immobil life because they and/or their partners wanted them eat to immobility? Don't tell me it doesn't happen because it does. Who then live a life of depression and pain because at the extreme weights some of these people get to it's impossible for them to even walk?? It makes ME irresponsible for not liking these pics and saying so? Honestly I hold the artist and people who promote and buy this kind of art with promoting extreme weights like this and by doing so possible being responsible for promoting this kind of fantasy/reality.
> 
> Seeing these pics is disturbing at best and reminds me of a post not so long ago here from someone who had fantasire of feeding women to death. That thread in my opinion had no place here or anywhere. These pics remind me of that thread. They are both sick, sadistic pictures/words that promote torture and death of women. Masogynistic art comes to mind.
> 
> You can like whatever kind of art you like or not, and so can I. But for you to lob attacks at the people who dislike this art is ignoant and maybe you should give Stan an answer to his question since you seem to see something in this art many of us do not.



I'm not saying you don't have the ability to express your opinion. But if you do, then don't deny the right for me to take offense to it. That's life.

I didn't say you were ignorant for disliking the art. I said you were ignorant for calling any one person's attempt at art a "freak show". It makes you judgemental and intolerable of other people. I'd say that is "unlearned" (Is that a better word for you?) in the simple adult act of being accepting of each others differences.

If you said you didn't like the art or you think that the pictures were disgusting or vile.. then that's an opinion. To call it a freak show makes you intolerant of people's differences, artistic expressions and judgemental.

You also seem to have very strong opinions on those who have extreme weight gain fantasies and attempt to live them in real life. You forget that those people have chosen that path and it isn't your place to judge them. It also isn't your place to assume that they are depressed. A few months ago I had a conversation with Gina (ArealFG) who won't even post on Dimensions or size related boards anymore, because she can't stand the feeling of pity that she was victimized and that her husband is a domineering, uncaring feeder who fattened her up against her desires. Why do people think this? Because they've been taken in my tv shows that switch up the stories to make it look that way. It's all about being "shocking" to them to get their ratings and views. It's been done to all of us who've agreed to be on such shows. If you ask the source (Gina), she will tell you a completely different story. Her REAL story. I think often is the case that these stories you read of such horrific circumstances are fictional at best. If you do find a case where someone was indeed victimized due to someone else domineering their life, then it's a minute percentage of the actual fat community. You'd probably find a higher percentage amongst other lifestyle people. So enough with the "I judge you because of this or that horror story.", it's just ridiculous at this point. 

You hold us to promoting this kind of fantasy/reality? Ok. No problem there. Since when I am I gonna argue that me viewing those pictures gives my fantasy pleasure? I don't think anyone would answer you differently that was indeed into it. I assure you that they don't invoke any torturous or deadly thoughts in my mind. I think the vision of someone being that fat is so horrid to you that you can't even see clearly through your disgust. That's sad.

Once again, I'm not asking you to like the art or for you to accept that I like the art. I'm saying have a little restraint when calling art a "freak show" and maybe just express your dislike instead of judging the artist and his vision.

And ultimately, I have answered Stan's question. I'm saying his question/poll holds no validity to me because sexual images do not belong in a poll that is asking about pertinence to size acceptance. If it were a poll about sexual acceptance, that would be different.


----------



## TraciJo67

LoveBHMS said:


> Ok, _clearly_ you missed the very point I was making about the disconnect between sexuality and fetishism and acceptance.
> 
> I was bascially holding my online persona up as an example of this disconnect.
> 
> My point was that fat sexuality (which is where these images come from) and size acceptance are unrelated.



OK. I can accept this. I did very clearly miss your point.


----------



## BothGunsBlazing

ok, NOW it is a detriment.


----------



## HeatherBBW

fa_man_stan said:


> No Dan, you are labeling these images "fetish" pics as are all the others. Is an image of an extremely large woman dressed in clothing any more "fetish" than an average sized woman in equal clothing in an equivalent pose? That is like saying a scantily clad fat woman is more "obscene" than an "average" sized scantily clad woman, just because the first woman is fat. It seems to me that the people supporting the notion that these images (at very least) have no effect on people's perceptions of fat acceptance (granted, whatever that may be...) are doing the same sort of labeling that websites like YouTube do to remove videos of fat women and not those of thin women in videos that are otherwise equal.
> 
> So let's attempt to take the "fetish" out of the equation... Lets say we have an image of a very nice looking extremely large woman who is well dressed and on a mobility scooter... I wonder if Heather would put an image like this on one of her dance fliers? If she wouldn't, she is just like the marketing folks who decided not to put large sized mobility scooter people in the advertisements for Wall-E... Only Heather can answer this question of course.
> 
> And I'm still not getting an answer to my ultimate question. If "everybody" seems to know these images are such shocking and privately cherished types of "fetish" images... Why are they on the front pages of Dimensions, out in the open? Why is this sort of fiction posted prominently in multiple categories also on the front page of the forums if these writings are the written equivalent of such "shocking fetish"?



He's labeling them fetish images, because they are. How could you possibly compare the extreme fantasy of making a woman so fat that she breaks a bed or needs a lift to hold up her breasts or body parts the same as a thin woman dressed in a similar outfit. I find that comparison.. insane.

Why would I use a picture of a extremely fat women in a scooter as part of a dance advertisement? Are you really asking me such a question? I feel I have to stop answering your questions, because I honestly think you've gone insane in this thread. I use a picture of a girl dancing and multiple girls dancing with boys for images. Because that's what we do. If there were a very fat woman at my dance in a scooter and her picture was taken I would not omit it from the photos that are posted from our dances. I use a scooter myself and all my dance attendees have seen me use it. Is that good enough for you?

The pictures are housed on this site because Conrad is accepting of the images and those with a sexual interest in them like myself. They aren't the forefront of Dimensions, there is no image like that on the front page. There are links to galleries with such pictures, but they aren't the "face" of Dimensions. There are links to all sorts of areas of interest.


----------



## HeatherBBW

LoveBHMS said:


> I can be sexually aroused by larger men, by watching men eat, and by watching men gain weight, and STILL think those same fat guys should pay for two airline seats. Thinking fat people should pay for the two airline seats might make some posters here file me under "not size acceptancey enough" but nobody is going to question my sexuality.



Off topic, but I thought I'd throw in that I think that fat people should buy two seats as well. I always buy two seats. I take responsibility for my size and I'm smart enough to know that I don't fit in one seat where a person can sit next to me comfortably. I don't think someone else should be inconvenienced or encroached upon because I am the size I am. 

I do although think that we should not pay taxes on both tickets. This has been a longstanding argument. I also think that it should be allowed that if two fat people purchase a 3rd seat and aren't taking up any more space then those 3 seats together, then they shouldn't be forced to buy a 4th seat. This is Southwest Airlines policy. 

I also think that if the flight is not full and I've purchased a second seat.. that I should be refunded (not cash, but in airline credit) for that fare. Because I haven't taken any space away that was needed. 

Anyhoo, completely off topic - but I wanted to express my thoughts on that because I am someone who supports the size acceptance movement, yet I don't think I should be allowed to purchase only one seat.


----------



## Victim

Art: Art is creation, and all creation is good. Someone, somewhere, is getting some kind of benefit by viewing these pics. There are appropriate and inappropriate places to find certain types of art, and Dimensions seems to be an appropriate place for these pics. 

Size Acceptance: SA occurs when someone's opinion of fat people, their admirers, or their allies becomes more favorable. Is that going to happen after viewing these pics? Not likely IMHO. This brings up the fact that most people visiting DIMS are already part of the community. HOWEVER, this reminds me of how we got a few members at the bhmffaconnection.com. A joke article was put up on the Encyclopedia Discordia and others that lampoon real sites. It included a link to the BFC. Over there we noticed that people that were like 'OMFG girls that like fat guys, how fucking sick!' did not register or stick around, only the ones that were curious enough to discover something. Somewhere, someone is posting these pics outside of DIMS. Many people are going 'OMFG what kind of sick bastards like this shit?'. Some are curious enough to look a little further and find out the people here are actually normal.

Fantasy: Creative writing books will tell you that stories about wizards, dragons, aliens, spaceships, etc. can be simple escapist entertainment or reveal truths about the real world that would be difficult to address otherwise. Getting back to the 'all art is creation and creation is good' thing, these pictures DO tell you something about the real world. The message you get from them is quite subjective. Extremes in art broadcast a very clear message that you'll either like or will not. Purposefully, there will be no inbetween.

Reality: Reality can suck. Hard. Reality is why we have art. It is possible to venture into a fantasy world and bring back something that will help you see the world in a more positive light, explore things you might not have thought possible, or just indulge some basal instinct in a non-detrimental way. What you choose to bring back to the real world is up to you. I try and make sure that I add to my life and not detract from anyone else's. 

If someone sees me walking down the street and thinks "There goes another fat guy. Not as big as a house and crushing cars between his thighs like that pic I saw though. I guess someone likes him." This isn't the ideal situation of course, but if extreme art can plant a seed of some kind in a fat basher's head then it has done some good.


----------



## LoveBHMS

HeatherBBW said:


> Off topic, but I thought I'd throw in that I think that fat people should buy two seats as well. I always buy two seats. I take responsibility for my size and I'm smart enough to know that I don't fit in one seat where a person can sit next to me comfortably. I don't think someone else should be inconvenienced or encroached upon because I am the size I am.
> 
> I do although think that we should not pay taxes on both tickets. This has been a longstanding argument. I also think that it should be allowed that if two fat people purchase a 3rd seat and aren't taking up any more space then those 3 seats together, then they shouldn't be forced to buy a 4th seat. This is Southwest Airlines policy.
> 
> I also think that if the flight is not full and I've purchased a second seat.. that I should be refunded (not cash, but in airline credit) for that fare. Because I haven't taken any space away that was needed.
> 
> Anyhoo, completely off topic - but I wanted to express my thoughts on that because I am someone who supports the size acceptance movement, yet I don't think I should be allowed to purchase only one seat.



In a way, I meant that to be metaphoric, but it's still an interesting point.

I am sure neither of us want to derail this thread but I was just trying to contrast the concepts of sexuality and size acceptance. In a way, my online persona is the polar opposite of many women who would fight to the death for their right to that second airline seat but who find those images to be horrific.


----------



## JigglyJess

HeatherBBW said:


> I'm not saying you don't have the ability to express your opinion. But if you do, then don't deny the right for me to take offense to it. That's life.
> 
> I didn't say you were ignorant for disliking the art. I said you were ignorant for calling any one person's attempt at art a "freak show". It makes you judgemental and intolerable of other people. I'd say that is "unlearned" (Is that a better word for you?) in the simple adult act of being accepting of each others differences.
> 
> If you said you didn't like the art or you think that the pictures were disgusting or vile.. then that's an opinion. To call it a freak show makes you intolerant of people's differences, artistic expressions and judgemental.
> 
> You also seem to have very strong opinions on those who have extreme weight gain fantasies and attempt to live them in real life. You forget that those people have chosen that path and it isn't your place to judge them. It also isn't your place to assume that they are depressed. A few months ago I had a conversation with Gina (ArealFG) who won't even post on Dimensions or size related boards anymore, because she can't stand the feeling of pity that she was victimized and that her husband is a domineering, uncaring feeder who fattened her up against her desires. Why do people think this? Because they've been taken in my tv shows that switch up the stories to make it look that way. It's all about being "shocking" to them to get their ratings and views. It's been done to all of us who've agreed to be on such shows. If you ask the source (Gina), she will tell you a completely different story. Her REAL story. I think often is the case that these stories you read of such horrific circumstances are fictional at best. If you do find a case where someone was indeed victimized due to someone else domineering their life, then it's a minute percentage of the actual fat community. You'd probably find a higher percentage amongst other lifestyle people. So enough with the "I judge you because of this or that horror story.", it's just ridiculous at this point.
> 
> You hold us to promoting this kind of fantasy/reality? Ok. No problem there. Since when I am I gonna argue that me viewing those pictures gives my fantasy pleasure? I don't think anyone would answer you differently that was indeed into it. I assure you that they don't invoke any torturous or deadly thoughts in my mind. I think the vision of someone being that fat is so horrid to you that you can't even see clearly through your disgust. That's sad.
> 
> Once again, I'm not asking you to like the art or for you to accept that I like the art. I'm saying have a little restraint when calling art a "freak show" and maybe just express your dislike instead of judging the artist and his vision.
> 
> And ultimately, I have answered Stan's question. I'm saying his question/poll holds no validity to me because sexual images do not belong in a poll that is asking about pertinence to size acceptance. If it were a poll about sexual acceptance, that would be different.




Couldn't have said it any better!


----------



## superodalisque

i think that perhaps people are only concerned that dims doesn't seem to have a public face at all when you come to the main page of the website. the art featured there seems to be pretty much "in your face". i took a look at it again today just to make sure i wasn't talking out of the wrong hole. i think it would be nice if at least it varied just a bit anyway. the forums are arranged very well and people can kind of peel away the layers here.

i'm not too concerned about the art being shown here on the site as a whole, or even the photography. its part of the internal dialog people need to partake in to find exactly who and and where they are. the only concern to me is when i try to bring people to dims who i think would really add to the community they get totally turned off from the get go. these are people who have extreme fantasies and enjoy that type of illustration and other things that make those shown here look tame. they just don't feel the need to expose every little corner of who they are to the general public all at once. particularly when the main goal is to be in a place where fat people thier admirers can be understood, understand and appreciated. there are different levels to that. i don't get why sometimes people here don't understand that. since often in their personal behavior they operate that way themselves. they don't walk around telling everyone they know about the most extreme interests they entertain at first meeting. it might start off with a simple--"i think fat girls are cute", "fat guys are handsome" "i like being fat". then as you know someone more you can tell them more. you don't want to lose people that you could easily bring to your side of an issue at the very beginning because you are just too shocking.

i'm beginning to think thats why we might have so many lurkers here. people are always complaining about "trolls". i've made a special effort to talk to them. i have to say, a lot of them are definitely not in the closet in real life. it might be an unfair badge to put on quite a few that i know--some personally now after lo these many years. a lot of them actually have fat significant others that they are devoted to. often they feel these images will insult their partners on some level. these are people who are trying thier best to improve their partner's self esteem. but presenting images like that up front before the person is ready doesn't always help much. and often it makes their motives questionable at best.

one other thing i think is pertinent here is a discussion about funding. i give to dims. i know a lot of people who would give to dims. it would improve a lot of things that people here would like to see done. there wouldn't be such a struggle to get proper servers etc...it might take some of the weight off of Conrad's shoulders. but i think in order to do that well there would have to be a public face that dims could show. it could be one that people from dims and the public would be confortable with as an initial contact with the world at large. it wouldn't have to water down any of the actual content at all.

to those of you who feel hurt-- don't. you shouldn't. even if people don't share your interests or tastes, it doesn't ever invalidate them. we can hold different opinions and still like and respect each other. we don't have to be exactly the same to appreciate who the other person is. we need to get rid of the idea that if someone doesn't agree with you in principle that they hate you or what you do. thats not necesarily true. what its about here is a balance. after all , if you went out to dinner with friends you wouldn't try to force them to eat something they didn't like just because you love it, and they shouldn't stop you from trying to have it just because they don't care for it. of course we can always entice each other to try something new that we personally love and always hope it brings something to their lives too.


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus

Heather, you are right on one point - I find the idea of women or men at the weight depicted horrific. Why? Not because I hate fat *sigh* Not because I hate fat people *double sigh* but because I do. It's just what I dislike. It's that simple. If you choose to psychoanalyze me instead of just accepting that I have an opinion different than mine - well that's on you.

People have differing opinions - sometimes it is as simple as that. I used the words "freak show" - yes I did. Because to me (just me now) the pictures remind me of old time freak shows. It's just what came to mind when I see pics like that. It doesn't mean I think you or anyone else here is a freak.

As for is - the artist who created these pics mentally unstable or does he want to hurt fat women? I can't answer that. But I do know that my initial reaction to these pics was the same reaction I had when I have seen some BDSM art. I was shocked, then saddened. And I won't go into an explanation of how these pics affected me, but I will say that pictures of women like this and hearing about someone who is living a fantasy of eating to immobility gives me the same feeling in my gut that I have when I hear about women being abused.

So don't accuse me of hating fat - that's an easy accusation thrown out when people have no other argument. I don't hate fat - I don't hate anyone here and I don't hate myself. I'm disturbed by art like this. I'm allowed to be. And if you ask my opinion, I'm gonna give it.

BTW - I apologized for using the term "freak show."




HeatherBBW said:


> I'm not saying you don't have the ability to express your opinion. But if you do, then don't deny the right for me to take offense to it. That's life.
> 
> I didn't say you were ignorant for disliking the art. I said you were ignorant for calling any one person's attempt at art a "freak show". It makes you judgemental and intolerable of other people. I'd say that is "unlearned" (Is that a better word for you?) in the simple adult act of being accepting of each others differences.
> 
> If you said you didn't like the art or you think that the pictures were disgusting or vile.. then that's an opinion. To call it a freak show makes you intolerant of people's differences, artistic expressions and judgemental.
> 
> You also seem to have very strong opinions on those who have extreme weight gain fantasies and attempt to live them in real life. You forget that those people have chosen that path and it isn't your place to judge them. It also isn't your place to assume that they are depressed. A few months ago I had a conversation with Gina (ArealFG) who won't even post on Dimensions or size related boards anymore, because she can't stand the feeling of pity that she was victimized and that her husband is a domineering, uncaring feeder who fattened her up against her desires. Why do people think this? Because they've been taken in my tv shows that switch up the stories to make it look that way. It's all about being "shocking" to them to get their ratings and views. It's been done to all of us who've agreed to be on such shows. If you ask the source (Gina), she will tell you a completely different story. Her REAL story. I think often is the case that these stories you read of such horrific circumstances are fictional at best. If you do find a case where someone was indeed victimized due to someone else domineering their life, then it's a minute percentage of the actual fat community. You'd probably find a higher percentage amongst other lifestyle people. So enough with the "I judge you because of this or that horror story.", it's just ridiculous at this point.
> 
> You hold us to promoting this kind of fantasy/reality? Ok. No problem there. Since when I am I gonna argue that me viewing those pictures gives my fantasy pleasure? I don't think anyone would answer you differently that was indeed into it. I assure you that they don't invoke any torturous or deadly thoughts in my mind. I think the vision of someone being that fat is so horrid to you that you can't even see clearly through your disgust. That's sad.
> 
> Once again, I'm not asking you to like the art or for you to accept that I like the art. I'm saying have a little restraint when calling art a "freak show" and maybe just express your dislike instead of judging the artist and his vision.
> 
> And ultimately, I have answered Stan's question. I'm saying his question/poll holds no validity to me because sexual images do not belong in a poll that is asking about pertinence to size acceptance. If it were a poll about sexual acceptance, that would be different.


----------



## fatgirlflyin

mossystate said:


> Let's just say I would hope that no person who is just entering the ' size acceptance ' classroom would run into this stuff, until they were well on their way of understanding, and well on their way of understanding themselves.
> 
> This stuff, to me, for me, is aggressive and ugly. I do not see anything but ridicule and defeat. I don't care about the talent of the people doing it. I don't care that some think this stuff is the best thing since sliced cheese.
> 
> There is objectifying ' art ' all over the place, whether the focus is fat...thin...whatever. I know that there can never be one ideal in terms of how people are represented. It will always be here ( Dims...the planet ) . I get that. I get that no one person can define size acceptance. I will always hate it and never accept it. I get to to do that, or, not do that. Enjoy. Just please be sure to set your excitement aside every now and then to really understand the other ' side '. To simply say..." hey, all viewpoints are accepted "...serves no one...not well, anyway.
> 
> If I were to recommend certain sites online, I would have to do more than a bit of explaining. I could never just give a struggling fat woman, for example, the link to this site, without that initial handholding. There is a lot of powerful stuff, not all of it safe for fragile folk.



Agreed, one of the reasons I haven't introduced my sister to this site is that I'm worried about some of the more extreme stuff she'd see.


----------



## Ernest Nagel

Admittedly I haven't read this whole thread yet. Expect what I have to say will be somewhat redundant so apologies for that in advance. I love Vancouver and Rio de Janeiro (among many other places). While they're each quite different from one another they have their respective charms. They also both have plenty of reasons to never go back. I choose to focus on the things I like and always look forward to returning to either place.

That's true to some degree of everywhere, everything and everyone I suppose? Nothing's perfect and we can focus on the negative until there's nowhere left to go. The parts of Rio and Vancouver I don't like I stay away from. I know they're there and they're not for me. That's all I need to know, really. Doesn't affect my enjoyment of the remainder in the least. I also understand that Rio doesn't represent all Brazilians anymore than Vancouver does the rest of Canada. Maybe I'm naive but I think most adults are capable of that basic level of discernment. They don't see the images in question and say "YIKES!! THAT"S what THIS PLACE is about?!?!?" 

I once wandered into a redlight district in Rio and at first I was , then :blush:, finally  and outta there. I expect that's somewhat how many would be on discovering those types of images in the galleries. 

I'll freely admit I have my own issues with such images but I'm not going to extrapolate them into some profligate weirdness that people shouldn't be exposed to or can't handle. (Not suggesting that's what Stan's trying to do either, btw)

From a purely technical perspective the survey commits the design error referred to as a "double-barreled item/statement". It collapses several issues (or in this case, images) into a single response option. For example, I'd probably do #1 & #4 but 2&3 kinda skeeve me out. Consequently I did not reply. 

Incidentally, thank you Stan for a very interesting thread.


----------



## supersoup

i am failing to understand why dimensions needs a 'public face'. it is what it is. yes, some folks will be turned off, but so be it.


----------



## LoveBHMS

> As for is - the artist who created these pics mentally unstable or does he want to hurt fat women? I can't answer that.



The artist has a sexual fetish and created art that depicts it. Nothing more or less. As Dan said, either it turns you on or it does not. There is no other purpose to this or anything else on websites like deviantart dot com that have tons of these images. Some women are turned on by the thought of being this size, some men are turned on by the thought of having a partner this size.

If you don't respond positively to it it's because you don't have the fetish. The pictures were not created with you in mind as their audience. It's like when I think a beer commercial is stupid--if the ad's target was males 21-28 who are college educated, well then, it's not my demographic.


----------



## fatgirlflyin

supersoup said:


> i am failing to understand why dimensions needs a 'public face'. it is what it is. yes, some folks will be turned off, but so be it.



I don't think Dimensions could have a public face unless it was one of those morphy type faces (kinda like Michael Jackson had in some video way back when) because there are too many parts to it. 

I chose detriment because to me those pictures aren't about fat acceptance so wouldn't be a fair representation of what fat acceptance was as a whole. They are sexual images used to promote someone's fantasy. Its not my fantasy, but neither is being tied up for hours on end. To each their own. 

Sometimes I wish that Dimensions didn't host the more extreme stuff because I think that it could be a wonderful jumping off point for someone interested in learning about fat/size acceptance. As I've said I'm hesitant to introduce my sister to this site because she doesn't have the most self confidence and I've seen her change herself for a guy more times than I care to count.


----------



## superodalisque

thats a good question about why dims needs a public face, and also an interesting point that it is what it is. the thing is dims pretends to be many things. the question is finally what is it really? i think that would solve a lot in terms of this question. sometimes it seems dims is the opinion of its members, or is it something else entirely? is it a place for selling websites? as some people would like to charaterize it. often people say it is a playground for a few people and the rest are just along for the ride. is that true? i had always just thought of it as a place for people who are fat and thier admirers, not specifically for gaining and feeding though it included that. so maybe there is a little identity crisis in my own mind. i don't know how other people feel about that. i'd just like to know exactly what it is and what the mission statement says. that would help me a lot personally as i've never seen it though i've looked. 

when i think of dims i don't think its all about me and what i want and like. i also think it is about the members mainly, the public and maybe even a little outreach. thats just the impression i get from the way the concerned members post on the forum. i think there are a lot of people here who have gone through some hard times being fat and they'd love it if dims could help other people who were going through the same. i think part of the worry might be that they won't ever have that opportunity. and, i also think dims is a place to play and explore your sexuality and identity. but i feel the main thing that makes it special is that people care. so if someone said that something bothered them it would worry me if we dismissed them out of hand because we should care about each other. if we don't whats the point? this would just be another entirely sexually explicit website where people come for a while to just feed off other people until they get bored. i think sex is why a lot of people come here but i don't think its why they stay.


----------



## exile in thighville

Stan, I'm going to address this one last time and then I'm done with this loathsome, backwards thread a/k/a sexophobic witch hunt. Why am I categorizing them as a fetish pics? Because they were drawn by WEIGHT GAIN FETISH ARTISTS. Stop pretending you found them out of nowhere and not in a FETISH BASED CONTEXT. How do you want them categorized exactly?

Heather can put whatever the fuck she wants on her fliers. This is one of the stupidest and most offensive threads in Dimensions history. And no, I would not use these images to promote fat acceptance, as it's been made clear several advocates of fat acceptance on this very board are uncomfortable with them. Also this would be like using Poppin' Ghetto Cherries 19 to promote Black History Month. You can choose to look at them as pics of merely "very large women" if you want, but they were drawn by feeder fantasy artists, for the purpose of fappage.

What is your goal here? Do you want the images banned from the internet? _You_ brought them to the attention of non-fetishists. You're worried about these images used as publicity and you're...publicizing with them. The images won't go away. The people who jack off to them won't go away. Answer my question: what are we to do?


----------



## LalaCity

I'm glad you created this poll, Stan, because it gives vent to what many here think but are afraid to say: those images do nothing to advance fat acceptance nor do they add to the struggle of fat people -- primarily fat women -- to live their lives with dignity. 

They exist primarily to express a fetish and to draw other closeted men into the fetish. I'm not saying that's a bad thing in and of itself, but it's time we admitted that certain things that the culture of Dimensions glorifies in the name of size acceptance have nothing to do whatsoever with improving the lives of fat people.

The second picture, in particular, really offends me -- getting off on the suffering and immobility of a woman of extreme size...if anything, it's extremely hostile to women.


----------



## tonynyc

I like the fact that Dimensions is out there for the "public" to see with all the different views. the sad part is that if this was a plain old standard site- you would still get the lurkers/assholes. Heck you have some assholes that think the fact that a confidant BBW is in a bathing suit to be an extreme.

I found that Stan thread is well meaning;but, there is also the danger of unforseen consquences. 

I just view those that like this type of art as just another 'Subculture' within our Dimension community. We have so many different sub-cultures that make up Dimensions ;for example, (Feeding/Squashing/Plus Size Paysites/GLBTQ/).

My trouble with the point of the thread is that I could take any one of the above "Subcultures" to fill in the blanks as to whether "it's a Benefit or Detriment to Size Acceptance. It wouldn't be fair to those that are comfy with being a part of that community.


----------



## exile in thighville

LalaCity said:


> I'm glad you created this poll, Stan, because it gives vent to what many here think but are afraid to say: those images do nothing to advance fat acceptance nor do they add to the struggle of fat people -- primarily fat women -- to live their lives with dignity.
> 
> They exist primarily to express a fetish and to draw other closeted men into the fetish. I'm not saying that's a bad thing in and of itself, but it's time we admitted that certain things that the culture of Dimensions glorifies in the name of size acceptance have nothing to do whatsoever with improving the lives of fat people.
> 
> The second picture, in particular, really offends me -- getting off on the suffering and immobility of a woman of extreme size...if anything, it's extremely hostile to women.



I get off on that picture actually, do you have something to say to me?


----------



## exile in thighville

fa_man_stan said:


> No Dan, you are labeling these images "fetish" pics as are all the others. Is an image of an extremely large woman dressed in clothing any more "fetish" than an average sized woman in equal clothing in an equivalent pose? That is like saying a scantily clad fat woman is more "obscene" than an "average" sized scantily clad woman, just because the first woman is fat. It seems to me that the people supporting the notion that these images (at very least) have no effect on people's perceptions of fat acceptance (granted, whatever that may be...) are doing the same sort of labeling that websites like YouTube do to remove videos of fat women and not those of thin women in videos that are otherwise equal.
> 
> So let's attempt to take the "fetish" out of the equation... Lets say we have an image of a very nice looking extremely large woman who is well dressed and on a mobility scooter... I wonder if Heather would put an image like this on one of her dance fliers? If she wouldn't, she is just like the marketing folks who decided not to put large sized mobility scooter people in the advertisements for Wall-E... Only Heather can answer this question of course.
> 
> And I'm still not getting an answer to my ultimate question. If "everybody" seems to know these images are such shocking and privately cherished types of "fetish" images... Why are they on the front pages of Dimensions, out in the open? Why is this sort of fiction posted prominently in multiple categories also on the front page of the forums if these writings are the written equivalent of such "shocking fetish"?



Because Dimensions is no more a fat acceptance site than it is a porn site. And because Wall-E is not about immobile people in scooters. Attempting to pin Heather "NYU FAT LECTURER" Boyle of not doing her part for fat acceptance is your latest mistake.


----------



## Ernest Nagel

Incidentally, Stan thanks for NOT including many entries from Story Readers Forum, most from Fat Sexuality, Erotic Weight Gain & HP or the 2 or 3  lovely Paysite ladies with questionable eye-makeup skills in your poll. I'm afraid my response would've been far less moderate in those cases. 

I'd then have been comparing East St. Louis and Pittsburgh. _Somebody_ must love them. :wubu::blink:


----------



## bexy

To me these pictures are just that, pictures. They are drawings. If they were photographs (not that they really could be due to the extremity of the pics but you know what I mean), then I may feel differently, who knows. 

But they are just cartoons to me and have no impact on me, or my opinon of fat/size acceptance. I don't particularly like them, but then there is a lot of art I don't particularly like as its just not my taste. 

Some of the guys I know who would be into weight gain and expansion have told me they still wouldn't get off on these pics because they are cartoons, and cartoons don't do anything for them. They get off on morphs of photographs of real girls, but not these as they are drawn. 
So out of interest is that a fetish in itself, like Hentai kinda?


----------



## stan_der_man

Risible said:


> Stan, what's your point here? It seems in part that you are making an attempt to embarrass and/or scold Conrad because he allows extremes (and extreme is subjective) of fat fantasy on his website?
> 
> I voted neutral. There are some who, upon seeing the images you began this thread with, would react very negatively, and there are some who would react similarly to the plumper on your right biceps. Those who revile fat people are gonna use any excuse to scorn them - these images (and others like them) aren't going to push them over the edge into hating fat people.
> 
> I have fat art adorning a wall in my home - you've been there often enough, you've probably seen it. It's a cartoon drawn by an ex-boyfriend depicting me and a friend as fat superheroes. It's been there occupying a large space of the wall for years, yet if it has had a negative impact on anyone, I haven't heard of it. BTW, if I had more fat art, say a commissioned piece by Fish, etc., featuring an expanded Dee, I would happily display it, provided it were suitable for viewing by kids. Fat art isn't for the workplace, though; it's not appropriate, too personal. Images of the family and the dog are fine, but I wouldn't impose any of my political or social preferences on work.
> 
> The image examples you posted are all of fat women - I have to say, a recent paysite update post on the Paysite board featured a fat male model; I've also seen artwork of fat males, and there is an ever-growing number of stories featuring BHMs in the Library. Look upon these as women objectifying men if you wish (as opposed to women being objectified); I see it all as an expression of fat fantasy.



Excellent! I now have an audience with The Webmaster and his crew of moderators. The epic battle in this debate may now begin. :bow:

I shall return tonight to finish this debate. The only one I am interested in addressing on this subject is Risible, because she is the only one here (on this thread, so far that I've seen...) who displays the type of art in question... publicly in her home, takes pride in what she likes and presents it to people who visit her (as I have witnessed...) in a manner that is informative and positive. She is not some closeted "fetish" peeker like most of you appear to be who are debating the validity of this poll. Tina and others I also respect because they know how to "eloquently" display such art and keep it from whacking the "general public" upside the head in a way that negatively effects how fat people and FAs are viewed ... yes people like you and I, Conrad. Esotericize this subject all you want, this type of art DOES negatively effect how fat acceptance (size acceptance... whatever...) is viewed by the general public. At least if this poll is any indication, approx. 70 percent of the people here on Dimensions think so. At very least, you have a public relations problem on your hands Conrad. And I'll repeat myself, I'm not critiquing this art, I have a BFA in Sculpture (aka... art) myself. I'm very well aware of the power of art, and even though this type of art isn't my "thing", I don't have anything against per se. It is what it is... period. If you like it, you like it... if you don't, you don't... Everyone is entitled to an opinion... (This is for you Sandie Z...)

This is your website Conrad and as I've said before, if you think I'm just some trouble making shyster of a FA, it is your prerogative to ban me, or sensor me as you have done in the past on this basic subject. All I have been asking is (and you continue to skirt any sort of answer) is basically "Are you attempting to desensitize us to this art (here in Dimensions) by displaying this type of art?" If not, is this just a type of art that you happen to "really like", and just enjoy sharing it with the world, despite the reaction that has been taking place to it over the years (and still now)? Again Conrad, I have nothing against this art per se... I just think (in my humble opinion) you need to be smarter in how you present it, and realize how it effects many fat people here (70% of Dimmers?) and how the FAs feel it may effect them. (And trust me, it does, I've had to explain my preference a few times myself because of this...) Until you answer this basic question, or at least have a good long though about this, I have nothing further to say to you.

For the sake of simplifying this debate... I will take "Dan ex-thighville-guy-who-loves-fat-chicks" point of view that this art is "fetish"... even though I still think that is an artificial label given by those who don't even want to make an attempt to "mainstream" this type of art... And Dan, as self proclaimed representative of all FAs... "the guy who likes fat chicks"... you need to be better versed in representing us FAs if you are going to attempt such a feat... You are the new generation of FA... be ready for tonight's debate. :bow:

You too Risible, I'll be back. :bow:



Santaclear said:


> Ditto to what Webmaster sez. I looked all over the "front pages" of Dimensions and couldn't find these pictures. Your framing the questions in terms of the pictures being "on the front page of the site" seems bogus, Stan.



Oh yes... and "The Webmaster" is in fact correct. I am a "deceptive" shyster... These images in question aren't on the "front page" of Dimensionsmagazine.com... as I stated earlier... They are links (my bad...) on the front page... clearly labeled...one click away. 


DIMENSIONSMAGAZINE.COM --->

**Click** (where the highlighted link is...)








**Click**









Ok... I do actually have respect for more of you, so I'll answer a few more...





HeatherBBW said:


> _(edited by Moderator)_



Maybe we can have a civilized conversation once you've calmed down... and keep this in mind... You are the boss to some of the folks here. Maybe there are some things they might not tell you out of fear of offending you.

Just delete my account... ban me... I'll go away. You're not my boss... 

 Is it still OK if I go to the Dims bash...? ;-) ... and I would maybe suggest a little heart to heart talk with some folks here in Dims...



Ashley said:


> Stan, I'm really not sure what you're trying to accomplish here.
> 
> First of all, Dimensions is not a size acceptance board. It isn't a fat fetish board. It's both. Believe it or not, these two concepts can (and have for many, many years) coexist.
> ....



Ashley, look at the stats of this poll. High science it may not be, but *70% +* of the Dimmers who responded feel that these images are detrimental to fat acceptance... *70% +*

Many of these people even took the extra step of saying that these types of images offend them.

Is that coexisting? Think about it. Perhaps that's imposition.

I am still sincerely interested in the 4(?) folks who posted that they feel these images have a positive impact on fat acceptance other than they are "fetish" images that they happen to like and feel should be presented to the world.


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus

Um...Stan.... I think I'm developing a crush.:wubu:

Oh on you I mean.


----------



## SamanthaNY

Just... wow.


----------



## stan_der_man

Ernest Nagel said:


> Incidentally, Stan thanks for NOT including many entries from Story Readers Forum, most from Fat Sexuality, Erotic Weight Gain & HP or the 2 or 3  lovely Paysite ladies with questionable eye-makeup skills in your poll. I'm afraid my response would've been far less moderate in those cases.
> 
> I'd then have been comparing East St. Louis and Pittsburgh. _Somebody_ must love them. :wubu::blink:



No problemo Señior! :bow:



Sandie_Zitkus said:


> Um...Stan.... I think I'm developing a crush.:wubu:
> 
> Oh on you I mean.



:wubu: ... although we are both married... 





SamanthaNY said:


> Just... wow.




As my saying goes... If the plane is in a tailspin you might as well light it on fire and go down in a blaze of glory!


----------



## MsGreenLantern

Ella Bella said:


> Sometimes I wish that Dimensions didn't host the more extreme stuff because I think that it could be a wonderful jumping off point for someone interested in learning about fat/size acceptance. As I've said I'm hesitant to introduce my sister to this site because she doesn't have the most self confidence and I've seen her change herself for a guy more times than I care to count.



Personally, if I had seen that art before the forum when looking around at age 19 [when I found this place], I would have closed the screen and never come back. It puts a lot of people off, especially those already trying to be comfortable with their own bodies, and who want to find a comfortable non-fetishist fat community. It screams "we wish you looked THIS BIG!" or "FAs only like creepy extremes". So I totally understand your concerns.


----------



## goofy girl

When this thread started, I thought it would be interesting to see how everyone voted or posted. Art is obviously going to be seen differently by different people, and of course we are all going to view it in many different ways. 

I think it was an interesting question, but I feel like the thread has (intentionally) turned into personal attacks and really just a way to get people heated to the point of anger and hurt feelings. What a shame.


----------



## LoveBHMS

> I shall return tonight to finish this debate. The only one I am interested in addressing on this subject is Risible, because she is the only one here (on this thread, so far that I've seen...) who displays the type of art in question... publicly in her home, takes pride in what she likes and presents it to people who visit her (as I have witnessed...) in a manner that is informative and positive. She is not some closeted "fetish" peeker like most of you appear to be who are debating the validity of this poll.



Excuse me? Did you just refer to posters like Dan and me and "closeted fetish peekers"? Seriously?

Last I checked you've never BEEN in my home and I don't think you've been in Dan's or he'd have mentioned it so you don't know what we display. If I have a picture of a fat boyfriend does that make me not closeted? Beyond that, Dan and I (and others here) are _fetishists._ If we choose to not display that sort of thing publicly or in cubicles at work that makes total sense; I don't expect a heterosexual male to put a copy of the Penthouse Pet of the Month on his living room wall.



> Esotericize this subject all you want, this type of art DOES negatively effect how fat acceptance (size acceptance... whatever...) is viewed by the general public. At least if this poll is any indication, approx. 70 percent of the people here on Dimensions think so.



Maybe you have not read what Ashley or Heather or Dan or I posted but I'll repeat myself. *This art is not about fat acceptance, it's about fetishism.* Seriously, would you like me to set it to music? 



> For the sake of simplifying this debate... I will take "Dan ex-thighville-guy-who-loves-fat-chicks" point of view that this art is "fetish"... even though I still think that is an artificial label given by those who don't even want to make an attempt to "mainstream" this type of art... And Dan, as self proclaimed representative of all FAs... "the guy who likes fat chicks"... you need to be better versed in representing us FAs if you are going to attempt such a feat... You are the new generation of FA... be ready for tonight's debate.



OMG. It's not _supposed to be mainstreamed._ Here's a list of other stuff that is not supposed to be mainstreamed: smoking fetish art, foot fetish art, erotic weight gain fiction, scat fetish art, breast expansion cartoons, etc. etc. etc. 

Stan, seriously, tell me you can't understand the difference here?

As was pointed out upthread, most people don't find this place by accident. Speaking ONLY for the fetishists, they likely found it because they were looking on the internet for content related to stuff that sexually aroused them. 

And your poll is not science at all. You can't say 70% of Dimmers don't like it. You can only say that 70% of those who responded said they thought it didn't help fat acceptance. The heart of sampling is that everyone in a particular universe (in this case, posters on this site) must have an equal chance of being selected to participate in the survey and do so. A survey in which the participants are self selecting has ZERO scientific value.


----------



## LalaCity

exile in thighville said:


> I get off on that picture actually, do you have something to say to me?



No. I'm not trying to quibble with anyone's sexual turn-ons. But my honest answer to the question posed by Stan is that, for me -- a woman who has been overweight for most of her adult life -- those images don't do anything positive for my self-esteem. They make me feel worse about myself. While they are well-drawn and the artist surely perceives them as admiring of his subject matter, just _what_ is being admired leaves me cold...the idea of a fat woman as a one-dimensional being, imprisoned by her fat and resigned to the idea that, as she can really do nothing else in her immobility, she might as well continue to gorge herself to death for the pleasure of men who are watching...maybe I'm reading too much into it...but, if I probe my feelings, that's what emerges in _me _from viewing these images.

We fat women go most of our lives without seeing the fat female form depicted as truly beautiful -- i.e., a radiant woman full of life and humanity who is more than just a cartoon designed to promote masturbation (or, more usually, disgust). To _me_ these pictures are barely distinguishable from the artwork that's designed to ridicule fat women as disgusting slobs, which is what most of us grew up seeing and to which most of us resigned ourselves in our lives before discovering Dims and size acceptance.

I hope that answer provides a bit more context and understanding of my feelings. 




Thanks, by the way, to SocialBfly for posting artwork that celebrates the lives of fat women as beautiful and rich in _real_ experience (this coming from an _actual_ fat chick).


----------



## stan_der_man

goofy girl said:


> When this thread started, I thought it would be interesting to see how everyone voted or posted. Art is obviously going to be seen differently by different people, and of course we are all going to view it in many different ways.
> 
> I think it was an interesting question, but I feel like the thread has (intentionally) turned into personal attacks and really just a way to get people heated to the point of anger and hurt feelings. What a shame.




I know for my part my intentions were (at least initially...) to keep this thread from becoming personal. But this is an issue that has festered for a long time, and has continually been muzzled by the powers that be here in Dimensions. I completely agree with you GoofyGirl, I don't believe in personal attacks, in the long run they never accomplish anything. But I'm not surprised things are going the way they are, considering the emotions that have been pent up over this for years. I'm also guilty of turning this somewhat personal, I'll admit.

Maybe after all the dust has settled over this, we'll all at least have a better understanding of each other. At very least that is my goal here.


----------



## exile in thighville

fa_man_stan said:


> And Dan, as self proclaimed representative of all FAs... "the guy who likes fat chicks"... you need to be better versed in representing us FAs if you are going to attempt such a feat... You are the new generation of FA... be ready for tonight's debate. :bow:



epic retardation. if you want an example how dangerously off your comprehension (and by extension, debating) skills are, it says "ask A guy." not "the guy." i'm not pretending to represent anyone but myself and other sane perverts.


----------



## stan_der_man

LoveBHMS said:


> Excuse me? Did you just refer to posters like Dan and me and "closeted fetish peekers"? Seriously?



[/QUOTE]

Yup... in da closet. (I don't know you personally... tell me more if I'm wrong...)

The whole bunch of you who think this is a "fetish" and who don't want to even attempt to remove the label "fetish"... Why are images of really fat people "fetish"? Why? (clothed people in particular in "typical poses"...) They are just images of really fat people. Perhaps they are wank fodder to you? Maybe that's what makes them "fetish"? These images are "shocking" to many people but there is plenty of "shocking" art that isn't labeled "fetish". All I'm saying is take this art out of the "fetish closet" and attempt to make it somewhat presentable for the sake of us "mainstream" folks who are tired of getting stigmatized by this "fetish" art. Bring it out in the open in a more sensitive way!


I'll be back tonight.


----------



## LillyBBBW

LalaCity said:


> No. I'm not trying to quibble with anyone's sexual turn-ons. But my honest answer to the question posed by Stan is that, for me -- a woman who has been overweight for most of her adult life -- those images don't do anything positive for my self-esteem. They make me feel worse about myself. While they are well-drawn and the artist surely perceives them as admiring of his subject matter, just _what_ is being admired leaves me cold...the idea of a fat woman as a one-dimensional being, imprisoned by her fat and resigned to the idea that, as she can really do nothing else in her immobility, she might as well continue to gorge herself to death for the pleasure of men who are watching...maybe I'm reading too much into it...but, if I probe my feelings, that's what emerges in _me _from viewing these images.
> 
> We fat women go most of our lives without seeing the fat female form depicted as truly beautiful -- i.e., a radiant woman full of life and humanity who is more than just a cartoon designed to promote masturbation (or, more usually, disgust). To _me_ these pictures are barely distinguishable from the artwork that's designed to ridicule fat women as disgusting slobs, which is what most of us grew up seeing and to which most of us resigned ourselves in our lives before discovering Dims and size acceptance.
> 
> I hope that answer provides a bit more context and understanding of my feelings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks, by the way, to SocialBfly for posting artwork that celebrates the lives of fat women as beautiful and rich in _real_ experience (this coming from an _actual_ fat chick).



But you see, this is the problem I have with this. It reminds me of the colonial days when people who were caught fornicating were put on display in public for people to hurl feces at. People who have been victims of rape are obviously going to be disturbed by people who have a rape fantasy and the images they conjure up. That's totally natural but taking their erotic images and holding them up in an everyman poll to rate whether the images are in poor taste comes off as blatantly cruel, puerile and catty. I agree with Dan, this is the worst thread on Dimensions EVER.


----------



## stan_der_man

exile in thighville said:


> epic retardation. if you want an example how dangerously off your comprehension (and by extension, debating) skills are, it says "ask A guy." not "the guy." i'm not pretending to represent anyone but myself and other sane perverts.



Oh, Ok...l never mind then.




exile in thighville said:


> epic retardation.



An angry young man who's... edgy... that phase will pass.


----------



## SamanthaNY

fa_man_stan said:


> As my saying goes... If the plane is in a tailspin you might as well light it on fire and go down in a blaze of glory!



You're on fire alright. Do you have to set everyone else on fire at the same time? Oh - wait, maybe it's only the four people you've deemed worthy enough to earn your reply. I notice you picked this one of mine - instead of the one upthread where I actually commented on the subject at hand. But maybe Stan is the subject now. 

Who the hell are you? Are you even aware that you're behaving like you just scored a big fat bag of crack? You're repeating your hideous actions from that private SSBBW board convo, and you seem absolutely delighted about it. It's like you're high. You spend months and months being a good guy, someone that people admire - and then you suddenly lose your damn mind, decide you want something, and stomp on anyone and everyone until you get it. Feelings be damned, Stan wants something! 

I am disgusted by the way you're behaving here. I'm disgusted (not that you care, and I wouldn't expect you to) because you pull out this whackjob persona seemingly once a year and behave like a complete asshole. I'm disgusted because you're PROUD of how you're acting here. You think you're justified in the horrible things you say to people. I'm disgusted because in a day or two (if you're not banned, as you've reminded us all on half a dozen threads, replete with links to your latest diatribes) you'll spend pages and pages apologizing and begging forgiveness. And people will forgive you. They'll forget. And then you'll do it all over again. I'm disgusted because you KNOW how to say all the things you're trying to get across without being a total prick - but you choose otherwise. 

This isn't a debate. It's your one man show.


----------



## exile in thighville

LalaCity said:


> No. I'm not trying to quibble with anyone's sexual turn-ons. But my honest answer to the question posed by Stan is that, for me -- a woman who has been overweight for most of her adult life -- those images don't do anything positive for my self-esteem. They make me feel worse about myself. While they are well-drawn and the artist surely perceives them as admiring of his subject matter, just _what_ is being admired leaves me cold...the idea of a fat woman as a one-dimensional being, imprisoned by her fat and resigned to the idea that, as she can really do nothing else in her immobility, she might as well continue to gorge herself to death for the pleasure of men who are watching...maybe I'm reading too much into it...but, if I probe my feelings, that's what emerges in _me _from viewing these images.
> 
> We fat women go most of our lives without seeing the fat female form depicted as truly beautiful -- i.e., a radiant woman full of life and humanity who is more than just a cartoon designed to promote masturbation (or, more usually, disgust). To _me_ these pictures are barely distinguishable from the artwork that's designed to ridicule fat women as disgusting slobs, which is what most of us grew up seeing and to which most of us resigned ourselves in our lives before discovering Dims and size acceptance.
> 
> I hope that answer provides a bit more context and understanding of my feelings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks, by the way, to SocialBfly for posting artwork that celebrates the lives of fat women as beautiful and rich in _real_ experience (this coming from an _actual_ fat chick).



not that i owe you context, but do you know what fantasy is? i don't desire to see anyone, even really really hot girls, in pain or bad health. i like simulations of such in sex...power struggles, dominants and submissives, being dirty and taboo. if a fat girl's into humiliation, it's not about degrading herself, it's about how creative you can be at making her feel naughty and helpless at the same time. the pictures represent a playful utopian fantasy, they are not meant to be realistic, otherwise the girls would be hooked up to respirators and having their asses wiped by caretakers. And pics of that wouldn't offend me either, because whatever floats your boat, but I'm making a distinct distinction here that there is nothing to be offended by in these specific pictures because they're totally implausible and romanticized. It's like if a girl drew a guy with three dicks. It's enjoying freedom from the limits of reality on paper. Anyone with a brain can tell the fucking difference.


----------



## LillyBBBW

fa_man_stan said:


> The whole bunch of you who think this is a "fetish" and who don't want to even attempt to remove the label "fetish"... Why are images of really fat people "fetish"? Why? (clothed people in particular in "typical poses"...) They are just images of really fat people. Perhaps they are wank fodder to you? Maybe that's what makes them "fetish"? These images are "shocking" to many people but there is plenty of "shocking" art that isn't labeled "fetish". All I'm saying is take this art out of the "fetish closet" and attempt to make it somewhat presentable for the sake of us "mainstream" folks who are tired of getting stigmatized by this "fetish" art. Bring it out in the open in a more sensitive way!
> 
> 
> I'll be back tonight.



Because they are cartoons and not real. The body dimensions depicted in these toons are not anatomically correct or possible.


----------



## GWARrior

Sandie_Zitkus said:


> Um...Stan.... I think I'm developing a crush.:wubu:
> 
> Oh on you I mean.



I'll fight you for him :wubu:


----------



## LoveBHMS

> Yup... in da closet. (I don't know you personally... tell me more if I'm wrong...)
> 
> The whole bunch of you who think this is a "fetish" and who don't want to even attempt to remove the label "fetish"... Why are images of really fat people "fetish"? Why? (clothed people in particular in "typical poses"...) They are just images of really fat people. Perhaps they are wank fodder to you? Maybe that's what makes them "fetish"? These images are "shocking" to many people but there is plenty of "shocking" art that isn't labeled "fetish". All I'm saying is take this art out of the "fetish closet" and attempt to make it somewhat presentable for the sake of us "mainstream" folks who are tired of getting stigmatized by this "fetish" art. Bring it out in the open in a more sensitive way!



You're right, you don't know me, so as such you're going to hurl an accusation and THEN say "Oh, just tell me if i'm wrong." Ok, you're wrong.

The art isn't for your mainstream folks. Dont' you get it? Do you not understand that there is a difference between just being a fat woman and having extreme weight gain fantasies? That there is a difference between enjoying watching a fat woman eat and enjoy herself and being a feeder?

This art is not even only just for male FAs. It is also for females with the extreme weight gain fantasies that Heather and Ashley have talked about.

This type of art is not intended to be mainstreamed. That is like using Lilly's example of rape fantasy depiction and approching somebody who gets off on it and saying "Look, this is disturbing to vanilla heterosexuals. My friends have pictures of erotic art on their living room walls. Now they are *normal* and worthy of my respect. Maybe if you would just come around a bit and stop being sexually aroused by rape, you could look at some pictures of heterosexual male/female intercourse and that would be enough for you."

It does not work that way and it's just so rude and disrespectful of you to attack people's sexuality.


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus

GWARrior said:


> I'll fight you for him :wubu:



Pssshhtt I'm old and tired - if you want to fight you got him. LOL 

Not that I don't still have that crush Stan - but you know I'm almost 50. LOL


----------



## TraciJo67

I'm going to tread lightly here because I genuinely like and respect you, Stan. I don't know what's gotten into you. I suspect that something else is troubling you. This is unlike you. You are better than this. 

It seems to me that you are trying to distance yourself from an aspect of fat sexuality, or that you're attempting to assert your interpretation of what this board should be about, or both. I don't see anything wrong with the pictures. Nobody is being harmed. They are cartoon depictions. It's not child pornography or snuff or even <shudder> two girls, one cup. It doesn't do a thing for *me*, but I acknowledge that others ... especially FA's, would find some of the pictures erotic. In yes, the same way that Dan just highlighted -- fantasy land. Many women have graphic rape fantasies, and obviously, that doesn't mean that they wish for the actual experience. 

As to whether such graphic depictions of extremely fat women harms the notion of size acceptance, I don't think so. It's a neutral issue at best. I think that most reasonable adults can make the distinction between the desire for equal treatment vs. the desire for wank fodder. 

I don't like the pictures, for many of the same reasons that others have expressed. I'm not going to judge those who do. It's not like they're lining up to force feed and fatten unto immobility and death. We're hard-wired for our preferences, and have very little to no control over what we find erotic. You know this, Stan. If it's not exploiting a living, breathing person ... where's the harm?

Anyone who would view these pictures and then go on to make sweeping generalizations about fat people ... hell, those type of people would make the same damn generalizations anyway, if shown a picture of a well-dressed fat woman (with a purse dog ... got a chuckle out of that imagery, Lilly) eating a salad.


----------



## superodalisque

fa_man_stan said:


> Excellent! I now have an audience with The Webmaster and his crew of moderators. The epic battle in this debate may now begin. :bow:
> 
> This is your website Conrad and as I've said before, if you think I'm just some trouble making shyster of a FA, it is your prerogative to ban me, or sensor me as you have done in the past on this basic subject. All I have been asking is (and you continue to skirt any sort of answer) is basically "Are you attempting to desensitize us to this art (here in Dimensions) by displaying this type of art?" If not, is this just a type of art that you happen to "really like", and just enjoy sharing it with the world, despite the reaction that has been taking place to it over the years (and still now)? Again Conrad, I have nothing against this art per se... I just think (in my humble opinion) you need to be smarter in how you present it, and realize how it effects many fat people here (70% of Dimmers?) and how the FAs feel it may effect them. (And trust me, it does, I've had to explain my preference a few times myself because of this...) Until you answer this basic question, or at least have a good long though about this, I have nothing further to say to you.
> 
> For the sake of simplifying this debate... I will take "Dan ex-thighville-guy-who-loves-fat-chicks" point of view that this art is "fetish"... even though I still think that is an artificial label given by those who don't even want to make an attempt to "mainstream" this type of art... And Dan, as self proclaimed representative of all FAs... "the guy who likes fat chicks"... you need to be better versed in representing us FAs if you are going to attempt such a feat... You are the new generation of FA... be ready for tonight's debate. :bow:
> 
> You too Risible, I'll be back. :bow:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yes... and "The Webmaster" is in fact correct. I am a "deceptive" shyster... These images in question aren't on the "front page" of Dimensionsmagazine.com... as I stated earlier... They are links (my bad...) on the front page... clearly labeled...one click away.
> 
> 
> DIMENSIONSMAGAZINE.COM --->
> 
> **Click** (where the highlighted link is...)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> **Click**
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok... I do actually have respect for more of you, so I'll answer a few more...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe we can have a civilized conversation once you've calmed down... and keep this in mind... You are the boss to some of the folks here. Maybe there are some things they might not tell you out of fear of offending you.
> 
> Just delete my account... ban me... I'll go away. You're not my boss...
> 
> Is it still OK if I go to the Dims bash...? ;-) ... and I would maybe suggest a little heart to heart talk with some folks here in Dims...
> 
> 
> 
> Ashley, look at the stats of this poll. High science it may not be, but *70% +* of the Dimmers who responded feel that these images are detrimental to fat acceptance... *70% +*
> 
> Many of these people even took the extra step of saying that these types of images offend them.
> 
> Is that coexisting? Think about it. Perhaps that's imposition.
> 
> I am still sincerely interested in the 4(?) folks who posted that they feel these images have a positive impact on fat acceptance other than they are "fetish" images that they happen to like and feel should be presented to the world.



i was a bit shocked myself when it was said these or similar images were not on the front page as i made a huge effort to check myself before all of these arguments got so hot and personal--unfortunately. i am also surpised at how a lot of people have discounted the polling and the comments of people who frequent and support the site a lot. i'm not sure thats a very good thing at all. it certainly does not bode well when it comes to people asking for open mindedness toward them if their not willing to be open minded toward what looks like a majority of people who find the images worrisome to them. the huge majority of any group of people are not the people who are in the extreme. i wonder if it is clear that most of the people who support things with their effort of time and dollars are as valuable in dims even if they don't share the predispositions of the people who are to the far side of things. as in all things tolerance goes both ways. i think whats beginning to happen with NAAFA (even though it has some powerful politcal support for people who need the help that dims does not have) proves that you can't always take people for granted. your market changes and one day the competition will inevitably show up. if you don't have the loyality of most of your people when that time comes its all over.


----------



## JoyJoy

Treading lightly, too. 

After reading the thread, I think that Stan's original point has been lost in a mire of personal insult and people getting offended. 

It doesn't seem like his original point/question was about whether or not there was something wrong with the pictures themselves, but if people felt that having them readily accessible as one of the top links on the main page that many people would more than likely see when they're brand new to the site was something that would be negative and put people off the more general themes of Dimensions. I know that it does, because I've had more than one person tell me so. I don't tell people about Dimensions now, unless they already know about it, because frankly, many people wouldn't understand. 

No one, that I have seen, has even implied that the drawings should be removed entirely, and I honestly don't believe the intent of the thread initially was to make those who enjoy them feel bad. It just seems a bit like having Penthouse magazine laying open to the centerfold in the foyer for guests to see when they first arrive at your home. They might not be surprised or offended to find out later that you read them, but having them placed so blatantly might make them hesitant to stay.


----------



## Fascinita

Ashley said:


> First I'd like to say that the distinction really needs to be made, in all of our minds and in this whole fatty scene, that size acceptance and extreme weight gain/extreme fatness/the sexualization of the extremely fat body are not the same thing. The images you've posted have nothing to do with size acceptance. At all. They are tangible illustrations of a sexual preference or fetish (I won't start that argument here). They have nothing to do with activism or the rights of fat people in the slightest.
> 
> To further my point while addressing your questions, I'd say that that very few sane people wish to advertise their sexual kinks in the workplace. I'm sure that even the average mainstream male doesn't care to post Playboy centerfolds in his cubicle. And, as you well know, a fully clothed fat woman can be just as exciting to an FA as a naked centerfold is to a man with mainstream tastes in women. Further, even mainstream clubs and bars wouldn't use a naked Playboy model to advertise for an event either. These highly sexual images aren't appropriate for your average social event, fat or otherwise.
> 
> I'm sure "average" people would react to images like these negatively. But we're used to that, aren't we? If you're going to be interested in fat sexuality, you have to admit that it is in no way mainstream or even widely socially acceptable (yet). So of course the average college student or work colleague is going to react negatively. Their reactions are based in confusion and shock. And even if it weren't, graphic depictions of fat sexuality would still be private, personal things because graphic depictions of ANY sexuality are private and personal.
> 
> The most important point here, though, is that fat sexuality and size acceptance are separate entities all together. Assuming that one defines or damages the other isn't accurate, and using images like this and assigning them enough power to represent size acceptance in a negative light is like using mainstream porn to represent women's rights.



I'd like to ditto this. I couldn't have said it better.

I'd also like to add, OTOH, that I don't think the images in question here define ALL of fat sexuality-- in fact, I see them as representative of a very narrow YET somehow very salient slice of what constitutes fat sexuality. Images like these enjoy a lot of traction in the context of Dimensions because Dimensions happens to be one of the few places where it's acceptable to show and enjoy the kind of fantasy depicted in them. Like it or not, I think these kinds of images _do_ define us here to some extent, though obviously not entirely. Many of us, myself included, are uncomfortable to some degree with the kinds of extreme weight-related fantasy portrayed in those drawings. 

I will say that I find *some* of these drawings liberating somehow. I tend to stay away from them for the most part because I am just not drawn to them onanistically. They don't "feed" my fantasies so much as occasionally make me smile or bolster the idea I have of fat being a source of good and beauty in the world. The cuter drawings--the ones where obvious love or reverence for fat bodies comes across--never offend me. It's only when I start to sense the more overt, darker undertones of what these images represent--as in the drawings of completely helpless women being manipulated by pulleys--that I tend to shy away. I suppose, as with anything, that it's all about finding a balance. I think we're ALL of us responsible for remaining aware of when we've gone too far, as individuals and as a community. 

As an aside, I'd like to add that I consider myself "average" and "normal" in every way, and then again I'm aware that many don't agree with me on this, solely because of my weight, for starters. What is "average" anyway? "Average" is an abstraction. No one person is "average." I refuse the concept of average, the idea of wanting to be average, just as I refuse the idea that just because I'm fat I can't be "average" or "normal." Ultimately, I want to be free of such constraints. They tend to make life small and unsatisfying.


----------



## LalaCity

exile in thighville said:


> not that i owe you context, but do you know what fantasy is? i don't desire to see anyone, even really really hot girls, in pain or bad health. i like simulations of such in sex...power struggles, dominants and submissives, being dirty and taboo. if a fat girl's into humiliation, it's not about degrading herself, it's about how creative you can be at making her feel naughty and helpless at the same time. the pictures represent a playful utopian fantasy, they are not meant to be realistic, otherwise the girls would be hooked up to respirators and having their asses wiped by caretakers. And pics of that wouldn't offend me either, because whatever floats your boat, but I'm making a distinct distinction here that there is nothing to be offended by in these specific pictures because they're totally implausible and romanticized. It's like if a girl drew a guy with three dicks. It's enjoying freedom from the limits of reality on paper. Anyone with a brain can tell the fucking difference.



I guess you're implying that I don't have a brain...I had hoped that my post would garner a more favorable response than that. It seems failed miserably to get my point across. 

I choose to co-exist with elements that are distasteful to me on this board -- Just as, I imagine, you do. I am not trying to change anyone's sexual preferences. But I do have to live with the repercussions of how fat women are depicted in our society. Even cartoonish, implausible images have an impact -- more so, perhaps, than strictly true-to-life images...that is to say, they reveal people's true impressions of fat people because the exaggeration is designed to play up some overt aspect of the stereotype. 

The question as put forth by the OP is really, if I'm reading correctly, how much exposure should these images have with regard to the size acceptance movement...my _persona_l desire, obviously, is that they wouldn't be at the forefront. I don't know if they _are_ at the forefront of Dims exactly, but they are more readily apparent than some people seem to want to admit. In my case, for example, they were first things I clicked on when I came to the Dimensions site however many years ago, and I'm still coming to terms with them.

I understand that it is unpleasant to hear that some people are hurt by the images or ideas which make up your sexual fantasy. What can I say? That's my honest feeling. I'm sorry that it's offensive to you, but, again, we all tolerate things which are uncomfortable or offensive for us at some point here. I'm enough of an adult to understand that this is fantasy for some and they have the right to express it, even if it makes me uneasy. I hope that you can appreciate that my feelings are _also_ part of the equation of what constitutes the ethos and "culture" of this board.

That's all I can really say on the topic so I'll stop here. And I'm also sorry that this thread has degenerated into so many personal attacks (one of my New Year's resolutions is to do less of that myself)...and, reading the "Gaza" thread in Hyde Park and thinking about the issues related to _that_ situation, there really _are_ more important things in life than getting overheated about threads like this...


----------



## exile in thighville

fa_man_stan said:


> Oh, Ok...l never mind then.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An angry young man who's... edgy... that phase will pass.



god i hope not. i'm actually a very happy person, which doesn't mean i'm soft on offensive bullshit...how old do i have to get before i senile the fuck out on boarders and insinuate they're in the closet?


----------



## MisterGuy

God, how many more threads like this need to exist? People who find images like this erotic are not going anywhere. Neither are the people who find them gross or scary or whatever. There's really nothing to discuss, but it seems like what _everyone_ on Dimensions agrees about and gets off on are the need to be offended always and to constantly have nitty, bitter, unnecessarily personal, and deeply stupid arguments about anything.


----------



## NancyGirl74

I think Stan is speaking the truth...his truth as he sees it. And apparently he's quite passionate about it. Good for you, Stan! 

Personally, agree with a lot of what Stan is saying. To me images like the one's in the original post are unpleasant and detrimental to Size Acceptance goals. That being said, I also agree with the person who made the statement (sorry I don't remember who) that Dims is both a Size Acceptance Site and a Fat Fetish Site. As far as I know Dims has never pretended to be anything other than what it is and that includes both aspects displayed here. 

What I'm trying to say is that there is a gray area being overlooked. Many people who are regular posters are not into one side or the other. Many of us are not activists of the Size Acceptance movement. We don't shout our pride from the roof tops. Many do. Some people here are not into the fetish side of Dims. Many are. If anyone doesn't realize that Size Acceptance and Fat Sexuality/Fetishism are a part of the reason Dims is Dims in the first place then they have been deliberately wearing blinders. Both aspects have a place here...even if they aren't always liked. 

I just want to say that, I don't always love everything that Dimensions represents. In fact, there are some subjects I have disagreed with quite openly. However, I love the sense of community I feel here. I have yet to find that same feeling anywhere else. I have met some wonderful people through Dims and I hope to meet many more (Stan, you are totally on my list). 

Hmm...I kinda went off topic but there you go. Hope my ramblings have meaning to someone.


----------



## exile in thighville

LalaCity said:


> I guess you're implying that I don't have a brain....



Or that I'm not required to explain my sexuality to you.


----------



## superodalisque

LalaCity said:


> I guess you're implying that I don't have a brain...I had hoped that my post would garner a more favorable response than that. It seems failed miserably to get my point across.
> 
> I choose to co-exist with elements that are distasteful to me on this board -- Just as, I imagine, you do. I am not trying to change anyone's sexual preferences. But I do have to live with the repercussions of how fat women are depicted in our society. Even cartoonish, implausible images have an impact -- more so, perhaps, than strictly true-to-life images...that is to say, they reveal people's true impressions of fat people because the exaggeration is designed to play up some overt aspect of the stereotype.
> 
> The question as put forth by the OP is really, if I'm reading correctly, how much exposure should these images have with regard to the size acceptance movement...my _persona_l desire, obviously, is that they wouldn't be at the forefront. I don't know if they _are_ at the forefront of Dims exactly, but they are more readily apparent than some people seem to want to admit. In my case, for example, they were first things I clicked on when I came to the Dimensions site however many years ago, and I'm still coming to terms with them.
> 
> I understand that it is unpleasant to hear that some people are hurt by the images or ideas which make up your sexual fantasy. Kinda kills the buzz, I'd imagine. What can I say? That's my honest feeling. I'm sorry that it's offensive to you, but, again, we all tolerate things which are uncomfortable or offensive for us at some point here. I'm enough of an adult to understand that this is fantasy for some and they have the right to express it, even if it makes me uneasy. I hope that you can appreciate that my feelings are _also_ part of the equation of what constitutes the ethos and "culture" of this board.




i have to say i'm with you here. i'm proud of you for saying this. for a long time i think women here have been shushed if they say that they are not personally interested in this kind of fantasy. i think a lot of guys either don't want to hear it or believe it because it makes them feel worse about their preference and how they express it. but if you feel it it has to be said. pretending something is okay with you, that is not, isn't where its at. also i think if guys get the truth then they don't get as disappointed when they realized that what they read on model blurbs in websites and in weight gain and feeder fantasies and real women don't often match up. if they understood what real everyday fat women are truly like they'd be more likely to be able to actually get them to participate willingly in some of their fantasies. a lot of women have no problem at all with it if they feel respected over all and wanted as a woman and a person by someone filled with affection for them. but there is a way to present things. sometimes people don't get it when you are actually trying to help them to get some of what they want by being truthful.


----------



## Fascinita

SocialbFly said:


> ok...average people *dont see the humor or the "cuteness" in these at all*, i ask you too, would you show them to coworkers, i wouldnt, i think they stereotype fat women, all you need is bon bons...i wouldnt hang them, show them, own them...
> 
> i wouldnt attend a dance with these women on the fliers for they can't dance can they? While this is an assumption, i know the problems i have, i cant imagine these women have any less issues...
> 
> 
> these pictures to me are more stereotypically* fetish related*...bbws breaking furniture due to their weight, slings holding huge breasts up, just watching tv or sitting at the computer...notice all of these are singular events...*no one is with them at all, how sad*...
> 
> my response of what i do like to see is coming as soon as i find a pic i am looking for...
> 
> these pics made me sad...i dont see them as *loving for anyone except the artist*, he loves that, finds that appealing, and i am glad he likes it, we all have to have what we find attractive, but i dont to agree with it.





SocialbFly said:


> That being said, i would like to show you the work of Eva Hannah, her Fat Ladies art work *show fat women as beautiful, happy, and in everyday activities*, that is who i am, that is how i want to be seen...
> 
> *i dont want to be seen as a solitary fat woman striving to find a connection in a world that doesnt see me or understand me*, and i think the original pictures, while i am not coming down on them, don't describe me at all...and it isnt who i want to be seen as....





Some really excellent points made in your posts above, Social. They bear repeating. :bow:


----------



## SocialbFly

to not furthre piss me off, i will step away from the computer now, and not post what i was going to post.

Stan, thank you for an interesting discussion, but the original question still needs to be answered, what were you hoping to gain by this discussion?


----------



## LalaCity

exile in thighville said:


> Or that I'm not required to explain my sexuality to you.



I never asked you to. I just gave my honest thoughts in response to the OP.


----------



## SocialbFly

superodalisque said:


> i have to say i'm with you here. i'm proud of you for saying this. for a long time i think women here have been shushed if they say that they are not personally interested in this kind of fantasy. i think a lot of guys either don't want to hear it or believe it because it makes them feel worse about their preference and how they express it. but if you feel it it has to be said. pretending something is okay with you, that is not, isn't where its at. also i think if guys get the truth then they don't get as disappointed when they realized that what they read on model blurbs in websites and in weight gain and feeder fantasies and real women don't often match up. if they understood what fat women are really like they'd be more likely to be able to actually get them to participate willingly in some of their fantasies. a lot of women have no problem at all with it if they feel respected over all and wanted as a woman and a person by someone filled with affection for them. but there is a way to present things. sometimes people don't get it when you are actually trying to help them to get some of what they want by being truthful.




I agree with you both. I hope and pray those pictures never represent me, they are the stereotypical opinion so may people have when they pass out stickers at BBW conventions that say "dont feed the fat people".

Those pictures do nothing but make me sad and pray they will never be me or represent me.


----------



## Fascinita

Ashley said:


> First I'd like to say that the distinction really needs to be made, in all of our minds and in this whole fatty scene, that size acceptance and extreme weight gain/extreme fatness/the sexualization of the extremely fat body are not the same thing. The images you've posted have nothing to do with size acceptance. At all. They are tangible illustrations of a sexual preference or fetish (I won't start that argument here). They have nothing to do with activism or the rights of fat people in the slightest.



One other point I'd like to expand on in replying to Ashley's insightful post is that I think part of what we struggle with in SA is that we, as fat folks, should not be denied the right to be sexual. Much, though by no means all, of size discrimination hinges on ideas of fat people as a-sexual or desexualized slothful "blobs." 

In the end, I *do* see *Size Acceptance* as *related* in some measure *to fat sexuality*, though by no means as exactly equal to it.


----------



## Chimpi

LalaCity said:


> The second picture, in particular, really offends me -- getting off on the suffering and immobility of a woman of extreme size...if anything, it's extremely hostile to women.



I get off on it.
I do not get off on the suffering and immobility of a woman of extreme size.
I am not extremely hostile to women.

*EDIT:* Had I realized I was so far down the thread, away from your post, I would never have posted that.


----------



## TraciJo67

JoyJoy said:


> Treading lightly, too.
> 
> After reading the thread, I think that Stan's original point has been lost in a mire of personal insult and people getting offended.
> 
> It doesn't seem like his original point/question was about whether or not there was something wrong with the pictures themselves, but if people felt that having them readily accessible as one of the top links on the main page that many people would more than likely see when they're brand new to the site was something that would be negative and put people off the more general themes of Dimensions. I know that it does, because I've had more than one person tell me so. I don't tell people about Dimensions now, unless they already know about it, because frankly, many people wouldn't understand.
> 
> No one, that I have seen, has even implied that the drawings should be removed entirely, and I honestly don't believe the intent of the thread initially was to make those who enjoy them feel bad. It just seems a bit like having Penthouse magazine laying open to the centerfold in the foyer for guests to see when they first arrive at your home. They might not be surprised or offended to find out later that you read them, but having them placed so blatantly might make them hesitant to stay.



I haven't read the entire thread, and probably should have before dumping my own contribution into it. 

If this is similar to what you were trying to say, Stan ... then I understand. I don't agree entirely, as I'm not sure that Dims is trying to appeal to mainstream moms 'n pops so much as creating a niche for fat admirers to plunk themselves down for a spell. Fat women ... rather an afterthought, given the nature of some of these threads/ideologies (many of them not very welcoming or even outright hostile in tone or intent). As much as I dislike this concept, I've had to make an uneasy truce with it, because there is nothing out there even remotely as interesting to me as the people here at Dims. I didn't create Dims. I have no real say in how it is run. And BELIEVE ME, I'm not defending the owner (BELIEVE me) so much as shrugging my shoulders in resignation and walking away from a fight that I can't possibly win. 

And Joy, as for the drawings themselves, they seem rather harmless to me. I absolutely understand what other (female) contributers were trying to say about their feelings, when viewing them. But I don't think anyone has the right to then go on and suggest --- however obliquely -- that others who find them provocative, sexy, harmless, exciting (or what have you) are pervy deviants. That is something I surmised in the last few pages that I did read.


----------



## ThatFatGirl

Webmaster said:


> That's a very misleading statement. Those images are quite obviously not on the front page of Dimensions. You may get to them via some link. Overall, I think the question is misguided and reaching.
> 
> *First of all, Dimensions is not a general size acceptance site. It is a site that celebrates big beauty with all its implications, and that includes people's fantasies. *
> 
> Second, if you really want to, you can poke such holes into just about any group or movement. For example, Gay Rights are a legitimate political movement. I don't think you'd then post big close-ups of explicit sexual acts on their forums and ask if such imagery is not detrimental to the cause. Communities and their sexuality are two different issues.




My reply began as a big multi-quote response, but I decided the one above is the only one that ultimately matters here. As has been said, Dimensions is what it is and what it is, is stated clearly by the site-owner above. Choosing to financially support it does not mean you get to determine site content or what goes on the front page. This is Conrad's world and there's a lot of good stuff to be had here. If it isn't everything you think it should be, then by all means, take on the project of creating a new Fat or Size positive site. Go for it! Keep us posted. Variety is the spice of life. I'd love to have several happy fatty sites to visit.


----------



## gildalive

ThatFatGirl said:


> My reply began as a big multi-quote response, but I decided the one above is the only one that ultimately matters here. As has been said, Dimensions is what it is and what it is, is stated clearly by the site-owner above. Choosing to financially support it does not mean you get to determine site content or what goes on the front page. This is Conrad's world and there's a lot of good stuff to be had here. If it isn't everything you think it should be, then by all means, take on the project of creating a new Fat or Size positive site. Go for it! Keep us posted. Variety is the spice of life. I'd love to have several happy fatty sites to visit.



Why is this always the answer? Why is "if you don't like it, then leave" the magic, snide trump card that always gets played? I'm sick of it. I really am, and I can't imagine that I'm the only one.


----------



## superodalisque

gildalive said:


> Why is this always the answer? Why is "if you don't like it, then leave" the magic, snide trump card that always gets played? I'm sick of it. I really am, and I can't imagine that I'm the only one.



i think TFG is a great person but, yes, i find it rather dismissive as well. right now it may not happen. but it would be sad if one day people were taken up on it. i guess the numbers mean nothing to people.


----------



## HeatherBBW

fa_man_stan said:


> Maybe we can have a civilized conversation once you've calmed down... and keep this in mind... You are the boss to some of the folks here. Maybe there are some things they might not tell you out of fear of offending you.
> 
> Just delete my account... ban me... I'll go away. You're not my boss...
> 
> Is it still OK if I go to the Dims bash...? ;-) ... and I would maybe suggest a little heart to heart talk with some folks here in Dims...



It's impossible to have a civilized conversation with you, because you are being uncivilized. You apparently have some view of me that is completely off base. I am not the boss of anyone but myself when it comes to expression of my thoughts and opinions. Sure, I have a business and some people that frequent these boards work for such businesses but that has nothing to do with this thread whatsoever. As for fear of being offensive to me, that's absolutely ridiculous. Anyone that knows me, knows that I very open minded and completely open to being in disagreement on certain issues with one another. If I surrounded myself with people who only liked what I liked or thought what I thought.. that would make a pretty uninteresting world. I have no problem with what you think should and shouldn't appear on Dimensions. I just say that you went about this the wrong way for your own personal gain and it had to be obvious to you or you'd be a fool.

Why do you keep baiting me to delete your account or ban you? Do you think I do this often or would do so for you being a total jerk in this thread? That isn't and hasn't ever been my place here on Dimensions. I've banned only one person in my Dimensions Moderator history and that was a racist person who posted ramblings of hate. Never any other person and I've NEVER insisted that I was the boss of anyone. Especially not you, if you really want to go away because you hate what Dimensions encompasses, then go away. I don't know what else you want to hear. Do you want to hear that you are right? Well you can keep holding your breath. Because when it comes to opinions, there is no right or wrong. What this site houses is up to Conrad and Conrad alone. 

First off, I missed this the first time and if you had a valid question, there wasn't a need to write it in white, so it was barely visible. Your participation and attendance in the Dimensions Bash should have absolutely nothing with our disagreement in opinions. What kind of person do you think I am? Also, why do you think it's necessary for me to have a heart to heart with folks who are considering attending that may be offended by my preferences and defense of them in this thread? Are you now forming an army of non-abiding-fetishist-picture-viewers to protest the convention unless I say something that makes them feel better? Quite frankly Stan, I thought you were a better person. I've seen your participation on the boards in other areas and have enjoyed your posts, your pictures of yourself, your family and the outings with mutual Dimmers. I'm shocked at your behavior and lack of respect, reason and mental capacity in this thread. It seems to me that you've been harboring resentment over these pictures being on this page for quite some time and have begged for the Conrad to be your audience to hear your thoughts and he hasn't done so, therefore you thought it would be best to throw a tantrum to get your point across to try to gain his attention. Your attempts are childish at best and I'm disappointed as a whole. But I'm not the boss of you, so don't worry about my dismay, shock or disappointment.


----------



## Donna

gildalive said:


> Why is this always the answer? Why is "if you don't like it, then leave" the magic, snide trump card that always gets played? I'm sick of it. I really am, and I can't imagine that I'm the only one.





superodalisque said:


> i think TFG is a great person but, yes, i find it rather dismissive as well. right now it may not happen. but it would be sad if one day people were taken up on it. i guess the numbers mean nothing to people.



Knowing Laura from posting and chatting with her over a few years, I am pretty sure she was not being snide. She was simply saying, if this website isn't what you want, make your own. We're not a democracy here, and while differing opinions are shared, tolerated and discussed, ultimately it is Conrad's site and he alone ultimately determines what is and isn't included.

It's just one of those things that is what it is. This topic (and others) have been picked apart and analyzed to death. The result? A lot of drama, hurt feelings and rhetoric. What more is there to say, really?


----------



## JoyJoy

TraciJo67 said:


> I haven't read the entire thread, and probably should have before dumping my own contribution into it.
> 
> If this is similar to what you were trying to say, Stan ... then I understand. I don't agree entirely, as I'm not sure that Dims is trying to appeal to mainstream moms 'n pops so much as creating a niche for fat admirers to plunk themselves down for a spell. Fat women ... rather an afterthought, given the nature of some of these threads/ideologies (many of them not very welcoming or even outright hostile in tone or intent). As much as I dislike this concept, I've had to make an uneasy truce with it, because there is nothing out there even remotely as interesting to me as the people here at Dims. I didn't create Dims. I have no real say in how it is run. And BELIEVE ME, I'm not defending the owner (BELIEVE me) so much as shrugging my shoulders in resignation and walking away from a fight that I can't possibly win.
> 
> And Joy, as for the drawings themselves, they seem rather harmless to me. I absolutely understand what other (female) contributers were trying to say about their feelings, when viewing them. But I don't think anyone has the right to then go on and suggest --- however obliquely -- that others who find them provocative, sexy, harmless, exciting (or what have you) are pervy deviants. That is something I surmised in the last few pages that I did read.


 I agree completely on all of this. I think that those who like the pics should not have been made to feel that there was something wrong with them. I'm not defending anyone who caused them to feel that way. Everyone has a right to what turns their crank, and I wouldn't dream of denying them that. I don't like the pictures or anything like them, but I respect that there are those who do. I just don't think it's unreasonable to ask that such things be placed in an area that's not hanging on the front door, out of respect for those of us who are uncomfortable with them. Because yes, this is Conrad's house, and it's been expressed many times how we are all very grateful to him and I know that continues to be true, but he willingly opened the door to all of us, and let us move in. To many of us, this is "home" on the 'net. I'd think that would give our feelings and opinions credence.


----------



## D_A_Bunny

I have read thru this entire thread and the following are my opinions and statements only.

1st - This is Conrad's playhouse. We have been invited in to play. If at any time we are no longer enjoying ourselves, then we are free to leave.

2nd - It is my understanding that Dims magazine started as an extension or evolution of the FA Sig of Naafa and then thru magazine popularity into this site and forum. Therefore, shouldn't we expect to welcome all FAs here? Do they have to prove their size acceptance before they can come in?

3rd - The photos are *fetish*. It clearly states, pictures by MEGA FANTASIZER. That is pretty clear to me.

4th - I am very upset and saddened by the fact that one of our members (esp. one who is actively working on creating a bash for US) is in any way being singled out and disrespected by anyone here.

5th - There are many sides to this place. It is one thing to some and something else to another. For me, I am blessed to have the resources of the SS board. Also, I enjoy reading all different threads on the many forums and sharing (or not) and learning about others. For my husband, he enjoys the fiction and the artwork (yes, even the original art).

6th - Stan, may I present a hypothetical question to you? If you have a party at your home and choose to play Jimi Hendrix music all night and someone decides they don't like JH, what if they went around and asked the crowd their opinions and 70% said, we don't really like JH music, should you change it? Would you change it? What if the house was full and there were people outside who might enjoy it? Maybe the others should leave and make room for the crowd and appreciate your hospitality and goodies and just tune out the background music or go in the other room and enjoy a great conversation with someone who is interesting and discuss something other than Jimi Hendrix music.

7th - Now, about the referenced artwork - for me, I do not think they "promote" size acceptance. That is not their purpose. Therefore, they are, nor are they not, doing something they were never meant to do. Some people enjoy them and some do not. But, since they have nothing to do with size acceptance, they should not be held up to that standard.

8th - I do think Stan, that if eventually your point that you want to make, is that this artwork is somehow "bad press" for Dims, then maybe Dims is not what you think it is. Dimensions is whatever Conrad deems it to be. It may ebb & flow with the members, the topics, the moods, etc., but ultimately it will come back to what it was born to be.

I would like to end my post by saying that each person here has an opinion. If someone's opinion affects another's opinion, then that is what will be, or maybe it won't affect their opinion at all.

Please Stan, tell us, why are you asking this question? Is there a point that you want to make?

Also, I would like to state to the board in general that insulting someone and than stating, "well, that is just my opinion" is just a means to disguise an insult. I am not suggesting that anyone should become PC, I am merely requesting that everyone remember to treat each other with the respect that we all deserve.


----------



## ThatFatGirl

gildalive said:


> Why is this always the answer? Why is "if you don't like it, then leave" the magic, snide trump card that always gets played? I'm sick of it. I really am, and I can't imagine that I'm the only one.



Yikes.... not my meaning at all. Sorry, I should've spent time on the long reply I originally had in mind.



superodalisque said:


> i think TFG is a great person but, yes, i find it rather dismissive as well. right now it may not happen. but it would be sad if one day people were taken up on it. i guess the numbers mean nothing to people.



I think you're great too, SuperO. thanks...  I wasn't suggesting people leave Dimensions, but to accept it can't be everything to everyone and some diversity would be nice if others out there actually wanted to take the time and effort to make a site that was more fat/size positive - Not a matter of this OR that, but this AND that.



Donna said:


> Knowing Laura from posting and chatting with her over a few years, I am pretty sure she was not being snide. She was simply saying, if this website isn't what you want, make your own. We're not a democracy here, and while differing opinions are shared, tolerated and discussed, ultimately it is Conrad's site and he alone ultimately determines what is and isn't included.
> 
> It's just one of those things that is what it is. This topic (and others) have been picked apart and analyzed to death. The result? A lot of drama, hurt feelings and rhetoric. What more is there to say, really?



Exactly, Donna. Thank you. 

I've been a part of this community for five years and a financial supporter as much as I've been able to do. Is it everything I want it to be? Absolutely not... but as I said, this is Conrad's world. I've offered my two cents MANY times and Conrad has been extremely accommodating by evolving this site to include a health board, an ssbbw board, as well as breaking down the weight board into categories so those of us into certain aspects of it can more easily view only those boards of interest. I acknowledge though that Dimensions cannot be everything to everyone and wouldn't it be great if there were more size and fat positive sites to visit.


----------



## supersoup

i just have to say that it saddens me that once this thread has run its course, and once all involved can step away...people's perceptions of fellow members, and their feelings towards them have been changed. all because we need to argue about who has the right to fap to whatever makes them randy, and whether or not that material makes the fapper morally sound.

fucking ridiculous.

the name calling and assumptions by the op make me sick. great job stan, really. let me personally throw in my congratulations on becoming an incendiary turd on these boards. 

closeted fetish peekers. that's fucking ludicrous.


----------



## Ash

fa_man_stan said:


> I shall return tonight to finish this debate. The only one I am interested in addressing on this subject is Risible, because she is the only one here (on this thread, so far that I've seen...) who displays the type of art in question... publicly in her home, takes pride in what she likes and presents it to people who visit her (as I have witnessed...) in a manner that is informative and positive. *She is not some closeted "fetish" peeker like most of you appear to be who are debating the validity of this poll.* Tina and others I also respect because they know how to "eloquently" display such art and keep it from whacking the "general public" upside the head in a way that negatively effects how fat people and FAs are viewed ... yes people like you and I, Conrad. Esotericize this subject all you want, this type of art DOES negatively effect how fat acceptance (size acceptance... whatever...) is viewed by the general public. At least if this poll is any indication, approx. 70 percent of the people here on Dimensions think so. At very least, you have a public relations problem on your hands Conrad. And I'll repeat myself, I'm not critiquing this art, I have a BFA in Sculpture (aka... art) myself. I'm very well aware of the power of art, and even though this type of art isn't my "thing", I don't have anything against per se. It is what it is... period. If you like it, you like it... if you don't, you don't... Everyone is entitled to an opinion... (This is for you Sandie Z...)
> 
> This is your website Conrad and as I've said before, if you think I'm just some trouble making shyster of a FA, it is your prerogative to ban me, or sensor me as you have done in the past on this basic subject. All I have been asking is (and you continue to skirt any sort of answer) is basically "Are you attempting to desensitize us to this art (here in Dimensions) by displaying this type of art?" If not, is this just a type of art that you happen to "really like", and just enjoy sharing it with the world, despite the reaction that has been taking place to it over the years (and still now)? Again Conrad, I have nothing against this art per se... I just think (in my humble opinion) you need to be smarter in how you present it, and realize how it effects many fat people here (70% of Dimmers?) and how the FAs feel it may effect them. (And trust me, it does, I've had to explain my preference a few times myself because of this...) Until you answer this basic question, or at least have a good long though about this, I have nothing further to say to you.
> 
> For the sake of simplifying this debate... I will take "Dan ex-thighville-guy-who-loves-fat-chicks" point of view that this art is "fetish"... even though I still think that is an artificial label given by those who don't even want to make an attempt to "mainstream" this type of art... And Dan, as self proclaimed representative of all FAs... "the guy who likes fat chicks"... you need to be better versed in representing us FAs if you are going to attempt such a feat... You are the new generation of FA... be ready for tonight's debate. :bow:
> 
> You too Risible, I'll be back. :bow:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yes... and "The Webmaster" is in fact correct. I am a "deceptive" shyster... These images in question aren't on the "front page" of Dimensionsmagazine.com... as I stated earlier... They are links (my bad...) on the front page... clearly labeled...one click away.
> 
> 
> DIMENSIONSMAGAZINE.COM --->
> 
> Ok... I do actually have respect for more of you, so I'll answer a few more...
> 
> 
> To Heather:
> 
> Maybe we can have a civilized conversation once you've calmed down... and keep this in mind... You are the boss to some of the folks here. Maybe there are some things they might not tell you out of fear of offending you.
> 
> Just delete my account... ban me... I'll go away. You're not my boss...
> 
> Is it still OK if I go to the Dims bash...? ;-) ... and I would maybe suggest a little heart to heart talk with some folks here in Dims...
> 
> to Ashley:
> 
> Ashley, look at the stats of this poll. High science it may not be, but *70% +* of the Dimmers who responded feel that these images are detrimental to fat acceptance... *70% +*
> 
> Many of these people even took the extra step of saying that these types of images offend them.
> 
> Is that coexisting? Think about it. Perhaps that's imposition.
> 
> I am still sincerely interested in the 4(?) folks who posted that they feel these images have a positive impact on fat acceptance other than they are "fetish" images that they happen to like and feel should be presented to the world.



Stan, are you kidding me? 

First of all, I do appreciate being called a "closeted 'fetish' peeker". That's nice. I'm sure all of your sexual fantasies are illustrated, matted, framed, and hung in your living room. 

Secondly, I really resent the implication that because Heather is my "boss", my opinion is invalid as I'm probably just pandering to her. You may find this hard to believe, but I do have a mind of my own and even if Heather asked me (which, for the record would never, ever happen) to agree with her on the boards with something that goes against my own beliefs, I wouldn't. I'm my own person and I have my own feelings. 

And finally, 70% of people on these boards do not understand images like these. They don't find them sexually interesting, and they don't understand why they're here. But guess what? They are still a part of what Dimensions is about: fat sexuality. It's not going away. And, like it or not (and this point has been made thousands and thousands of times in threads like this), this is a private board. Choosing to donate does not make you a stakeholder in the Dimensions corporation. Conrad owns Dimensions and he chooses its structure and its content. You don't like it? Don't donate. I'm sure those of us who DO like it will continue to do so.


----------



## HeatherBBW

fa_man_stan said:


> Excellent! I now have an audience with The Webmaster and his crew of moderators. The epic battle in this debate may now begin. :bow:



As I just stated in my previous post. It seems you set up this poll strictly to throw a big enough tantrum to gain the attention of Conrad. The fact that you even call it "Excellent!" proves that point.



fa_man_stan said:


> I shall return tonight to finish this debate. The only one I am interested in addressing on this subject is Risible, because she is the only one here (on this thread, so far that I've seen...) who displays the type of art in question... publicly in her home, takes pride in what she likes and presents it to people who visit her (as I have witnessed...) in a manner that is informative and positive. She is not some closeted "fetish" peeker like most of you appear to be who are debating the validity of this poll. Tina and others I also respect because they know how to "eloquently" display such art and keep it from whacking the "general public" upside the head in a way that negatively effects how fat people and FAs are viewed ... yes people like you and I, Conrad. Esotericize this subject all you want, this type of art DOES negatively effect how fat acceptance (size acceptance... whatever...) is viewed by the general public. At least if this poll is any indication, approx. 70 percent of the people here on Dimensions think so. At very least, you have a public relations problem on your hands Conrad. And I'll repeat myself, I'm not critiquing this art, I have a BFA in Sculpture (aka... art) myself. I'm very well aware of the power of art, and even though this type of art isn't my "thing", I don't have anything against per se. It is what it is... period. If you like it, you like it... if you don't, you don't... Everyone is entitled to an opinion... (This is for you Sandie Z...)



So now you make the assumption just because you've personally seen it that Risible is the only one worth hearing from and responding to because she displays fat art in her living room. Well then shall I take pictures of my very living room that has shelves filled with fat girl book ends, fat sculptures and fat positive literature? Will that make my postings more valid? I even wear a fat goddess pendant whenever I go out to display that I am fat and proud. Would I have artwork of my fat fetish/fantasies in my house or display them on my body... the answer is No! Once again, you miss the point that there is size acceptance and sexuality. A huge, huge difference. For the gazillionth time, this site isn't a size acceptance site... it's a community that's content is decided by Conrad the owner of the site. Some people might find self/fat acceptance here or even sexual acceptance or whatever, but ultimately, it's up to you what you make of it and if you'd like to stay. This site is also FREE and has always been. You aren't a paid member. If you do send in donations, that doesn't make you a paid member, only one who donates to a site. It doesn't give you a voice as to what can be featured here or not. So your threat of a public relations problem is void. Because he doesn't and shouldn't have to answer to anyone here, unless he starts charging. At that time and only at that time will you be able to be an irate customer who DEMANDS an answer.



fa_man_stan said:


> This is your website Conrad and as I've said before, if you think I'm just some trouble making shyster of a FA, it is your prerogative to ban me, or sensor me as you have done in the past on this basic subject. All I have been asking is (and you continue to skirt any sort of answer) is basically "Are you attempting to desensitize us to this art (here in Dimensions) by displaying this type of art?" If not, is this just a type of art that you happen to "really like", and just enjoy sharing it with the world, despite the reaction that has been taking place to it over the years (and still now)? Again Conrad, I have nothing against this art per se... I just think (in my humble opinion) you need to be smarter in how you present it, and realize how it effects many fat people here (70% of Dimmers?) and how the FAs feel it may effect them. (And trust me, it does, I've had to explain my preference a few times myself because of this...) Until you answer this basic question, or at least have a good long though about this, I have nothing further to say to you.



That horse you are on is getting way too high. First off this thread doesn't represent 70% of the thousands upon thousands of Dimmers. It's only based on the 100+ people who have voted. I also think that many people find the question in your poll confusing. As for your dismissal of Conrad if he doesn't answer you or think long and hard as to what you've stated... is just unreal and you should be ashamed of yourself.



fa_man_stan said:


> For the sake of simplifying this debate... I will take "Dan ex-thighville-guy-who-loves-fat-chicks" point of view that this art is "fetish"... even though I still think that is an artificial label given by those who don't even want to make an attempt to "mainstream" this type of art... And Dan, as self proclaimed representative of all FAs... "the guy who likes fat chicks"... you need to be better versed in representing us FAs if you are going to attempt such a feat... You are the new generation of FA... be ready for tonight's debate. :bow:
> 
> You too Risible, I'll be back. :bow:



It's apparent you only read or see what you want to read or see. What Dan was saying was his thoughts and expressions from the other side of the fence. He's not saying he's speaking for all FAs. 




fa_man_stan said:


> Oh yes... and "The Webmaster" is in fact correct. I am a "deceptive" shyster... These images in question aren't on the "front page" of Dimensionsmagazine.com... as I stated earlier... They are links (my bad...) on the front page... clearly labeled...one click away.



Yes they are links that are clearly labeled. Any educated adult can read the title and know what they will find after clicking it. It's also amongst other links that are completely non-fantasy related. What Conrad was trying to say, is that he doesn't use those graphics to depict his site or use them as his graphics on his front page to define what Dimensions is. He does however allow people to share those fantasy images on this site, for people like myself who'd enjoy seeing them. 

All in all, this seems to be a personal crusade for you. Something that's been bothering for you for a long time based on your replies. You also think you have to build an army to demand it be recognized that you don't approve. What you hope to accomplish from that is beyond me. I think that even the people who agree with you or have agreed with you in this thread that these images are misplaced here on Dimensions would vote that you are being a total and absolute jerk in your attempt to be heard.


----------



## Blackjack

I'm going to post this pic in this trainwreck of a thread 'til it becomes relevant.


----------



## bexy

Blackjack said:


> I'm going to post this pic in this trainwreck of a thread 'til it becomes relevant.



What, no Star Trek Gif?!


----------



## tonynyc

Blackjack said:


> I'm going to post this pic in this trainwreck of a thread 'til it becomes relevant.



Funny pic- I'm betting this thread goes the road of "Hyde Park" or "Closure"


----------



## superodalisque

Donna said:


> Knowing Laura from posting and chatting with her over a few years, I am pretty sure she was not being snide. She was simply saying, if this website isn't what you want, make your own. We're not a democracy here, and while differing opinions are shared, tolerated and discussed, ultimately it is Conrad's site and he alone ultimately determines what is and isn't included.
> 
> It's just one of those things that is what it is. This topic (and others) have been picked apart and analyzed to death. The result? A lot of drama, hurt feelings and rhetoric. What more is there to say, really?



i agree with you. i'm sure she wasn't being snide either. i was lucky enough to meet her in person and i know she is a wonderful woman. 

but i do wonder about the idea that dims is someone's private dominion. is that really how it is? are you sure? is it really the personal "playground" that another poster claims it is? would there be any of this activity without all of the different women and men coming here to make discussions such as these or to post pix or to share thier lives. could/would Conrad sit in a room alone without any of the rest of us and create the thing that is dims? don't undersell your own value. i wouldn't think that even he believes that. otherwise why make such a huge effort at all?

the entire problem overall is the low civility level in general. your right, there is much too much drama. i feel like playing Mary J. Blige right now. its sad that people can't come in and discuss something honestly without all of the name calling and offensive and dismissive talk. its too bad that Conrad is always asked to be big daddy because the adult kiddies can't figure out how to play well together without getting mad. i think people are so tied up in maintaining their own reality sometimes that they can't see someone else's because they always look at it as a threat to thier own.


----------



## Fascinita

HeatherBBW said:


> This site is also FREE and has always been. You aren't a paid member. If you do send in donations, that doesn't make you a paid member, only one who donates to a site. It doesn't give you a voice as to what can be featured here or not. So your threat of a public relations problem is void. Because he doesn't and shouldn't have to answer to anyone here, unless he starts charging. At that time and only at that time will you be able to be an irate customer who DEMANDS an answer.



Heather, I respect your work in furthering the sexuality aspects of size acceptance (and I do see SA and fat sexuality as related.) I'm not addressing the rest of your post as I have no desire to enter an argument with anyone in this thread--I think each side has made valid points.

I do wonder if there's a different way of understanding Dimensions than in the terms you describe above. Sure this site is "free" to use and, if it weren't, would it have nearly as many members? Are the discussions that go on here worth paying for? How much are they worth in dollar terms?

I think some people would say yes, Dimensions is worth paying for. But I bet a lot of people would say no. Yet others might not be able to afford coming here, if there were a member premium required. 

Speech and communication can't be regulated as commerce. There are commercial aspects of Dimensions and of SA, just as there aspects that have nothing to do with business. Discussion... Ideas... These things also add value to this website. 

If these discussions didn't take place here, I bet another outlet would spring up to serve the void. Why? Because these discussions are long overdue. Fat people have been marginalized for too long. Whether we're talking about sexuality or about job discrimination, clearly a lot of us have a lot to say. It's a good thing Dimensions is here, but would it be Dimensions if those of us who congregate here to express ourselves as fat people looking for more than we've been allotted suddenly stopped coming here?

In other words, I don't believe anyone can put a price on Dimensions, possibly not even Conrad. This is a complicated, often wonderful place that we all seem to need. I think most of us are glad it exists. Many of us acknowledge--often and publicly--Conrad's beneficence. Would Dimensions as we know it exist without him? Absolutely not. Is it a good thing that all kinds of fat sexuality are allowed to show their faces here? I believe it is. But we go too far when we discount the contributions and needs of everyone who contributes to this site or when we suggest that non-monetary contributions are somehow less valuable than not.

I understand you are addressing certain antagonistic words that were used in this debate, and I do think your point above has merit. I only would like to ask that we expand the definition of what it is that truly makes Dimensions "valuable" for everyone here. Thanks for reading.


----------



## Sandie S-R

tonynyc said:


> Funny pic- I'm betting this thread goes the road of "Hyde Park" or "Closure"



You could get a job with the Psychic Friends Network.


----------



## NancyGirl74

Blackjack said:


> I'm going to post this pic in this trainwreck of a thread 'til it becomes relevant.



Apparently 74.29% people find this thread relevant. Just because something is controversial doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed...heatedly...


----------



## tonynyc

Sandie S-R said:


> You could get a job with the Psychic Friends Network.



Thanks Sandie one can certainly dream and I have to commend Stan on his creative use of sampling and statistics- not sure if 100 some odd voters can speak for all in Dims- unless we declare ourselves an Electoral College of Size Accpetance.


----------



## T_Devil

DETRIMENT!
Just because I hate the artwork. I'm sorry if people like it, I don't. It's a detriment because it's going nowhere good. If you got this shit hanging on your walls in your home, my bet is you don't get very many visitors.

It's not about Fat, a fetish or even art. It is what it is and chances are some Zombie out in "fit" land is gonna pick it up and make a nice cruel joke. I don't particularly care because I believe in hating everybody equally. I'm just saying that this kind of crap isn't going to help the acceptance of size. Not now, not ever.

I'm real glad it's all just fantasy and all, but let's face it, a drawing of a woman raping a man in the ass with a strap-on isn't going to help feminism now is it? Of course not. So why should this shit help Size Acceptance? Answer: It doesn't.

/end post.


----------



## olwen

> Yup... in da closet. (I don't know you personally... tell me more if I'm wrong...)
> 
> The whole bunch of you who think this is a "fetish" and who don't want to even attempt to remove the label "fetish"... Why are images of really fat people "fetish"? Why? (clothed people in particular in "typical poses"...) They are just images of really fat people. Perhaps they are wank fodder to you? Maybe that's what makes them "fetish"? These images are "shocking" to many people but there is plenty of "shocking" art that isn't labeled "fetish". All I'm saying is take this art out of the "fetish closet" and attempt to make it somewhat presentable for the sake of us "mainstream" folks who are tired of getting stigmatized by this "fetish" art. Bring it out in the open in a more sensitive way!
> 
> 
> I'll be back tonight.



Stan, I'm just confused by this post....Why do you feel the need to turn sexual images into nonsexual ones? They ARE sexual images. Everyday fat people just don't get that big. They don't. It's obvious to me that they are expressions of someone's fantasy because of the context, and It's fetish because not all FAs are into that. Clearly they were created because someone felt compelled enough to express his sexual feelings. Consider that if they were meant to be expressions of hatred they would have been depicted differently, no? Why would any of us want those sorts of images to be mainstream? They're not supposed to be! They are supposed to be fantasy. I'm not sure why people object so strongly to that. If these images don't represent you or your fantasies then why let it affect you so? Why get mad if someone thinks it does? As was already stated, anyone who would think it would represent all fat admirers has already brought their baggage to the table. Had it been an image of an extremely fat person looking sad and depressed, or doing, I don't know, whatever it is that you would want a nonsexualized fat person to be doing, quess what, they still might think it represents your sexuality. You don't hide it after all do you? You aren't objecting to the image. You object to the thought that someone might think you are sick for being attracted to fat women. We know that isn't the case, but neither you nor I can control what people think. 

Lookit, I do understand how people's interpretations would frustrate you. People assume all kinds of crazy things about BDSM players and that's just something I have to deal with. If I hear people judging us, sure I sigh because I realize they are ill informed. But then I explain how vast the lifestyle is and how many different types of play there are. It's just something I have to do. It really does frustrate me sometimes, but you know, such is life. If I got tired of having to explain it I wouldn't blame the fetish or images that display that fetish, I'd blame the ignorant judgmental people who don't know any better, and I'd blame mainstream society for perpetuating such myths, I'd even blame the players who are irresponsible, but I wouldn't begrudge them their fantasies. 

There isn't a simple way to expose a fetish. Fetishes by nature just aren't simple. There's no way to make them simple and trying to simplify them doesn't do justice to how the people involved in them feel about it. It's almost condescending to make it seem simple. Human sexuality is complicated, period.


----------



## Wild Zero

Is guro a detriment to amputees fighting discrimination? What about peg legged pirates?


----------



## Victim

One thing for sure, if this art wasn't detrimental to Size Acceptance before, it sure has become so now, if just for stirring up all these bad feelings amongst people who had reason to call each other friends.


----------



## Chimpi

T_Devil said:


> I'm real glad it's all just fantasy and all, but let's face it, a drawing of a woman raping a man in the ass with a strap-on isn't going to help feminism now is it? Of course not. So why should this shit help Size Acceptance? Answer: It doesn't.



Because these pictures and a picture of "a woman raping a man in the ass with a strap-on" aren't the same. If you think they are, that's fine, but I don't think they are, and so do other people in this thread.


----------



## SocialbFly

Victim said:


> One thing for sure, if this art wasn't detrimental to Size Acceptance before, it sure has become so now, if just for stirring up all these bad feelings amongst people who had reason to call each other friends.



people who are truly friends know that differing opinions do not change friendships at all, only if it is accompanied by lack of respect.


I still see friends.


----------



## T_Devil

Chimpi said:


> Because these pictures and a picture of "a woman raping a man in the ass with a strap-on" aren't the same. If you think they are, that's fine, but I don't think they are, and so do other people in this thread.



It's an opinion poll.
I gave my opinion.
'nuff said.


----------



## swordchick

You are awesome, T Devil. I agree with you, even the comparison. This poll does say a lot about what the active members of Dims feel and think.



T_Devil said:


> DETRIMENT!
> Just because I hate the artwork. I'm sorry if people like it, I don't. It's a detriment because it's going nowhere good. If you got this shit hanging on your walls in your home, my bet is you don't get very many visitors.
> 
> It's not about Fat, a fetish or even art. It is what it is and chances are some Zombie out in "fit" land is gonna pick it up and make a nice cruel joke. I don't particularly care because I believe in hating everybody equally. I'm just saying that this kind of crap isn't going to help the acceptance of size. Not now, not ever.
> 
> I'm real glad it's all just fantasy and all, but let's face it, a drawing of a woman raping a man in the ass with a strap-on isn't going to help feminism now is it? Of course not. So why should this shit help Size Acceptance? Answer: It doesn't.
> 
> /end post.





T_Devil said:


> It's an opinion poll.
> I gave my opinion.
> 'nuff said.


----------



## SocialbFly

you know i have thought about this all day, when i was awake of course...

first of all, even as much as i love dimensions, it is a place i introduce people to cautiously...it is too hard to explain to the average person, much less medical people...certain aspects of dimensions that i have personal issue with, much less public issue with...

i have introduced a couple of people to this site of late, and have had to answer questions regarding why i was here, as they didnt see this as mostly a size acceptance site per se...

i come to dimensions because of two reasons, friendship and support...other parts are gravy on the sammy...

but that doesnt mean i feel i could show this site to just anyone..i have 20 year old twin nieces that could use the support part of dimensions, but the side issues i see here concern me...and that is why i hesitate...i want them to feel respected and even worshiped as a fat girl, but i dont want them to be only seen as masturbatory fodder, although, yes, there is a place for that as well.

i have often wondered if maybe parts of the site shouldnt be password needed for access...only because i feel the butt of societies jokes already...i dont want to give them more stuff to judge me by...

i hope this post made sense, it is just that honestly, we all have different reasons to come here, even those of us in different age groups view it differently...

i know things i did or said in my 20s are now viewed by me so differently than i did and do now at my 40s...so many things i did then i would never do now, so i wonder how many of our more youthful posters will someday have less issues with what some of us older posters are saying, i know this may sound wierd, but i do believe some of this is age related...the younger generation has their life splayed across the internet, while many of us older generation is more cautious in our posting, we see what employers look at, what they see when they see our web pages or who we consort with...

i know many of you will not agree with what i said, that is ok, that is what makes us human isnt it? the willingness to discuss and learn or bend to how others see things too...

so, how do you feel?


----------



## exile in thighville

T_Devil said:


> DETRIMENT!
> Just because I hate the artwork. I'm sorry if people like it, I don't. It's a detriment because it's going nowhere good. If you got this shit hanging on your walls in your home, my bet is you don't get very many visitors.
> 
> It's not about Fat, a fetish or even art. It is what it is and chances are some Zombie out in "fit" land is gonna pick it up and make a nice cruel joke. I don't particularly care because I believe in hating everybody equally. I'm just saying that this kind of crap isn't going to help the acceptance of size. Not now, not ever.
> 
> I'm real glad it's all just fantasy and all, but let's face it, a drawing of a woman raping a man in the ass with a strap-on isn't going to help feminism now is it? Of course not. So why should this shit help Size Acceptance? Answer: It doesn't.
> 
> /end post.



This is absurdly off base...what is size acceptance trying to earn if not the right to be open and out about our kinks? What is feminist or gay acceptance? A woman fucking a man in the ass is certainly not mutually exclusive to feminism, and the problem does not lie with that picture but rather people like you who believe such an act in plain sight devalues the practitioners in some way. There are sex lives and there are real lives. One of the great failings in the world is the jaw-dropping amount of people who conflate the two in order to make misguided judgments. It's logic like this that led to Anita Bryant's campaign to get gay teachers fired from schools. People are exposed to explicit straight and conventional sexuality day in and day out...near-naked girls, dildos in the latest Judd Apatow comedy, tabloid covers about Lindsay Lohan's latest mouthful of pussy. For people to rationalize feeling scandalized by the things they do when confronted with such desensitizing images from other persuasions regularly is hypocritical, cowardly, and mostly, lazy.


----------



## JoyJoy

exile in thighville said:


> This is absurdly off base...what is size acceptance trying to earn if not the right to be open and out about our kinks? What is feminist or gay acceptance? A woman fucking a man in the ass is certainly not mutually exclusive to feminism, and the problem does not lie with that picture but rather people like you who believe such an act in plain sight devalues the practitioners in some way. There are sex lives and there are real lives. One of the great failings in the world is the jaw-dropping amount of people who conflate the two in order to make misguided judgments. It's logic like this that led to Anita Bryant's campaign to get gay teachers fired from schools. People are exposed to explicit straight and conventional sexuality day in and day out...near-naked girls, dildos in the latest Judd Apatow comedy, tabloid covers about Lindsay Lohan's latest mouthful of pussy. For people to rationalize feeling scandalized by the things they do when confronted with such desensitizing images from other persuasions regularly is hypocritical, cowardly, and mostly, lazy.


But you don't desensitize people who have been heavily influenced by the people like Anita Bryant all of their lives, who come here hoping to come to terms with their own self-acceptance, by shoving the extremes at them from the get-go. There is nothing wrong with the fetishes themselves, but people DO assume, and their opinions of a place are going to be formed by what they first see. So people who aren't yet as open as those of us who already know what Dim is about are going to look at what's on the home page and come to their own conclusions based on what's there. It seems very defeating to me.


----------



## exile in thighville

JoyJoy said:


> But you don't desensitize people who have been heavily influenced by the people like Anita Bryant all of their lives, who come here hoping to come to terms with their own self-acceptance, by shoving the extremes at them from the get-go. There is nothing wrong with the fetishes themselves, but people DO assume, and their opinions of a place are going to be formed by what they first see. So people who aren't yet as open as those of us who already know what Dim is about are going to look at what's on the home page and come to their own conclusions based on what's there. It seems very defeating to me.



I don't have an opinion on what Conrad puts on the front page of his site...this community is _big_. If the site didn't bring in so many people he probably would hide them elsewhere in the site. But he doesn't have to, clearly. Maybe the freaks are the majority after all.


----------



## LillyBBBW

JoyJoy said:


> But you don't desensitize people who have been heavily influenced by the people like Anita Bryant all of their lives, who come here hoping to come to terms with their own self-acceptance, by shoving the extremes at them from the get-go. There is nothing wrong with the fetishes themselves, but people DO assume, and their opinions of a place are going to be formed by what they first see. So people who aren't yet as open as those of us who already know what Dim is about are going to look at what's on the home page and come to their own conclusions based on what's there. It seems very defeating to me.



Yeah but when does it stop? Once we take down the objectionable cartoons then people will be afraid granny might get the wrong idea from the paysite board. Then when the paysite board is locked away, the story board will be next. The picture threads might scare off someone too and then moobs will be an issue. People here are mistaken as to what kind of site this is and its objectives which Conrad has been very clear about. A high school popularity contest is hardly going to get the ones nobody voted for kicked out of school or relegated to the back of the cafeteria by the school committee. And I also find it laughable that anyone should be surprised that those voted down aren't being more understanding of their feelings. Nobody seems to give a shit about ours. People can't wait to get up to the podium and tell us how uncomfortable they are with us here, along with a show of hands as to how many truly loath our presence. And yes, I am taking it personally. In a similar situation you would too.


----------



## BothGunsBlazing

Is it okay to be just a regular ol' FA who doesn't support feederism and these type of images? Ask your regular everyday average person and they'll say that if you're encouraging "obesity" in any way, you yourself are a detriment and I should know, since I've heard this my entire life.


----------



## LillyBBBW

BothGunsBlazing said:


> Is it okay to be just a regular ol' FA who doesn't support feederism and these type of images? Ask your regular everyday average person and they'll say that if you're encouraging "obesity" in any way, you yourself are a detriment and I should know, since I've heard this my entire life.



No. Because people like you are incapable of love.


----------



## Weeze

I really don't understand why this thread is 10 PAGES LONG!! 
This really doesn't seem like a difficult thing. This is the way it freaking is. If you don't like it, you can leave. Really. Its that easy. I don't see why we need to keep pushing the issue over certain people POSSIBLY being offended when your FRIENDS any other time are coming right out and telling you that what you're saying about their preferences is "wrong."
Knock it off.
There's enough other crap from EVERYONE else in the world, its so stupid for people to be arguing here too. It really isn't worth it.


Much Love,
Krissy.


----------



## 1300 Class

Rock on Lilly, show'em whoese the boss round this part! Yeahhh!


----------



## Ernest Nagel

I wish I could address almost every point in this thread. It has been very cathartic for me. SBF made me notice something though (as she's wont to do; thanks, Di!) IMO this discussion comes down to _context_, really. Not just the perspective of age, gender or fetishist/non-fetishist but in the sense of "where do we think we are?".

For a lot (most?) of us I think Dims is a kind of refuge, a safe haven from the judgments and labels of the thin-centric world. Coming here and seeing images like those in question feels a bit like having your home invaded. You're just not expecting it _here_. It's worse than seeing a mustache and bushy eyebrows on the Mona Lisa in the Louvre. It's being forced to experience the same revulsion and disgust that we fear others feel when they see us or the ones we love.

I have always been attracted to SS/BBW. I'm not so naive as to imagine all men will feel about them as I do but I think many could learn to _appreciate_ if not outright adore the larger figure, given the right space and encouragement. The wank-fodder caricatures Stan addresses are unreal distortions and ludicrous exagerrations. You could no more learn BBW appreciation from them than human relations from the 3 Stooges. 

I've ducked expressing my honest opinion in the name of "tolerance" and for the sake of respecting the board rules. Even though Conrad created and maintains this space the fact is he doesn't generate the community it has become. IMO this place has been sanctified by the words, tears, hearts and souls of those who share their lives so openly here every day.

I don't think it's any coincidence the last time Stan went "rogue" was over the males excluded SSBBW forum. They deserve a sanctuary, no doubt; someplace where respect and reality don't rub shoulders with those just looking to get their rocks off. What about the rest of us though? If someone (SS/BBW's & FA's) comes here for a safe port in a storm of cultural condemnation what do we say to them? Fetishists and feeders first? Is it forbidden or inappropriate to simply tell the truth? This is NOT mainstream. These images are NOT representative of the tastes of all or even most (see poll) of the F/FA's here. Keep all the pics but what's wrong with keeping them in _perspective_? 

I won't presume to speak for Stan but I refuse to quietly stand by and see him pilloried and vilified for saying something that's crossed my mind and I suspect many others numerous times. Pardon the religious language but I think it dishonors those who have _consecrated_ this _sanctuary_ with their honesty and vulnerability. We've needed to talk about this for a long time. Let's work through it together. JMO. :bow:


----------



## SamanthaNY

Ernest Nagel said:


> These images are NOT representative of the tastes of all or even most (see poll) of the F/FA's here. Keep all the pics but what's wrong with keeping them in _perspective_?


Dimensions has 34,719 members. Only 119 have voted. Of *those* 119, the majority answered the poll question in the negative - that doesn't mean the art isn't to their taste (I agree that can probably be assumed), it just means that's how they answered the question. All of that says nothing about how *most* Dimensions members feel. You just cannot extrapolate the poll numbers to indicate _anything _about the majority of people here. It only gives information about the people who voted. 

For the record - those images kind of scare me. I think the question of those images is an important one to discuss - but not because any one segment of the community (whether they're in the minority or not) likes or doesn't like them. We can say how we feel about them, but demanding their censorship (i.e., moving them to the closet with a key lock) or removal is another thing altogether. 


Ernest Nagel said:


> I've ducked expressing my honest opinion in the name of "tolerance" and for the sake of respecting the board rules. Even though Conrad created and maintains this space the fact is he doesn't generate the community it has become. IMO this place has been sanctified by the words, tears, hearts and souls of those who share their lives so openly here every day....
> Pardon the religious language but I think it dishonors those who have _consecrated_ this _sanctuary_ with their honesty and vulnerability. We've needed to talk about this for a long time. Let's work through it together. JMO. :bow:


Explain this, please? Are you saying that because we've written posts here, that we have some ownership of the site (if that were the case, Timberwolf would be in charge), and therefore a right to say how it is run, managed and what should and should not appear on these pages? I'm very interested to learn how you justify that, and how that would work in practice. I'm quite serious here - I find this idea fascinating, and would like to hear more from you about it, if you wouldn't mind. 

P.S. - the mention of tolerance strikes me as being amusingly ironic.


----------



## T_Devil

exile in thighville said:


> This is absurdly off base...what is size acceptance trying to earn if not the right to be open and out about our kinks? What is feminist or gay acceptance? A woman fucking a man in the ass is certainly not mutually exclusive to feminism, and the problem does not lie with that picture but rather people like you who believe such an act in plain sight devalues the practitioners in some way. There are sex lives and there are real lives. One of the great failings in the world is the jaw-dropping amount of people who conflate the two in order to make misguided judgments. It's logic like this that led to Anita Bryant's campaign to get gay teachers fired from schools. People are exposed to explicit straight and conventional sexuality day in and day out...near-naked girls, dildos in the latest Judd Apatow comedy, tabloid covers about Lindsay Lohan's latest mouthful of pussy. For people to rationalize feeling scandalized by the things they do when confronted with such desensitizing images from other persuasions regularly is hypocritical, cowardly, and mostly, lazy.



Hey look Dude,
I know the overwhelming majority agree the images are detrimental. I don't know what you're going off about. I guess there's no example good enough. Fine, whatever. The point still remains, the images are detrimental. Don't believe me? Have a look at the polls. Go ahead.

Call me lazy, it's my *OPINION! *


----------



## BothGunsBlazing

T_Devil said:


> Hey look Dude,
> I know the overwhelming majority agree the images are detrimental. I don't know what you're going off about. I guess there's no example good enough. Fine, whatever. The point still remains, the images are detrimental. Don't believe me? Have a look at the polls. Go ahead.
> 
> Call me lazy, it's my *OPINION! *



Dimensions has 34,719 members

Most of them would vote, but are too busy fapping to the images in question to bother.


----------



## Surlysomething

LillyBBBW said:


> No. Because people like you are incapable of love.




Bahahaaaaa!


----------



## stan_der_man

SocialbFly said:


> ...
> 
> Stan, thank you for an interesting discussion, but the original question still needs to be answered, what were you hoping to gain by this discussion?



Open discussion about this very subject... and an opportunity to air people's feelings about this subject.That's what I hope to gain SocialB. Again, all I ask of you all to do is look at the numbers. If nothing else, a good number of people here on Dimensions are uncomfortable with some of the things posted on this website. That has been clearly indicated in my opinioin. Period. Volatile as this subject may be, it is good to discuss it and stop attempting to sweep it under the carpet. I have no illusions that anything will change.



My apologies for not providing closing arguments last night as promised. We had a moderate earthquake yesterday evening and it knocked our trailer off one of it's supports, so I had to deal with that. All's well there was no damage I could find.

I will definitely post again, I'm not sure when.


----------



## Observer

Actually the statistics can be interpreted two ways:

1) In two days time less than 10% of the community has even read the post - and its probably more like 2% because some of the thread views are undoubtedly duplicates. 

2) Despite the small number of actual viewers, which of itself isn't that unusual for any thread on this site, the intensity and preponderance of the response is telling​
The problem from my view isn't in the conclusions, but in the tenor. It ignores the fact that this is a private site with unique roots. It did not start out as the leading voice and haven for size acceptance on the Internet. Rather it was part of a SIG (Special Interest Group) within NAAFA that even there was viewed with a raised eyebrow.

NAAFA today has morphed into a different form, and so after 20+ years has Dimensions. But those of us who are relatively new arrivals (I've been here only nine years) have to recognize that the founders began what became Dimensions as a haven for their fantasies long before the coming of those of us looking for size acceptance. We can certainly express our opinions, but we have no ownership or right of entitlement to demand anything of them.


----------



## prickly

......but the thing is, you can't apply the rules that worked in a small village when it has grown into a major city......things change with more people.

and the images? in my view degrading and demeaning to women in general, let alone fat women, or whether in the context of dims, or anywhere else.

and are there really blokes who find this sort of thing erotic? sorry, but that's just fucking odd (and, yes, i have heard of fetishes).


----------



## BothGunsBlazing

prickly said:


> fat women
> 
> and are there really blokes who find this sort of thing erotic?
> 
> sorry, but that's just fucking odd



welcome to the rest of what nearly everyone thinks.

it's ridiculous how people are looking for acceptance outside of dimensions when there is clearly no place for it within.


----------



## Lovelyone

HeatherBBW said:


> Honestly, I find this thread completely horrific.
> 
> It's clear that those images are derived from sexual fantasies of the artist and he shares them for those who also find them appealing. Just as with any art, if you don't like it. Don't look.
> 
> The fact that you'd even stir up a thread to find out if these images are viewed as part of the size acceptance movement is nutty. Size acceptance and Sexuality acceptance are two completely different animals.
> 
> This being outside of the weight board and displayed is probably shocking to those who have no inclinations towards weight gain fantasies. So the purpose of this thread has in no way a chance to be positive... so why post it?
> 
> Since when do we have the right to judge what someone should find sexually appealing? Whether it be extreme bondage, cross-dressing, foot slaves or weight gain.. it's just not the place.
> 
> Stan, I'm really surprised at this poll and then your follow up questions. For instance, the one about putting it on a workplace wall or a dance flyer. I actually VERY MUCH enjoy these images, they are parallel with many of my own sexual fantasies. But I'd never put something on my office wall that was based on my sexuality. I also wouldn't push my sexuality into my business life as I do run BBW dances in MA. If I were setting up Swinger Feeder/Feedee parties, then maybe that image would apply. But to ask otherwise, is just a reach for answers you know will be non-affirmative. It just boggles my mind that you'd even consider creating this poll and follow up questions. Also, these images do NOT need to be nude to be sexual. These are fetish based because they depict an extreme that is parallel with weight gain, giantess and immobility fantasies. I think most people know this already, these types of pictures haven't been in hiding around these parts. I think most people "get it" that they are sexual and enact the fetish. One of many that can be derived after the initial preference/predilection for fat women. I say this because I believe that being an FA is a preference, not a fetish. But the fetishes that tangent off from the main preferences, are exactly that.. fetishes.
> 
> Overall, I am also shocked at the disdain of many of the posters here. Some who I consider personal friends. What happened to "To Each Their Own", since when are we saddened, grossed out, freaked out enough to express it publicly when you know that it might very well be the fantasy of some of those who may read your very thoughts.
> 
> I feel very much attacked in this thread because I am one of the people who enjoy such artwork... I even like artwork that's even farther in extremes. Part of my sexual fantasies (I stress FANTASY) is to be bigger then an entire room. So big that I need a special house. Will I ever be that fat? No. It's impossible. But is it wrong for me to fantasize about it or if I had artistic talent, to draw it? Why should I need to know that my fantasies (which are personal and in my own head until posts like this) are disgusting to you? Overall, I'm just shocked.
> 
> I remember finding artwork such as this when I was a young teen and I thought I was the only one who had such fantasies. It made me feel like I wasn't alone in my sexuality. It was a huge POSITIVE discovery for me. One many of you wouldn't understand because you don't share my fantasy. But I'd expect or expected a little more liberal acceptance of each others kinks or fetishes around here.
> 
> So sexuality acceptance, sure. Size acceptance, no.
> 
> But in closing, I feel that if you express such hateful response to viewing such images is being intolerant of others sexual preferences. I guess I expect more from fat women and our admirers.. as we are constantly put down for the life we live and the aesthetic preferences of our partners. We are criticized for our lifestyle and choices - so now we become those very people who made the lives miserable of so many fatties and FAs?
> 
> Mood = Pissed Off & Hurt.



While trying to respect your opinions and thoughts on the subject, I can tell you that I found pictures like this on the net when I was younger too. It made me feel horrible about myself. All I could think about was "What if others find those types of pictures and think that this is how most fat people regard themselves?" 

While I am happy that you found your positive outlet for your sexual fantasies, I find pictures like this demeaning and disgusting. I wouldn't post them, I wouldn't share them with friends in the fat community or otherwise. Does this mean that I am being "intolerant of others sexual preferences"? No, it means that I have an opinion of how that rendering of a drawing of a fat woman stuffing herself--or breaking furniture, or being strapped down, or pulled up with machinery--will make others perceive ME as an individual. 

I do not in anyway think of these drawings as portraying any kind of sexual preference.


----------



## Webmaster

Observer said:


> ..But those of us who are relatively new arrivals (I've been here only nine years) have to recognize that the founders began what became Dimensions as a haven for their fantasies long before the coming of those of us looking for size acceptance...



The founders didn't begin Dimensions as a haven for their fantasies! Instead, realizing that the organization had little to offer to FAs, who were among their most dedicated supporters and volunteers, the FA-SIG was specifically formed as a place for FAs within NAAFA, a place where men who were attracted to fat women could meet and discuss their preferences and desires as well as the real world issues they had in coming to terms with their preferences and in meeting the fat women of their dreams. Early on I decided that the communication should be two way, and that the FA-SIG would also be open to fat women. In other words, I saw it as a place where two groups of people who were uniquely made for each other could learn about each other and find each other.

All of that developed very much in tandem with size acceptance activism as the social side of things was always part of NAAFA, the larger part actually, and the one that raised most of the money for the organization's work and survival. As far as I am concerned, coming to terms with one's size or preferences for size, is a crucial part of acceptance -- doubts and warts and all. It's, in fact, when NAAFA grimly began trying to regulate people's thoughts, preferences and social lives that the organization's status and influence waned into insignificance.

Those who know me know that I have a very low tolerance level for political correctness and hypocrisy. As a result, Dimensions never shies away from letting the whole story be told, and not just the politically correct, clean and pleasant one. As a result, Dimensions has grown into a global community with almost half a million posts a year, a community where over 6,000 unique visitors every day discuss issues ranging from size to health to relationships to fashion to politics and more, one where people blog, and one that grows and evolves as more people realize it is okay to be themselves and that they do not owe an apology to anyone for being fat or having a preference for fat people.

Rational, reasonable suggestions on how Dimensions can better fill its mission are always welcome.


----------



## LalaCity

LillyBBBW said:


> Yeah but when does it stop? Once we take down the objectionable cartoons then people will be afraid granny might get the wrong idea from the paysite board. Then when the paysite board is locked away, the story board will be next. The picture threads might scare off someone too and then moobs will be an issue. People here are mistaken as to what kind of site this is and its objectives which Conrad has been very clear about. A high school popularity contest is hardly going to get the ones nobody voted for kicked out of school or relegated to the back of the cafeteria by the school committee. And I also find it laughable that anyone should be surprised that those voted down aren't being more understanding of their feelings. Nobody seems to give a shit about ours. People can't wait to get up to the podium and tell us how uncomfortable they are with us here, along with a show of hands as to how many truly loath our presence. And yes, I am taking it personally. In a similar situation you would too.



See, I don't think this has to be personal. When I saw the OPs question, my immediate response was my _own_ feelings only (a selfish way of thinking, I know, but that's how most of us deal initially with pointed questions). Of course, reading through the thread has opened my eyes to the feelings of others and that's been important and insightful, too.

For me the issue was not about whether somebody liking something I don't understand makes him or her a sicko, it was just that these pics happen to have a negative effect on my self-esteem (and I can _only_ speak for myself). I can't help it, that's what they do for me. Images are powerful and when they play specifically on the physical attributes of a certain marginalized group of people, they will have that effect for some...

But it's not like every time I see one of your posts from now on I'm going to think, "Wow -- there's that freaky woman who gets off on the freaky imagery," or whatever. I'm already aware that for some these drawings are erotic and, frankly, most of the time it doesn't even register in my consciousness. I'm only pondering my reactions now because the OP raised the question. That's all it's about -- I'm not here to condemn anyone. 

Give me credit that, as a grown-up, I can can cope with the concept of people getting turned on by stuff that I don't quite understand without gasping "Oh my heavens!" and clutching my bosom in offense and passing out in a swoon. The range of human sexual interests more often than not tickles and intrigues me. But again, these images have powerful resonances in me and others having to do with self-esteem. Maybe that's just something I have to work on, and that's one of the reasons why I'm here. I also have reconciled myself to co-existing with some of the stuff which makes me uncomfortable. So there's no threat to anyone's way of life, just a bit of honesty about feelings. There's nothing wrong with having that discussion.

So please -- can we all not take this too personally? In the interest of staying friends, primarily?


----------



## JoyJoy

LillyBBBW said:


> Yeah but when does it stop? Once we take down the objectionable cartoons then people will be afraid granny might get the wrong idea from the paysite board. Then when the paysite board is locked away, the story board will be next. The picture threads might scare off someone too and then moobs will be an issue. People here are mistaken as to what kind of site this is and its objectives which Conrad has been very clear about. A high school popularity contest is hardly going to get the ones nobody voted for kicked out of school or relegated to the back of the cafeteria by the school committee. And I also find it laughable that anyone should be surprised that those voted down aren't being more understanding of their feelings. Nobody seems to give a shit about ours. People can't wait to get up to the podium and tell us how uncomfortable they are with us here, along with a show of hands as to how many truly loath our presence. And yes, I am taking it personally. In a similar situation you would too.


 Very good point, Lilly, and one that has no easy answer, or we wouldn't be having this discussion, but as others have said, I think it's an important one to have because it's been bubbling under the surface for a very long time. 

I do think the forums are arranged well, so that people can steer clear of the things they're not interested in, or they can venture in and try to learn about the less mainstream stuff as they choose to, when they're ready. I think this arrangement makes it clear that the fetish subjects are an important part of the whole, but that there's something for everyone.....but that's *if* the forums are the first place people come. What bothers me is that I know that there are people who need the support that we know is available here who don't get it because, as I've said, their intitial impression is formed if they go to the home page first and see all of the feeding/gaining/fetish stuff displayed so prominently, and yes, to people who have not been exposed to it before, it can be shocking, especially if they're not in a good place with their own acceptance. The home page does give the impression to many that that is what Dimensions is all about as a major focus and not just as one part of many. If that IS the case as Conrad means it to be, then there are many, many people here who will be disillusioned and go the way of the many other people who have left for this reason. Maybe that's what some people want? 

I do care about your feelings Lilly, and of those who enjoy the pictures, and I'm sorry if anything I said made any of you feel that I "loathe your presence", because that's not true at all. I have several fetishes that people would find objectionable, but I choose to pursue them on sites that are specific to that fetish. Dimensions is a mixture of so many different things that they're bound to clash like this at times, and there's just not an easy solution that would please all involved. It's so easy to say "tough shit" to those who get put off by the presentation and run away, but that just seems like such an injustice to me when we know there's no other place like Dimensions for helping people learn to love themselves. 

I'm not demanding that the pictures be removed (as if I could...), or even realistically expecting that any changes be made. This issue is so completely convoluted, but it's also important to discuss, because as long as both sides (and those somewhere in the middle) are forced to exist in the same space, it's going to come up time and time again.


----------



## Ernest Nagel

LillyBBBW said:


> No. Because people like you are incapable of love.



I can only assume this was said in jest, despite the absence of emoticons to indicate so? I don't know much but I'm pretty clear that's an unsupportable assertion. Most of us barely know what love means for ourselves, let alone what it means for others nor what they're capable of. In any case I find it a curiously cruel thing to say. Just sayin'.



SamanthaNY said:


> *Dimensions has 34,719 members*. Only 119 have voted. Of *those* 119, the majority answered the poll question in the negative - that doesn't mean the art isn't to their taste (I agree that can probably be assumed), it just means that's how they answered the question. All of that says nothing about how *most* Dimensions members feel. You just cannot extrapolate the poll numbers to indicate _anything _about the majority of people here. It only gives information about the people who voted.
> 
> For the record - those images kind of scare me. I think the question of those images is an important one to discuss - but not because any one segment of the community (whether they're in the minority or not) likes or doesn't like them. We can say how we feel about them, but demanding their censorship (i.e., moving them to the closet with a key lock) or removal is another thing altogether.
> 
> Explain this, please? Are you saying that because we've written posts here, that we have some ownership of the site (if that were the case, Timberwolf would be in charge), and therefore a right to say how it is run, managed and what should and should not appear on these pages? I'm very interested to learn how you justify that, and how that would work in practice. I'm quite serious here - I find this idea fascinating, and would like to hear more from you about it, if you wouldn't mind.
> 
> P.S. - the mention of tolerance strikes me as being amusingly ironic.



Starting from the bottom. I never said I _was_ tolerant, just that I've kept quiet in many cases in the interest of discretion. Stan has caused me to re-examine my principles in that regard. Am I, by my silence, tacitly condoning the disrespect, objectification or exploitation of BBW? Not quite sure yet but it helps to talk it through. Glad to amuse though, even when it's not my intent.

Working my way back up, this is basically a User Generated Content (UGC) site. Member posts provide almost the sole reason for traffic. Very few of the 34K+ members post with any regularity, if at all. So yeah, I think people who participate, thereby generating traffic are entitled to have some say in the course of things. By that reasoning the paysite ladies should rule except that they're here to generate revenue because this is where they find their market. I'd be fine with TimberWolf in charge, just for the record but I doubt he wants the job?

After wank fodder, whose beneficiaries post very little, the supporters of this site, the _stakeholders_, if you will are here for support - both giving and receiving. This is essentially a VERY SUPPORTIVE PLACE for BBW's and FA's, imo. What's wrong with talking about what supports the majority? Is that not a valid question? I concede this is not a democracy but it's also true that each of has both a right and a duty to "vote with our feet" (clicks) if we feel the rules do not support the well-being of the community. 

I'm not one to quibble over matters of taste. That's not why those images are problematic. Taken out of context or with no context provided they seem to me to be a gross misrepresentation of the interests of the general community. I'm frankly happy the poll, however questionable, seems to bear that out. 

We talk a LOT here about Out vs Closeted FA's and consensus has always been that Closeted FA's are contemptible weasels, basically. Why then are Closeted Fetishists, Feeders, Encouragers okay? Why not say this is a "Special Interest" Gallery, Story, Thread? What's to hide? I have always been an Out FA and and when there was crap to be taken for it I did so proudly and without regret. Why can't they? 

Earlier in this thread I used the example of a redlight district in a community. It's accepted/tolerated because everyone knows where and what it is. No one is confused about where they are when they get there. It is what it is but it _isn't mainstream_.

I'm sorry just the suggestion of a map or guide that keeps boundaries from getting blurred is so offensive to the fetishists and feeders who would prefer to blend in. I'm not stupid; I completely understand why. When I was a hunter I wore camouflage too. I just don't happen to like deceptions that can hurt people. Not my game and I know a lot of people who concur. :bow:


----------



## LillyBBBW

LalaCity said:


> See, I don't think this has to be personal. When I saw the OPs question, my immediate response was my _own_ feelings only (a selfish way of thinking, I know, but that's how most of us deal initially with pointed questions). Of course, reading through the thread has opened my eyes to the feelings of others and that's been important and insightful, too.
> 
> For me the issue was not about whether somebody liking something I don't understand makes him or her a sicko, it was just that these pics happen to have a negative effect on my self-esteem (and I can _only_ speak for myself). I can't help it, that's what they do for me. Images are powerful and when they play specifically on the physical attributes of a certain marginalized group of people, they will have that effect for some...
> 
> But it's not like every time I see one of your posts from now on I'm going to think, "Wow -- there's that freaky woman who gets off on the freaky imagery," or whatever. I'm already aware that for some these drawings are erotic and, frankly, most of the time it doesn't even register in my consciousness. I'm only pondering my reactions now because the OP raised the question. That's all it's about -- I'm not here to condemn anyone.
> 
> Give me credit that, as a grown-up, I can can cope with the concept of people getting turned on by stuff that I don't quite understand without gasping "Oh my heavens!" and clutching my bosom in offense and passing out in a swoon. The range of human sexual interests more often than not tickles and intrigues me. But again, these images have powerful resonances in me and others having to do with self-esteem. Maybe that's just something I have to work on, and that's one of the reasons why I'm here. I also have reconciled myself to co-existing with some of the stuff which makes me uncomfortable. So there's no threat to anyone's way of life, just a bit of honesty about feelings. There's nothing wrong with having that discussion.
> 
> So please -- can we all not take this too personally? In the interest of staying friends, primarily?



I'm not so much offended by feelings being expressed as much as the poll. One thing I hope I've made clear in the times I've been here: I never, ever expect anyone to embrace something that they don't like or that they are uncomfortable with. You don't have to work on a danged thing Lala, how you feel is how you feel and a completely valid viewpioint. There are things here that don't turn my crank either and I'm not obtuse enough not to realise how those images will strike most people. It's the element of, "See? Look here!! Almost _everybody_ thinks your desires are disgusting and should be as inaccessable as possible. We know that you knew that already but we just wanted to fine tune your awareness with a pie chart and a chance to voice some pent up caustic vitriol. " Most of us here know generally how society views fat and what might be going through the mind of someone who sees us walking in their direction to take the seat next to them on the airplane. How would you like a detailed report? A three hour rap session where you must sit and listen as every person on that plane gets a chance to share with you exactly what they think of you and how your fat effects them?


----------



## LillyBBBW

Ernest Nagel said:


> I can only assume this was said in jest, despite the absence of emoticons to indicate so? I don't know much but I'm pretty clear that's an unsupportable assertion. Most of us barely know what love means for ourselves, let alone what it means for others nor what they're capable of. In any case I find it a curiously cruel thing to say. Just sayin'.



No it was said in jest. :happy::bow:


----------



## TraciJo67

LalaCity said:


> See, I don't think this has to be personal. When I saw the OPs question, my immediate response was my _own_ feelings only (a selfish way of thinking, I know, but that's how most of us deal initially with pointed questions). Of course, reading through the thread has opened my eyes to the feelings of others and that's been important and insightful, too.
> 
> For me the issue was not about whether somebody liking something I don't understand makes him or her a sicko, it was just that these pics happen to have a negative effect on my self-esteem (and I can _only_ speak for myself). I can't help it, that's what they do for me. Images are powerful and when they play specifically on the physical attributes of a certain marginalized group of people, they will have that effect for some...
> 
> But it's not like every time I see one of your posts from now on I'm going to think, "Wow -- there's that freaky woman who gets off on the freaky imagery," or whatever. I'm already aware that for some these drawings are erotic and, frankly, most of the time it doesn't even register in my consciousness. I'm only pondering my reactions now because the OP raised the question. That's all it's about -- I'm not here to condemn anyone.
> 
> Give me credit that, as a grown-up, I can can cope with the concept of people getting turned on by stuff that I don't quite understand without gasping "Oh my heavens!" and clutching my bosom in offense and passing out in a swoon. The range of human sexual interests more often than not tickles and intrigues me. But again, these images have powerful resonances in me and others having to do with self-esteem. Maybe that's just something I have to work on, and that's one of the reasons why I'm here. I also have reconciled myself to co-existing with some of the stuff which makes me uncomfortable. So there's no threat to anyone's way of life, just a bit of honesty about feelings. There's nothing wrong with having that discussion.
> 
> So please -- can we all not take this too personally? In the interest of staying friends, primarily?



Lalacity, I understand and respect what you are saying here. Unfortunately, what is expressed below is a prime example of why some people are feeling hurt and upset (and I know that wasn't Lovelyone's intention):




Lovelyone said:


> While trying to respect your opinions and thoughts on the subject, I can tell you that I found pictures like this on the net when I was younger too. It made me feel horrible about myself. All I could think about was "What if others find those types of pictures and think that this is how most fat people regard themselves?"
> 
> While I am happy that you found your positive outlet for your sexual fantasies, *I find pictures like this demeaning and disgusting*. I wouldn't post them, I wouldn't share them with friends in the fat community or otherwise. Does this mean that I am being "intolerant of others sexual preferences"? No, it means that I have an opinion of how that rendering of a drawing of a fat woman stuffing herself--or breaking furniture, or being strapped down, or pulled up with machinery--will make others perceive ME as an individual.
> 
> I do not in anyway think of these drawings as portraying any kind of sexual preference.



I know that you are only expressing your opinion here, and you aren't intending to alienate or hurt anyone. 

But there very definitely are people here who do find those photos to be arousing and provocative. How can they not feel offended when others categorize that very thing as "demeaning and disgusting"? 

I have very strong opinions about extreme ... anything (feederism being just one example). I worry about the possible element of exploitation, especially in those who are vulnerable adults. I've had clients on my caseload for no other reason except that they were so large, they were unable to care for themselves, and required targeted case management, PCA's, medical intervention, etc. It is very difficult for me to accept that people who practice extremes are in a frame of mind that allows them to fully comprehend the consequences of their actions. I've gone round a time or two on this issue, and felt very misunderstood. I think that there is defensive posturing on all sides of issues like this. It is a failing of mine, that I don't always understand *why* people take things personally. 

In this specific instance, the drawing are obviously whimsical and fantastical in nature. Who is being harmed? Who are we to judge those who find them provocative? It's not about us. And people who would look at these pictures and then go on to make judgments about you ... they'd make those judgments anyway. A reasonable adult is not going to view these images and then assume that every fat person stuffs him/herself to the point of immobility.


----------



## T_Devil

BothGunsBlazing said:


> Dimensions has 34,719 members
> 
> Most of them would vote, but are too busy fapping to the images in question to bother.



Fair enough. Can't always rely on the data given especially since you just know that it's legitimacy is going to eventually be called into question. I just feel like I was better off keeping my opinion to myself because when it was all said and done, I was made to feel as though I was wrong. :doh:


----------



## SamanthaNY

Ernest Nagel said:


> Starting from the bottom. I never said I _was_ tolerant, just that I've kept quiet in many cases in the interest of discretion. Stan has caused me to re-examine my principles in that regard. Am I, by my silence, tacitly condoning the disrespect, objectification or exploitation of BBW? Not quite sure yet but it helps to talk it through. Glad to amuse though, even when it's not my intent.
> 
> Working my way back up, this is basically a User Generated Content (UGC) site. Member posts provide almost the sole reason for traffic. Very few of the 34K+ members post with any regularity, if at all. So yeah, I think people who participate, thereby generating traffic are entitled to have some say in the course of things. By that reasoning the paysite ladies should rule except that they're here to generate revenue because this is where they find their market. I'd be fine with TimberWolf in charge, just for the record but I doubt he wants the job?
> 
> After wank fodder, whose beneficiaries post very little, the supporters of this site, the _stakeholders_, if you will are here for support - both giving and receiving. This is essentially a VERY SUPPORTIVE PLACE for BBW's and FA's, imo. What's wrong with talking about what supports the majority? Is that not a valid question? I concede this is not a democracy but it's also true that each of has both a right and a duty to "vote with our feet" (clicks) if we feel the rules do not support the well-being of the community.
> 
> I'm not one to quibble over matters of taste. That's not why those images are problematic. Taken out of context or with no context provided they seem to me to be a gross misrepresentation of the interests of the general community. I'm frankly happy the poll, however questionable, seems to bear that out.
> 
> We talk a LOT here about Out vs Closeted FA's and consensus has always been that Closeted FA's are contemptible weasels, basically. Why then are Closeted Fetishists, Feeders, Encouragers okay? Why not say this is a "Special Interest" Gallery, Story, Thread? What's to hide? I have always been an Out FA and and when there was crap to be taken for it I did so proudly and without regret. Why can't they?
> 
> Earlier in this thread I used the example of a redlight district in a community. It's accepted/tolerated because everyone knows where and what it is. No one is confused about where they are when they get there. It is what it is but it _isn't mainstream_.
> 
> I'm sorry just the suggestion of a map or guide that keeps boundaries from getting blurred is so offensive to the fetishists and feeders who would prefer to blend in. I'm not stupid; I completely understand why. When I was a hunter I wore camouflage too. I just don't happen to like deceptions that can hurt people. Not my game and I know a lot of people who concur. :bow:


First, thank you for your answer. You've spoken your mind quite well, and even though I don't agree with everything you said, this is a very pleasant way to discuss the issues at hand. 

Those images make me uncomfortable, and I don't have any problem in saying so. Where I differ from you and Stan is in the notion that this site has some responsibility in presenting itself, or us, in a way that meets society's (or Stan's) standards of decency. I think it's fine to raise the issue of those images, and ask for comment on how the membership feels about them - but not at the expense of those who appreciate them. That is never acceptable. And I am quite concerned with objectification of fat and fat women, and the not-so-unspoken messages about size that are conveyed here, but there are two sides to that argument - one person's declaration of objectification is another's expression of beauty. So who is wrong? I just can't support any one particular group's insistence that things change in order to suit them, and only them. I do not agree that things should change to support the majority (as you've defined them, the ones who contribute lot's o' words). That said, I DO see the need for the things Stan seems to want. In fact, I want them too - I just don't agree with muscling them into Dim. With Naafa and Dimensions being essentially the ONLY two viable fat positive sites, clearly the need exists for one along the lines of a BBW/FA site minus the politics of Naafa, and minus the feederism and extreme stuff that's here. So why isn't there one? I honestly don't know the answer to that. With all the fat people in the world, and all of us who want something different that what's here.... why is this the only place that thrives? Why isn't there a white bread, vanilla Dimensions already in existence?


----------



## Durin

I don't really have anything to add to this Horrible thread but Good God People We ARE BETTER THAN THIS.

Isn't Dimensions supposed to be about tolerance. I believe last time I checked that tolerance imply's that even if you don't like something you Tolerate It.

It seems like maybe everybody decided to chuck thier empathy overboard when this thread started.

:bow:


----------



## Raqui

I think they can be all three, depends on how it is seen through the eyes of the person who is looking. Personaly I cant say How I feel about them.

I can see a postive effect - Someone looking and seeing them and saying "WOW people love all sizes"

I can see negative - Someone saying OMG this is disgusting or even a normal or large woman thinking they have to be that extreme to be loved by a FA.

I can see no reaction - Simply a whatever type of thing.

I dont think they should represent Fat Acceptance because they represent a Fantasy that some may carry in their minds and many times cannot deal with in reality.

I believe Fat Acceptance is for all forms of fat the smallest to the biggest thus you cannot gather one particular image to represent fat acceptance. It should be many sizes of many women and men in all stages with the common link being that we are all human and the weight doesnt affect our humanity.

That is just my view.


----------



## AtlantisAK

I don't think these pictures are supposed to represent size acceptance and probably aren't intended to be so anyway. I think that they're more for fantasy, fetish and erotic purposes more so than anything. I kind of think that the poll has been set up just so that a point is proved (for what reason anyway?) and actually supported because of how the results turn out. 

 Unfortunately, not everyone finds these images appealing, so of course they're going to vote Detriment. 

I don't see a purpose for this poll really....like I said, these images and size acceptance arent precisely hand in hand. 

This poll upset me a bit...


----------



## Ernest Nagel

SamanthaNY said:


> First, thank you for your answer. You've spoken your mind quite well, and even though I don't agree with everything you said, this is a very pleasant way to discuss the issues at hand.
> 
> Those images make me uncomfortable, and I don't have any problem in saying so. Where I differ from you and Stan is in the notion that this site has some responsibility in presenting itself, or us, in a way that meets society's (or Stan's) standards of decency. I think it's fine to raise the issue of those images, and ask for comment on how the membership feels about them - but not at the expense of those who appreciate them. That is never acceptable. And I am quite concerned with objectification of fat and fat women, and the not-so-unspoken messages about size that are conveyed here, but there are two sides to that argument - one person's declaration of objectification is another's expression of beauty. So who is wrong? I just can't support any one particular group's insistence that things change in order to suit them, and only them. I do not agree that things should change to support the majority (as you've defined them, the ones who contribute lot's o' words). That said, I DO see the need for the things Stan seems to want. In fact, I want them too - I just don't agree with muscling them into Dim. With Naafa and Dimensions being essentially the ONLY two viable fat positive sites, clearly the need exists for one along the lines of a BBW/FA site minus the politics of Naafa, and minus the feederism and extreme stuff that's here. So why isn't there one? I honestly don't know the answer to that. With all the fat people in the world, and all of us who want something different that what's here.... why is this the only place that thrives? Why isn't there a white bread, vanilla Dimensions already in existence?



Samantha, for my part I'm not suggesting anyone or anything be expunged, simply identified for what it is/isn't. I readily concede there's an inevitable subjectivity in such an approach _in some cases_. In other cases the distinction is quite apparent _once you've been here awhile_. 

In the interest of continued community growth and success why can't we make things a little less baffling for the noobs though? Ever look and see how many of the 34K members have never posted even once? Not everyone will lurk until they see what they like. Skeeve not for a brighter tomorrow, maybe?

I think one of the reasons Dims is so successful is because it is quite comprehensive, serving all _cummers_ :doh: as it were. What I think would support both the Vanilla constituency, as you call us, as well as the noobs is just a little truth in labeling. Much as the "L" word is resisted here it helps newcomers to know with whom/what they're dealing and Vanillans to keep from being mistaken for the more "adventurous". Who likes to go to a new city or even a familiar one with no street signs or a map? 

It seems to me though that certain factions are so opposed to any type of guidance they demonize anyone who dares broach the subject. I'm not looking to F up their recruiting, or thin their ranks, just avoid unnecessary confusion. Why is that _so horrible_?


----------



## superodalisque

it worries me so much that relationships here seem to be less important than maintaining the sexual fantasies of a few. everything that has happened lately has just really diminished the stature of this place in my mind. i was wondering why people kept disapearing and never coming back, many of them FAs. now i think i've figured it out. i understand why they just got tired. sometimes when a place fails to evolve you just have to move on. i'm going to try to stay and change some stuff but i'm beginning to wonder why i bother to support something financially , emotionally and intellectually that doesn't care about me or a lot of the feelings of many of the other people--particularly the women who are here. i think they've forgotten that its the women that are the attraction of this site in the first place. first its for the sexual or erotic nature, but then for friendship and caring and sharing real life experience.

its nice to see that a lot of the men who have come here have evolved but sad that the place itself hasn't reflected that evolution. people keep referencing the past when this place initially started. those were the days of 50 BBWs to an FA at the events. its no longer that time. men are more aware than they were back then and so are women. refusing to address real concerns are not helpful when it comes to the development of happiness for FAs in their personal lives. at some point if fantasy is not eased comfortably into reality they all become nightmares. societies change and evolve if they don't they are destined to become stale and irrelevant. its not always that your going to have a capitve and exclusive audience. what do you do then? the only thing that differientiates this site from similar less successful ones are the people who trust and open their lives to each other and the dedication of its members. but i think thats being taken for granted quite a bit.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


----------



## superodalisque

Webmaster said:


> when NAAFA grimly began trying to regulate people's thoughts, preferences and social lives that the organization's status and influence waned into insignificance.
> .



i just thought this bore repeating. look at whats happening on the WLS board.


----------



## swordchick

You have the right to state your opinion, just like everyone in this thread has. 



T_Devil said:


> Fair enough. Can't always rely on the data given especially since you just know that it's legitimacy is going to eventually be called into question. I just feel like I was better off keeping my opinion to myself because when it was all said and done, I was made to feel as though I was wrong. :doh:


----------



## MissStacie

If this is the case, and we don't want to hurt/embarrass/scandalize all the parties that might be affected by this, maybe we should ban Dimensions on the Internet until all the fatties die, like they did with all the Kennedy info....?

Does anyone see how fucking ridiculous this is? I find no harm in the pictures...they don't do it for me, but they might for someone else. Stan, you are stirring up the board and you know it.....nice work.

My vote? NO affect.....

Stacie




Webmaster said:


> Well, if you want to go a path of making certain that no one is offended, ever, then yes, we should purge all fantasy and all pictures and speak only in pleasant, politically correct terminology. We should also make sure that no one makes overly fat-positive comments (that could offend some people) and not allow profile pics and avatars that suggest above-average fatness (that could offend). We should also make certain all potential site visitors know that we are very much aware of negative health issues and work very hard towards remedying that by eating less and dieting, and that we generally view sexuality as something not to be flaunted or talked about. We should also state emphatically that we do not tolerate unapproved or excessive fantasies and invite discussion as to what should be allowed. Further, we should apologize right upfront to anyone for anything and everything that might offend them, their families and friends, their employers or any unrelated third parties.
> 
> Either that, or we can simply state that we like and admire fat people, with all that is involved.


----------



## Santaclear

I LOVE Dimensions. I love all the diversity available here. Though I have practically zero interest in the fantasy aspect (the drawings and story boards) I respect those who do. I don't feel it needs to be hidden away. Just because some are "uncomfortable" about it doesn't mean it's a DETRIMENT. I do not feel any of that fantasy stuff is a "detriment." 

I think our very presence on the internet advertises, among many other things, just how beautiful and sexy and FUN fat is and can be. And a serious look at the site illustrates just how much diversity there is behind that. 

Sure, mom and pop and the religious zealots might not get it at first look. People who hate fat won't like it. But is it our responsibility to present a "mainstream" face to them? The best revenge is living well.


----------



## exile in thighville

T_Devil said:


> Hey look Dude,
> I know the overwhelming majority agree the images are detrimental. I don't know what you're going off about. I guess there's no example good enough. Fine, whatever. The point still remains, the images are detrimental. Don't believe me? Have a look at the polls. Go ahead.
> 
> Call me lazy, it's my *OPINION! *



Majorities were also in favor of the holocaust, George W. Bush and Prop 8. They're not always right...

This isn't a "point" really, you didn't respond to (read?) what I said.


----------



## The Orange Mage

I would like to say that maybe these things shouldn't be front page Dims news, but they should be accepted here 100%.

That is all.


----------



## cinnamitch

You know, until those pics were posted, i had no idea they were even on here(shows how much attention i pay to things). Do i like them? NO, do i think they are a detriment? No, I mean realistically, if mainstream America came to this site and saw the cleavage, pantie, cankle, shots, most would say that is detrimental. They are cartoons, period. If someone wants to jack off to them , more power to em. In my experience there are people out there who would masturbate to the telephone book if it got them hot. I don't think it puts us fat folk in any worse light then we are already in according to "correct" society. I have friends who are into things that make most fantasies on here seem tame lol. It does not affect our friendship, we just dont cross that line by agreement. Same with this stuff, just because i or you or whomever don't like it, it doesn't mean the artist or the follower is strange, bad, crazy or whatever, it just means they are different from you. Isn't that what is wonderful about this site? We can all be different , yet form a kinship because at the heart of it all we have this bond of size between us all. I see no need to get bogged down in trivial things. Like one poster said, if you don't like it , dont look. I won't be looking and i'm still ok with it being on here.


----------



## tonynyc

Santaclear said:


> I LOVE Dimensions. I love all the diversity available here. Though I have practically zero interest in the fantasy aspect (the drawings and story boards) I respect those who do. I don't feel it needs to be hidden away. Just because some are "uncomfortable" about it doesn't mean it's a DETRIMENT. I do not feel any of that fantasy stuff is a "detriment."
> 
> I think our very presence on the internet advertises, among many other things, just how beautiful and sexy and FUN fat is and can be. And a serious look at the site illustrates just how much diversity there is behind that.
> 
> Sure, mom and pop and the religious zealots might not get it at first look. People who hate fat won't like it. But is it our responsibility to present a "mainstream" face to them? The best revenge is living well.




So true- the fact that Dims offers so many SIG is a blessing to deny such diversity is a step backwards. I admit the diversity is what makes thing interesting - how boring it would be to have just a plain vanilla site.


----------



## SamanthaNY

Ernest Nagel said:


> Samantha, for my part I'm not suggesting anyone or anything be expunged, simply identified for what it is/isn't. I readily concede there's an inevitable subjectivity in such an approach _in some cases_. In other cases the distinction is quite apparent _once you've been here awhile_.
> 
> In the interest of continued community growth and success why can't we make things a little less baffling for the noobs though? Ever look and see how many of the 34K members have never posted even once? Not everyone will lurk until they see what they like. Skeeve not for a brighter tomorrow, maybe?
> 
> I think one of the reasons Dims is so successful is because it is quite comprehensive, serving all _cummers_ :doh: as it were. What I think would support both the Vanilla constituency, as you call us, as well as the noobs is just a little truth in labeling. Much as the "L" word is resisted here it helps newcomers to know with whom/what they're dealing and Vanillans to keep from being mistaken for the more "adventurous". Who likes to go to a new city or even a familiar one with no street signs or a map?
> 
> It seems to me though that certain factions are so opposed to any type of guidance they demonize anyone who dares broach the subject. I'm not looking to F up their recruiting, or thin their ranks, just avoid unnecessary confusion. Why is that _so horrible_?


I'd probably consider myself a Vanillan - but not so much that I have to have warning labels on my internets. History has show that my eyes won't explode if I look at the weight board. This board has all sorts of labeling to say what's what, without having PMRC-like "ack! feeders!!" stickers. I mean... what is it these supposed street signs would say? "Star-Bellied Sneetches, don't click here - there's wankers in there". Are the noobs so delicate and impressionable that they can't decide for themselves where they'd like to live? And what type of lapel pin would us Vanillans wear? "handle with care - I'm delicate"? That's the internet version of sticking your fingers in your ear and yelling "lalala la la la LA LA LA". 







I'm sorry, but that's not guidance. Frommer's guide is guidance. Zagats... guidance. But the type of thing you're talking about just sounds... wrong, to me anyway. It sounds like you want to hide things under trap doors marked "unpretty". How is that much different from how fat people are treated to begin with? I think we're supposed to be better than that... here.


----------



## Webmaster

superodalisque said:


> ...i was wondering why people kept disapearing and never coming back, many of them FAs. now i think i've figured it out. i understand why they just got tired. sometimes when a place fails to evolve you just have to move on. ...



Dimensions _is_ constantly evolving. Over the past few years we've added Hyde Park as a place for people to state strong opinions and even discuss politics; the Clothing and Fashion Forum; the Foodee Board for people who love food and like to discuss recipes and foods they really like; the Supersize Forum for the special needs of SSBBWs; the Health Forum as an informative resource for fat people; the Lounge as a place to just hang out; a well organized library for those who enjoy stories and fiction; the Clubhouse; a reorganized Weight Board separated into a reality and a fantasy branch; and a bunch more. Every one of those additions and changes originated with a suggestion by a mod or member of the Dimensions community.

Traffic has been increasing steadily over the past three years, as have posts and threads. I realize that not everything is always changing in the direction that one faction or another thinks it should, but we're doing the best we can to accommodate the needs of a wide variety of people.


----------



## Deidrababe

I voted C.) No Effect.

I think that clearly these images are about sexual fantasy and if you're into it, you're into it.

I think that any "average" size person who would view such images would look at them and like most of us, realize they are fantasy CARTOONS and don't depict real life. NO one could be as fat as these images - that is why they are fantasy.

I have very odd fantasies......and I know they would never happen in real life - but if I could see pictures of MY FANTASIES I'd look.

Would I hang them in my house? Nope - but fat art is great - just not sexual fantasy art.

Would I hang them at work? Well, since porn at work is wrong, I'd vote no on that since again, This stuff is sexual in nature for fantasies - regardless of clothing.

Would I go to a BBW Dance that used this type of stuff on flyers? Probably - But I'd clearly think it was a SEX dance for Fantasy stuff - 

Just my 2 cents.

Deeds


----------



## T_Devil

exile in thighville said:


> *Majorities were also in favor of the holocaust, George W. Bush and Prop 8.* They're not always right...
> 
> This isn't a "point" really, you didn't respond to (read?) what I said.



So what is THAT supposed to mean?? I evoke Godwin's Law in the name of this being just about the dumbest internet fight I've ever been in and buster, I've been in A LOT of them! 

I guess I missed what I was supposed to answer, what _were_ you trying to say? Clarify. The point is moot as I respectfully pull myself out of this cauldron of complete and utter crap.

I'm ashamed of myself for even clicking the link here and contributing.


----------



## D_A_Bunny

I have been thinking about this thread quite a bit today.

In reference to Stan using the examples that he did to make his point about whether or not they represent size acceptance, I believe that that it is making a statement in and of itself. Since I also read last night on the confessions thread a post by Stan that is in reference to this thread, it added to my thoughts about his point that he is attempting to make. I believe that point is that he has a desire to make a better representation for him of being a "regular" FA and not a (dreaded) feeder. In making these statements it seems clear that he might feel that ALL should not feel welcome here.

What I think you have forgotten is that anyone who is FAT or admires FAT is also in some small way a feeder or feedee.** Now everyone, please put your torches and stones away and read me through. 

As much as everyone wants to present this Fat & Healthy side to the world to gain acceptance, we are trying to toss out some of our own gang. How is it possible that anyone here would honestly be willing to subject themselves to some sort of litmus test which would determine if they were a *Positive* representative of a fat person or admirer? And as one of our lovelies has stated in a previous post (Hi Lilly!), I sure wouldn't be here either.

I mean seriously, isn't this meant to be a comfortable place to hang out, put up your feet and eat some pizza? Or, are we trying to make some pristine location that has some fat positive information (propaganda?) on the walls?

I'm sorry, but with all of Dimensions' flaws and by extension, her members' flaws, I still like it here.

I live every day with this statement in mind "Judge not, lest thee be judged."

PS - I do think that we should make a conscious effort to welcome noobies, which I do think happens for the most part. And also, we may want to stop assuming that all noobies are fragile types that can't handle the content of this site. Maybe some of those noobies eventually add some of the questioned content to the site.




**a feeder likes to feed or enjoy someone enjoying their food or its effect, a feedee likes to eat and/or enjoys the results. I think that is a very simple place to start. It is what we make of it, isn't it? Why do I have to deny that I like food to be accepted as a fat person? Isn't that what they want me to do in the real world? Why do I have to do it here?


----------



## AnnMarie

DumbAssBunny said:


> I have been thinking about this thread quite a bit today.
> 
> In reference to Stan using the examples that he did to make his point about whether or not they represent size acceptance, I believe that that it is making a statement in and of itself. Since I also read last night on the confessions thread a post by Stan that is in reference to this thread, it added to my thoughts about his point that he is attempting to make. I believe that point is that he has a desire to make a better representation for him of being a "regular" FA and not a (dreaded) feeder. In making these statements it seems clear that he might feel that ALL should not feel welcome here.
> 
> What I think you have forgotten is that anyone who is FAT or admires FAT is also in some small way a feeder or feedee.** Now everyone, please put your torches and stones away and read me through.
> 
> As much as everyone wants to present this Fat & Healthy side to the world to gain acceptance, we are trying to toss out some of our own gang. How is it possible that anyone here would honestly be willing to subject themselves to some sort of litmus test which would determine if they were a *Positive* representative of a fat person or admirer? And as one of our lovelies has stated in a previous post (Hi Lilly!), I sure wouldn't be here either.
> 
> I mean seriously, isn't this meant to be a comfortable place to hang out, put up your feet and eat some pizza? Or, are we trying to make some pristine location that has some fat positive information (propaganda?) on the walls?
> 
> I'm sorry, but with all of Dimensions' flaws and by extension, her members' flaws, I still like it here.
> 
> I live every day with this statement in mind "Judge not, lest thee be judged."
> 
> PS - I do think that we should make a conscious effort to welcome noobies, which I do think happens for the most part. And also, we may want to stop assuming that all noobies are fragile types that can't handle the content of this site. Maybe some of those noobies eventually add some of the questioned content to the site.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> **a feeder likes to feed or enjoy someone enjoying their food or its effect, a feedee likes to eat and/or enjoys the results. I think that is a very simple place to start. It is what we make of it, isn't it? Why do I have to deny that I like food to be accepted as a fat person? Isn't that what they want me to do in the real world? Why do I have to do it here?




Most excellent post, and this...


> I mean seriously, isn't this meant to be a comfortable place to hang out, put up your feet and eat some pizza? Or, are we trying to make some pristine location that has some fat positive information (propaganda?) on the walls?




Those exist. They're boring as hell to me, but they ARE out there if that's what someone wants.


----------



## Ernest Nagel

SamanthaNY said:


> I'd probably consider myself a Vanillan - but not so much that I have to have warning labels on my internets. History has show that my eyes won't explode if I look at the weight board. This board has all sorts of labeling to say what's what, without having PMRC-like "ack! feeders!!" stickers. I mean... what is it these supposed street signs would say? "Star-Bellied Sneetches, don't click here - there's wankers in there". Are the noobs so delicate and impressionable that they can't decide for themselves where they'd like to live? And what type of lapel pin would us Vanillans wear? "handle with care - I'm delicate"? That's the internet version of sticking your fingers in your ear and yelling "lalala la la la LA LA LA".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but that's not guidance. Frommer's guide is guidance. Zagats... guidance. But the type of thing you're talking about just sounds... wrong, to me anyway. It sounds like you want to hide things under trap doors marked "unpretty". How is that much different from how fat people are treated to begin with? I think we're supposed to be better than that... here.



Geez, sometimes I feel like a force-feedee around here - all the words that get stuffed in my mouth. :eat2: Labels are just labels. I didn't say _warning_. A bigger community just means more places to get lost, more time to waste stumbling into areas you don't care about. I don't think anyone's eyes will explode but I do think people can leave before they discover everything Dims has to offer. If we aren't a little more upfront about our _inclusiveness_ there are just a lotta opps to get creeped out. I really don't hear anybody arguing that point, do I? 

Surfer discretion advised, n'mean? *SOME* views expressed here might gag the buzzards off a shit wagon but we're not all like that, yanno? Not a warning, more like an aggressive disclaimer. How 'bout a welcome vid saying "We recognize one _site_ absolutely does not fit all but all are welcome here. Infinite beauty in infinite diversity. Wash hands before returning to work" yada yada. Still not a warning per se, so much as a gritty reality check. 

And Samanatha, yer pretty dam funny, for a Noo Yawker. Rep duly tendered. 



Webmaster said:


> Dimensions _is_ constantly evolving. Over the past few years we've added Hyde Park as a place for people to state strong opinions and even discuss politics; the Clothing and Fashion Forum; the Foodee Board for people who love food and like to discuss recipes and foods they really like; the Supersize Forum for the special needs of SSBBWs; the Health Forum as an informative resource for fat people; the Lounge as a place to just hang out; a well organized library for those who enjoy stories and fiction; the Clubhouse; a reorganized Weight Board separated into a reality and a fantasy branch; and a bunch more. Every one of those additions and changes originated with a suggestion by a mod or member of the Dimensions community.
> 
> Traffic has been increasing steadily over the past three years, as have posts and threads. I realize that not everything is always changing in the direction that one faction or another thinks it should, but we're doing the best we can to accommodate the needs of a wide variety of people.



Conrad, I've expressed my appreciation for all you and the mods do on numerous occasions and I remain, as always, sincerely grateful. All communities adapt as they grow. This one is probably better than most at accommodating diversity but it has way more diversity to accommodate than most places. Like a lot of FA's I feel no need to disguise my passion for anything I care about. This place is important to me and a lot of others. I think little family spats like this are inevitable growing forward. I think we need to respect that everyone is speaking out of a commitment to what will help as many as possible find the acceptance and support they need here. Apologies if anything I've said gives some other impression. :bow:


----------



## Risible

superodalisque said:


> it worries me so much that relationships here seem to be less important than maintaining the sexual fantasies of a few. everything that has happened lately has just really diminished the stature of this place in my mind. *i was wondering why people kept disapearing and never coming back, many of them FAs.* now i think i've figured it out. i understand why they just got tired. sometimes when a place fails to evolve you just have to move on. i'm going to try to stay and change some stuff but i'm beginning to wonder why i bother to support something financially , emotionally and intellectually that doesn't care about me or a lot of the feelings of many of the other people--particularly the women who are here. i think they've forgotten that its the women that are the attraction of this site in the first place. first its for the sexual or erotic nature, but then for friendship and caring and sharing real life experience.
> *
> its nice to see that a lot of the men who have come here have evolved *but sad that the place itself hasn't reflected that evolution. people keep referencing the past when this place initially started. those were the days of 50 BBWs to an FA at the events. its no longer that time. men are more aware than they were back then and so are women. refusing to address real concerns are not helpful when it comes to the development of happiness for FAs in their personal lives. at some point if fantasy is not eased comfortably into reality they all become nightmares. societies change and evolve if they don't they are destined to become stale and irrelevant. its not always that your going to have a capitve and exclusive audience. what do you do then? the only thing that differientiates this site from similar less successful ones are the people who trust and open their lives to each other and the dedication of its members. but i think thats being taken for granted quite a bit.
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------



(Emphasis mine.) I'm curious what you mean by "evolved," and why the FAs should evolve during their tenure here?


----------



## SocialbFly

Risible said:


> (Emphasis mine.) I'm curious what you mean by "evolved," and why the FAs should evolve during their tenure here?




I may be answering (ok i am guessing) but how i saw Supers comment was this...men come here saying they like fat women, or find their attraction something they want to understand, or they are still closeted, somehow, someway, the support of other FAs and the women that are here, help them evolve into an out and about everyday person, someone whos preference is for the fatter body, just like it be a blonde body, or whatever...it is an evolving towards...isnt that what we do in life? grow?? that is how i see this comment...not all do grow, some stay DEEP in the closet (i think i have met many) and some say forget it, and dont have the fortitude to carry on...that is their loss...but for others it IS an evolution to a different place of understanding...


i do have one comment i want to make...over and over people comment on the number of members here...i take issue with that...i want to know the ACTIVE members, those who have posted say...more than 100 posts here...those are the people i want to hear from and acknowledge, not the person that strictly comes here to wank or the person who lurks but contributes nothing...they truly dont form what dimensions is...and just because they belong doesnt mean they have a positive influence here...

just saying.


----------



## SamanthaNY

Ernest Nagel said:


> ...there are just a lotta opps to get creeped out. I really don't hear anybody arguing that point, do I?
> 
> Surfer discretion advised, n'mean? *SOME* views expressed here might gag the buzzards off a shit wagon but we're not all like that, yanno? Not a warning, more like an aggressive disclaimer. How 'bout a welcome vid saying "We recognize one _site_ absolutely does not fit all but all are welcome here. Infinite beauty in infinite diversity. Wash hands before returning to work" yada yada. Still not a warning per se, so much as a gritty reality check.
> 
> And Samanatha, yer pretty dam funny, for a Noo Yawker. Rep duly tendered.


First, thank you for the compliment & rep. We're a hard bunch here in the Big Apple, but sometimes we crack a smile when we put our weapons down . 

Who gets to decide these non-warnings? Who picks out the links that are to be non-warned-about? For all your claims of "not a warning", all those examples are just that, warnings. Call it a disclaimer, call it a welcome, a guidance, a reality check... you're still saying "for the [insert negative adjective here] stuff, click over there", and that's putting a value judgment on whatever it is you're pointing to. Now, lest anyone think I'm too cool for school, I can SHOW you some stuff that will freak you right outta your loafers. I'm ALL about judgements! You're weird! That's sick! You're a perv! OMG, that top is hideous! But all that stuff is MY judgment. For me, and me alone. When I (or you, or Stan) try to impose that judgment on someone else, that's when we get into trouble. Because someone likes being weird. And they don't think that's sick, and they're happy with being a perv, and s/he thinks that top is gorgeous. 

I think there may be a better way to counteract the stuff here that people feel needs to be... uh... counteracted. Instead of rallying against the tide of extremes that you feel are sending a bad message, why not add more vanilla content? Even the scales by adding content about 'regular' BBW/FA stuff, activism, etc. You're right, this is UGC, so start baking some white bread and I'll get the mayo. I'm quite serious in this suggestion. You're not going to be able to change the unVanillans, or to segregate that content... but by adding more of what you (or anybody) think is the Right Stuff, you can - as long as Conrad allows it [grumble about that WLS thread] - change Dimensions.


----------



## The Orange Mage

Risible said:


> (Emphasis mine.) I'm curious what you mean by "evolved," and why the FAs should evolve during their tenure here?


Isn't it obvious?

Most come here as horndogs that inhabit the Paysite and Weight boards. Then we abandon our gills and our fins become arms and legs and we exit that ocean, and become well-cultured little FAs.

Or something like that.


----------



## KevMoney

I would post something about coelacanths (to those who never become well adjusted FA's) as far as evolving and Darwinian evolution, but quite frankly, this discussion has made my brain explode. It's irrelevant and though I will never have a fraction of the ability of people like Dan or Lilly to make witty, coherent posts, I can provide a picture of a coelacanth, which is about all I'm useful for. 

View attachment 070731_coelacanth_02.jpg


----------



## Tooz

Maybe that fishie can survive the nitrate levels present in your fish tank.


----------



## Wild Zero

KevMoney said:


> I would post something about coelacanths (to those who never become well adjusted FA's) as far as evolving and Darwinian evolution, but quite frankly, this discussion has made my brain explode. It's irrelevant and though I will never have a fraction of the ability of people like Dan or Lilly to make witty, coherent posts, I can provide a picture of a coelacanth, which is about all I'm useful for.



Any before and after pics of that Coelacanth? A morph is fine too.


----------



## Risible

SocialbFly said:


> I may be answering (ok i am guessing) but how i saw Supers comment was this...men come here saying they like fat women, or find their attraction something they want to understand, or they are still closeted, somehow, someway, the support of other FAs and the women that are here, help them evolve into an out and about everyday person, someone whos preference is for the fatter body, just like it be a blonde body, or whatever...it is an evolving towards...isnt that what we do in life? grow?? that is how i see this comment...not all do grow, some stay DEEP in the closet (i think i have met many) and some say forget it, and dont have the fortitude to carry on...that is their loss...but for others it IS an evolution to a different place of understanding...
> 
> 
> i do have one comment i want to make...over and over people comment on the number of members here...i take issue with that...i want to know the ACTIVE members, those who have posted say...more than 100 posts here...those are the people i want to hear from and acknowledge, not the person that strictly comes here to wank or the person who lurks but contributes nothing...they truly dont form what dimensions is...and just because they belong doesnt mean they have a positive influence here...
> 
> just saying.



I didn't want to assume ... you know what they say about that.  But, why just the men? Women have to evolve in this acceptance, too; Superodalisque singles the men out. Some of the most hurtful remarks I've ever heard have been here on Dims or at a fat dance/party/event by women who should know better, especially with respect to average- to mid-size women towards SS women.


----------



## olwen

JoyJoy said:


> But you don't desensitize people who have been heavily influenced by the people like Anita Bryant all of their lives, who come here hoping to come to terms with their own self-acceptance, by shoving the extremes at them from the get-go. There is nothing wrong with the fetishes themselves, but people DO assume, and their opinions of a place are going to be formed by what they first see. So people who aren't yet as open as those of us who already know what Dim is about are going to look at what's on the home page and come to their own conclusions based on what's there. It seems very defeating to me.



I've been thinking about this...lets say the pics were buried pages and pages deep, and that newcomer has spent a good amount of time here and felt that this place was mostly about acceptance and took that from it most then one day decided to explore and found said pics. Would they be any less shocked? I don't think so...I'd think it's possible that newcomer would feel sort of betrayed in some way....I don't think it matters where the pics are. It's the fact that they exist at all that seems to be the issue. The shock and awe will be there regardless, so all this quibbling about where they should go seems pointless to me.


----------



## Donna

Risible said:


> ..._Some of the most hurtful remarks I've ever heard have been here on Dims or at a fat dance/party/event by women who should know better, especially with respect to average- to mid-size women towards SS women._



At the risk of hijacking this thread, I wonder if the reason they are so hurtful is because those kinds of hurtful remarks are less expected in our "safe zone", for lack of a better term. Do you think that perhaps there are more hurtful things said (more as in quantity and more as in level of hurtfulness) or that they seem stand out more because we don't expect them like we do "out there in the real world".


----------



## AnnMarie

olwen said:


> I've been thinking about this...lets say the pics were buried pages and pages deep, and that newcomer has spent a good amount of time here and felt that this place was mostly about acceptance and took that from it most then one day decided to explore and found said pics. Would they be any less shocked? I don't think so...I'd think it's possible that newcomer would feel sort of betrayed in some way....I don't think it matters where the pics are. It's the fact that they exist at all that seems to be the issue. The shock and awe will be there regardless, so all this quibbling about where they should go seems pointless to me.




Interesting slant on it. Like dating someone and finding their "dirty" stash of questionable porn hidden under a floorboard somewhere. Why didn't they share this with you sooner?? You feel betrayed about what you were led to believe about this person.... made himself out to be one thing then became another. 


I like that this is a multi-layered community, and you don't have to dig around for skeletons, it's all out there for the looking over, taking or leaving, etc. 

It's good to be able to accept and reject what you want from the world, I dig it.


----------



## SocialbFly

Risible said:


> I didn't want to assume ... you know what they say about that.  But, why just the men? Women have to evolve in this acceptance, too; Superodalisque singles the men out. Some of the most hurtful remarks I've ever heard have been here on Dims or at a fat dance/party/event by women who should know better, especially with respect to average- to mid-size women towards SS women.




i agree with you there, but i figure in general, the pictures were aimed to men or FFAs. Or that is what i took it as, i can admit, the pics might speak to more than that, but it is my scope of assessment, and guess what i could be wrong, lol..i know, shock.


----------



## stan_der_man

*I have a ranting fetish, and I find it very arousing when fat girls are pissed off at me. All I ask is that you respect my fetish... is that too much to ask!? Seriously!? It is MY fetish! It's not like it effects you in any way!*


How would one answer this question? Would the people offended by this be expected to mellow out? Should I be expected to mellow out?


I haven't had a chance to read all the responses, I will later tonight. I would like to apologize to you Heather for going off on you the way I did. Nothing personal for what it's worth. You were the first person that came along who I decided to try this out on.



Also, for those who responded "No Effect"... What do you think about this...

*If the president of the United States does things that makes the world angry, is it a valid statement to say that it won't effect how the people of the world view the United States, because politics and culture are two completely separate things?
*

---------

Here are the numbers as of as they stand now:







The question is what it is, and the numbers are what they are. Take them as you will.

---------


----------



## SocialbFly

olwen said:


> I've been thinking about this...lets say the pics were buried pages and pages deep, and that newcomer has spent a good amount of time here and felt that this place was mostly about acceptance and took that from it most then one day decided to explore and found said pics. Would they be any less shocked? I don't think so...I'd think it's possible that newcomer would feel sort of betrayed in some way....I don't think it matters where the pics are. It's the fact that they exist at all that seems to be the issue. The shock and awe will be there regardless, so all this quibbling about where they should go seems pointless to me.



i guess the difference for me Olwen, is that the non mainstream stuff is under the bed, not in the front room.


----------



## mango

*Thank god I finally made it to the end of this thread... 


In one sense, it's been disappointing and a pity that this thread had to have personal attacks in it. But in another sense, at least some have expressed their thoughts honestly and opened a window into how they really feel.


Stan -

I feel the entire premise of this thread and subsequent poll is drastically flawed. Taking a closer look at your opening post & poll...
*



fa_man_stan said:


> This is my first attempt at creating a poll, so forgive me if I totally screw this up... :blush:



*I think it's fair to say that you did screw this up - totally.*



> This poll is not a critique of these artists works, but more a question about what sort of perception images like these might convey to the "general public" about what Fat Acceptance represents, or perhaps what Dimensions represents. I chose these images from *the front page of Dimensions*, and these images in particular because they are depictions of exaggerated fatness, presumably fatness to the point of immobility. These aren't the most exaggerated of depictions, but typical in many ways of images often found in "Expansion" sites.



*The context in which you set the poll question - whereby these sampled images are claimed to be on the front page is incorrect.

As has been pointed out, and you later admit to being at fault - the images in question are in fact in their own separate area away from the main page and clearly labelled as such.

So the tone of the question to follow is that this is how Dimensions is presented to the "general public" "on the front page" when clearly this is not the case.*




> The question posed is:
> 
> As far as possible perceptions towards fat acceptance go, are images such as these...
> 
> 1) a detriment
> 
> 2) a benefit
> 
> 3) are of no effect



*It would be interesting to hear from BeakerFA and the other various artists who have contributed to the art boards and had their drawings filed in the art sections of the site as to what their intention was when they drew these pictures. As some have already suggested, there could be a wide variety of motives - fantasy, immobilisation, fetish among other possibilities.

I may very well be mistaken but you would really need to be desperate to conclude that the artists drew these pictures with the intent of promoting "fat acceptance" to the "general public". So the pictures in question have now been taken out of their original context.

And therefore your answer - [ 2) a benefit ] is clearly behind the 8-ball as far as being a popular answer goes.


Now, I don't know if the US has discovered the phenomena of what is known over in Australia as "push polling" so let me explain it to you. Push polling is a technique whereby an individual attempts to influence or alter the view of respondents under the guise of conducting a poll (Wikipedia). 

The way you have set the poll question up has left open the chance of response bias - especially given the fact that most people vote on these polls before reading through posts (or the pollsters mistakes & intentions) in the thread.

These conclusions are later confirmed when you later reveal ulterior motives as to the reason why you set this poll up. When questioned on what exactly are you trying to prove early on in the thread - you outright deny anything.

It appears you really intended to just have an audience with "the webmaster" and some of his mods about an area of the site that appears to offend you.

You then go on and... only 1 or 2 days after commencing the poll, conclude that 70% find the pictures detrimental so this therefore must mean that 70% of the Dimensions community feel this way. 

As has already been pointed out to you (and others), only a small fraction of the membership has taken part in the poll. Also, that figure of 70% has fallen back abit last time I checked.

Now given your glee and delight at the "poll results", this also diminishes any conclusions you could make from the poll.

By the way, I can tell you that I did vote in the poll. 

Now I won't tell you which way I voted but I will tell you this - I didn't vote honestly. I voted for an answer which I didn't truly believe.

I guess I'm just duplicitous, two-faced or a liar or whatever, but thats just the way I roll. I guess you may have to factor that in as margin of error.

Now I don't really know what you wanted to truly achieve by conducting this poll - after all... for all I know maybe you get off on those sort of poll figures (whatever floats your boat, mate).

And if that is the case, then that would probably make you a closeted "poll" peeker.


As I said at the start of this post, this thread has been disappointing.


This is my first and only post in this thread. My work here is done.

*


----------



## tonynyc

fa_man_stan said:


> *I have a ranting fetish, and I find it very arousing when fat girls
> are pissed off at me. All I ask is that you respect my fetish... is
> that too much to ask!? Seriously!? It is MY fetish! It's not like it
> effects you in any way!*
> 
> 
> How would one answer this question? Would the people offended by this be expected to mellow out? Should I be asked to mellow out?
> 
> 
> I haven't had a chance to read all the responses, I will later tonight. I would like to apologize to Heather for going off on her, nothing personal for what it's worth. You were the first person that came along who I decided to try this out on.
> 
> Here are the numbers as of as they stand now:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The question is what it is, and the numbers are what they are. Take them as you will.
> 
> For those who responded "No Effect"... What do you think about this...
> 
> If the president of the United States does things that makes the world angry, is it a valid statement to say that it won't effect how the people of the world view the United States, because politics and culture are completely different things?
> 
> 
> ---------



Hi Stan: 

Sorry to burst the bubble-but, I have several issues with the survey itself. We can always have nay type of leading question to get the results that we want. I could have worded this post along the lines of "Is FAT an expression of celebration" posted the link to the Art work in question and you would have had an entirely different response. Just the way this thread is worded guarantees a self fufilling prophecy. And I just don't see this survey as representative at all. It's just the opinions of the folks who chose to participate 

In addition, I could get another sample of (150) different people (those who did not answer this initial survey) and you would get an entirely different response.


----------



## stan_der_man

mango said:


> *
> ...
> 
> Stan -
> 
> I feel the entire premise of this thread and subsequent poll is drastically flawed. Taking a closer look at your opening post & poll...
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *I think it's fair to say that you did screw this up - totally.*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ah, yes... but I do screw things up with style, don't I...! Look at the numbers of people checking out my thread!


----------



## AnnMarie

Everyone likes to look at a car wreck. Doesn't mean they want to be in one.


----------



## Blackjack

AnnMarie said:


> Everyone likes to look at a car wreck. Doesn't mean they want to be in one.


----------



## stan_der_man

tonynyc said:


> Hi Stan:
> 
> Sorry to burst the bubble-but, I have several issues with the survey itself. We can always have nay type of leading question to get the results that we want. I could have worded this post along the lines of "Is FAT an expression of celebration" posted the link to the Art work in question and you would have had an entirely different response. Just the way this thread is worded guarantees a self fufilling prophecy. And I just don't see this survey as representative at all. It's just the opinions of the folks who chose to participate
> 
> In addition, I could get another sample of (150) different people (those who did not answer this initial survey) and you would get an entirely different response.



Again, granted... This is hardly a scientifically researched survey, but the numbers are strong. It will be interesting to see how they change over time as more people respond to it. There are no bubbles to be burst Tony... The question is what it is and the numbers are what they are. A scientifically sound survey? Probably not, but something to think about. That's all that I'm saying.


----------



## Chimpi

SocialbFly said:


> i do have one comment i want to make...over and over people comment on the number of members here...i take issue with that...i want to know the ACTIVE members, those who have posted say...more than 100 posts here...those are the people i want to hear from and acknowledge, not the person that strictly comes here to wank or the person who lurks but contributes nothing...they truly dont form what dimensions is...and just because they belong doesnt mean they have a positive influence here...



I was once one of those registered, yet still lurking members. I lurked for years before I took the plunge and introduced myself. Sure, I was a bumbling idiot (in my eyes) who had a lot to learn, but I think I still had my head on pretty good (in my eyes). My point, though, is that just because someone is registered but not posting does not mean they won't become a contributing member of this community.
Just because they do not post does not mean they are not and/or will not be a positive influence here. After all, we're going for a whole sweep of fat and size acceptance, right? What kind of acceptance do we wish to attain if we ignore all the confused, unsure, closeted people?

I think Orange Mage used a good example, and I will re-quote as it is a prime ... evolution ... of what can and does occur:



The Orange Mage said:


> Isn't it obvious?
> 
> Most come here as horndogs that inhabit the Paysite and Weight boards. Then we abandon our gills and our fins become arms and legs and we exit that ocean, and become well-cultured little FAs.
> 
> Or something like that.








fa_man_stan said:


> Here are the numbers as of as they stand now:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The question is what it is, and the numbers are what they are. Take them as you will.
> 
> ---------



I'm beginning to take issue with the topic itself now, Stan. Sure, I was feeling a little bummed that my sense of the situation was not only part of the minority (but I must stress that I am not intimidated or saddened that I have my own unique point of view... just that I wish people understood who I am and where I'm coming from more...) and that in one of your earlier posts you stated that you'd like to hear more input from those that voted said pictures as a positive influence on fat/size acceptance, yet seemed to completely exclude the posts and points I had previously made; However, it seems now that you're waiving the results of the poll in mine and others' faces, as a right of fortitude, accomplishment and pride.
Where my opinion of you is still precisely as it was (not that you or anyone else should care about that anyway  ), it seems, in my eyes, that you're willing to upset and irritate others for the sole purpose of garnishing attention, getting your point across, and possibly to get things to be the way you want them. It also seems (I stress that I'm using the word _seems_ exactly as it is intended - it looks that way, but I could very well be in need of some comprehension glasses...) that you do not honestly care why people might find these pictures positive or beneficial, only that you don't like them and would like them either hidden a little more or removed.


----------



## Donna

fa_man_stan said:


> Again, granted... This is hardly a scientifically researched survey, but the numbers are strong. It will be interesting to see how they change over time as more people respond to it. There are no bubbles to be burst Tony... The question is what it is and the numbers are what they are. A scientifically sound survey? Probably not, but something to think about. That's all that I'm saying.



Seriously, Stan...take a flipping Midol and quit posting for a while. Or you could always start a new poll...

Is Stan a douchebag? 
--Yes
--No
--Whose Stan?

We get what you are trying to communicate. I'm pretty sure anyone who has read or participated in this thread has thought about it or they wouldn't be commenting. This could have been an interesting and enlightening debate if it were phrased differently from the get-go. And if you would have left your freaking agenda at the door. But noooo. So now we have a very divisive clusterfuck that was starting to become somewhat civil and could have developed into the afore wished for interesting discussion. But you have to keep poking at the sore spot, like a child picking at a scab. 

And on that note, I am going to take my own advice and pop a Midol (with a Xanax chaser because that's how cool I am ) and log out for a while.


----------



## olwen

Risible said:


> I didn't want to assume ... you know what they say about that.  But, why just the men? Women have to evolve in this acceptance, too; Superodalisque singles the men out. Some of the most hurtful remarks I've ever heard have been here on Dims or at a fat dance/party/event by women who should know better, especially with respect to average- to mid-size women towards SS women.



I'm out of rep. I owe you one.



Donna said:


> At the risk of hijacking this thread, I wonder if the reason they are so hurtful is because those kinds of hurtful remarks are less expected in our "safe zone", for lack of a better term. Do you think that perhaps there are more hurtful things said (more as in quantity and more as in level of hurtfulness) or that they seem stand out more because we don't expect them like we do "out there in the real world".



Sounds about right to me. 



AnnMarie said:


> Interesting slant on it. Like dating someone and finding their "dirty" stash of questionable porn hidden under a floorboard somewhere. Why didn't they share this with you sooner?? You feel betrayed about what you were led to believe about this person.... made himself out to be one thing then became another.
> 
> 
> I like that this is a multi-layered community, and you don't have to dig around for skeletons, it's all out there for the looking over, taking or leaving, etc.
> 
> It's good to be able to accept and reject what you want from the world, I dig it.



Yes, exactly.



SocialbFly said:


> i agree with you there, but i figure in general, the pictures were aimed to men or FFAs. Or that is what i took it as, i can admit, the pics might speak to more than that, but it is my scope of assessment, and guess what i could be wrong, lol..i know, shock.



I'm sure many of us assume that whenever we look at sexual images. Sexual expression is so often seen as the purview of men. It's unfortunate. It's even more tittilating and shocking when the viewer is female. We just tend to forget that we can, should, and do find ways to express our sexual selves as well or that sometimes we are part of the audience. This is part of the reason I am uncomfortable with the knee jerk reaction that porn is exploitative of women. The very assumption removes women from sexual expression....that just seems wrong to me. It's only relevant if the material being presented involves children, and this is not the case with these images. My own reaction to the images was mostly, meh. But the one with the woman's boobs in a sling - I noticed, and liked that one. It resonated with the submissive in me. I respect the opinions of the people who find them offensive, but like I said, it just seems a bit - I don't even have a proper word for what I'm trying to say - sometimes women do like to be for lack of a better word - freaky. That we have a right to express ourselves sexually should be acknowledged I think. 



SocialbFly said:


> i guess the difference for me Olwen, is that the non mainstream stuff is under the bed, not in the front room.



So you're saying if you didn't know the stuff was under the bed, you'd be more likely to stay? What would you do if you got to the room and had a gander under the bed? What if someone came into the front room with the stuff in his/her hands and showed it everyone? Would you still stay?


----------



## SocialbFly

"So you're saying if you didn't know the stuff was under the bed, you'd be more likely to stay? What would you do if you got to the room and had a gander under the bed? What if someone came into the front room with the stuff in his/her hands and showed it everyone? Would you still stay?" per Olwen (multi quotes still elude me)

the answer is then, that is in my hands Olwen, if i choose to go or stay...i have always known there are parts of dimensions i have problems with, that is why i avoid them, but i also say that i try to support size acceptance and when i see images like that, i dont see size acceptance...and that is my choice, just like if you see it is and you have no issues with it....

you know we keep debating fact and fantasy...a book i read said a number one fantasy in women was rape or bestiality...it was a book, i read it, thought, well, that doesnt totally fit me, but i thought it was interesting..the difference is, i didnt make an assumption that every woman i met has that same thought...and if i had a poll here that said is this your fantasy (even though it was a scientifically done blah blah blah poll) how many do you think would admit it...or find issue with the questions asked...alot i bet...

we have some very strong people with strong opinions, it just needs to be remembered that everyone has an opinion...just like assholes, we all have those too.


----------



## olwen

SocialbFly said:


> "So you're saying if you didn't know the stuff was under the bed, you'd be more likely to stay? What would you do if you got to the room and had a gander under the bed? What if someone came into the front room with the stuff in his/her hands and showed it everyone? Would you still stay?" per Olwen (multi quotes still elude me)
> 
> the answer is then, that is in my hands Olwen, if i choose to go or stay...i have always known there are parts of dimensions i have problems with, that is why i avoid them, but i also say that i try to support size acceptance and when i see images like that, i dont see size acceptance...and that is my choice, just like if you see it is and you have no issues with it....
> 
> you know we keep debating fact and fantasy...a book i read said a number one fantasy in women was rape or bestiality...it was a book, i read it, thought, well, that doesnt totally fit me, but i thought it was interesting..the difference is, i didnt make an assumption that every woman i met has that same thought...and if i had a poll here that said is this your fantasy (even though it was a scientifically done blah blah blah poll) how many do you think would admit it...or find issue with the questions asked...alot i bet...
> 
> we have some very strong people with strong opinions, it just needs to be remembered that everyone has an opinion...just like assholes, we all have those too.



Exactly. We are all thinking people - at least I hope we are. We should be allowed to choose how we react, and in point of fact, many have done that, but the problem lies in taking that choice away from other people. Hiding the images, whether or not they represent fact or fantasy would take away the ability of people to make an informed decision about whether to stay or go. You and I have chosen to stay, and some will choose to go, but we got to make that choice. Should we be placing value judgments on ourselves if we know there are people who will choose to go? I'm not so sure.

Honestly, for me, the sexual content is the reason I decided to join. I was hungry for all that information. I knew there would be opinions and depictions regarding fatness, and that I would learn from it all and I have. There just aren't very many places where one can learn about fat sexuality - whatever you think that is. I'm glad this place exists. 

This is off topic too, but was the book My Secret Garden by Nancy Friday?


----------



## stan_der_man

AnnMarie said:


> Everyone likes to look at a car wreck. Doesn't mean they want to be in one.





Blackjack said:


> http://i121.photobucket.com/albums/o207/MurphmanFA/c3daaae1.jpg



I think I'm wandering out in traffic now... and the bridges are on fire... :doh:



Donna said:


> Seriously, Stan...take a flipping Midol and quit posting for a while. Or you could always start a new poll...
> 
> Is Stan a douchebag?
> --Yes
> --No
> --Whose Stan?
> 
> We get what you are trying to communicate. I'm pretty sure anyone who has read or participated in this thread has thought about it or they wouldn't be commenting. This could have been an interesting and enlightening debate if it were phrased differently from the get-go. And if you would have left your freaking agenda at the door. But noooo. So now we have a very divisive clusterfuck that was starting to become somewhat civil and could have developed into the afore wished for interesting discussion. But you have to keep poking at the sore spot, like a child picking at a scab.
> 
> And on that note, I am going to take my own advice and pop a Midol (with a Xanax chaser because that's how cool I am ) and log out for a while.



You're right Donna, I'll call it quits for now... I'm probably getting a bit carried away... :blush:


----------



## Traveller

It has been roughly an eon since I last posted on Dimensions. Not entirely sure why now or if anyone even remembers me. But something in this thread punched some buttons.

On the images itself and people's reactions. Those offended by them and wanting Dims to change seemingly want them kept in the internet site equivalent of a back room in the virtual video store, standard issue dirty raincoat and three days growth of beard required for acceptance to the dimly lit hallway leading to said room. Better yet, perhaps we could create some sort of back door access to the room so all the "mainstream" customers don't have to see them going back there. But are these offended people in favor of censorship? Heavens, no! They aren't asking for anything oppressive like that.

As to Dimensions itself and this thread. There is a common human tendency to want things to fit in convenient boxes. Such and such a thing is THIS and nothing else. Or, it would be better if such and such a thing were just THIS. Some people are more driven by this than others. There have been studies done and it has to do with acceptance of ambiguity.

The thread may have been started with just a poll but I think there's little question it also became a "what dimensions ought to be" discussion.

Sort of a "I think Dimensions is a great site, I really enjoy it and appreciate it but if it were MY site....." followed by advice as to what should be changed or what would make it better for the poster's personal preferences. Everyone wants it to be THEIR Dimensions.

I have a guilty pleasure way below my years known as World of Warcraft. (Bear with me, this is relevant). It's an online role playing fantasy game. Some content can only be played regularly with a large, organized, scheduled group and there are guilds (groups of associated players)formed for that purpose. There are also small guilds for just friendly co-op efforts and chatting outside of that special content as well. For a while once, I belonged to an open, free-wheeling, friendly guild that tried to be all-inclusive. Some members just liked occasionally helping out other members, some grouped up for that special content, just an all round relaxed group.

Until one faction started noticing we had a lot of members. Just like the really big dedicated special content guilds. And that maybe we should start getting more organized, scheduled, and compete with the other large guilds dedicated to special content. They pushed and they lobbied and they tugged to get the guild to their version of what they wanted the guild to be (over the wishes of the founder). And they stepped on a lot of people who didn't want the guild to become that. Ultimately they tore the guild apart to create their raid guild and one of the largest and longest running "casual" guilds in the game died. There hasn't been another like it since. An something that was unique and fun was gone.

Now this isn't the whining of some gamer geek over great times lost in a virtual game setting. It's no big deal. It's a game. But I found it tremendously similar to what this thread became. And the likely ultimate end of those kind of hijacking discussions if they are allowed to have their way.

To those who say to themselves, "Dimensions is a great site, I really like it and appreciate it but if it were MY site.......", stop right there. It's not. It's not going to be. It's not a pay subscription site so you have no financial right to demand the nature and shape of it's allowed content. 

That does not mean you have no say or no influence. Someone said this site is not a democracy, but in a way it is. It is because you "vote" with your submissions and posts. Not in demanding it go in one direction or another. But in terms of the volume of content there is for all to see. As someone else has said, you want more of a vanilla FA site, post more vanilla content.

Conrad has stated fairly clearly how this site came to be and what he wants for this site. It does NOT fit in a convenient box. Like life, it's diverse and a little complicated. It has rough edges. It is NOT a size acceptance site though it is in favor and speaks support for size acceptance. 

What it is, is a site for ALL things FAT related. And it attempts to cater to anything falling under that broad heading. No one and nothing is excluded unless it involves spewing hate, exploitation of children, or fraudulent business. So Stan, you want a site more directly supportive and representing size acceptance? Go start one of your own. Stop trying to hijack Conrad's.

I LIKE the fact Dimensions doesn't fit in a convenient box or serve some special politically correct interest. Insisting we hide away those less universally accepted parts is a little like demanding that everyone of a particular ethnic background behave strictly in a way we define as being a credit to their race. 

So thank you Conrad for keeping Dimensions out of the box. Good for you and I wish you many years of success continuing to do so.


----------



## Tooz

There are huge long posts that I have not read yet, but I am gonna chime in anyway.


Stan, you seem to be under the impression that because the majority has answered "detriment," your point is being made. What if, though, people were picking that answer for different reasons than the ones you bring up? Is your point still being made there?

Many of us KNOW that the images, ultimately, have nothing to do with Size Acceptance. Fat fetishism and SA = apples and oranges. HOWEVER. The general public can be too stupid/trigger happy/whatever to be able to tell the difference, right? So, while we know and can tell the difference, I think it's almost like people who can't tell Asian languages apart-- you need a trained mind (or ear, regarding the languages).

That being said, this thread exhausts me. Dimensions is, in theory, a place where people can be open with their preferences, fetishes. Women come here and say it's their haven, where they can be accepted, but what of the fetishists? I know this has been discussed before, but I feel it's applicable. A lot of people here say it takes "courage" to speak up about how feederism and what have you makes them uncomfortable, but I can safely say that, on more than one occasion, I have felt ashamed for what I like. What people say is hurtful and ridiculous! I have seen men called abusive and women called insane (not in so many words) for liking what they do. I find it a little odd to see tht hostility in this environment.

I guess, in a circuitous way, I'm trying to say this is a very damaging thread.

And I have not voted in the poll yet. I don't know if I even will.


----------



## furious styles

well, i finally finished reading _this_ thread.








i think i need to go pray.


----------



## altered states

My German stepmother had a word from the old country for "shit-stirrer" that escapes me now, but she didn't always use it in a negative way. I believe Stan was being coy (or rather, dishonest) with his poll, but maybe Dimensions can handle a little shit-stirring. Better yet - maybe the point of Dimensions IS shit-stirring.

As a supporter going back to magazine days, this tension - between size acceptance and FA fantasy - has always been here, and it's never really been resolved. But I don't think this is a bad thing. I think this is what makes Dimensions compelling, and the tumult actually helps a lot of people think about themselves and their sexuality. Better, it promotes meaningful dialog among people who'd never have it in an FA porn clearinghouse or a feminist SA site. These, as with political blogs, serve as echo chambers. This thread has continued to create food for thought even as the knives and chains came out. I find all this remarkable and fairly unique in my internet experience.

The chick with the killer cookie recipe who's looking for EEE-width sneakers also dresses up in leather, pretends to gorge herself with whipped cream and charges guys to see it. Who knew? The guy who's into extreme weight gain fantasies is also a deep sea fisherman whose wife makes and sells SA-friendly sculpture. Huh! Neither puts their shit up in the parlor in real life, but I can bet they're happy to write about it here, in a forum where at least there's some basis of understanding. Take away the non-PC (in relation to size acceptance) elements and you take away the tension as well, and the whole reason this place is interesting and compelling. Welcome to Vanilla Echo Canyon.

It's not their, nor Dimensions', role to apologize for their deviance. In this case deviance is just being human. The way I see it, Dimensions, moderated and privately owned as it is, just IS. It is here for us to mold as we see fit with our insights and responses. Once we start worrying about good impressions, we become something else. Not ourselves.


----------



## Wilson Barbers

As the guy who originally put up the two galleries from where these works came (and who originally asked the two artists repped in these four pics if they wanted to appear in _Dimensions_), I come to this discussion later but hopefully can add something to it. I admire much of the art these two craftsmen have created and thought they deserved a gallery in the Weight Room &#8211; that one corner of the _Dim _site where fanta-sizers can go wild &#8211; alongside better known FA artists like Paul Delacroix (who early in his career did some men's mag WG graphics for yours truly) and Ned "King of the F.A.s" Sonntag. Of the four graphics taken out of context here, I'm fond of the woman with the remote (love the expression on her face) and the lady at the computer. In both images, the figures possess a clear personality that elevates their images beyond objectification for me.

The big question, of course, the one implicit in the poll that kicked this all off in the first place, is one that's argued whenever people of any political orientation consider art. Is it fair to judge art by whether it meets our political needs or not? If you're a Zhadonovite (arcane ref to a Russian school of thought which said that art must be evaluated by how well it served the state), you say, "but of course" &#8211; and spend your time writing screeds about how left-wing Hollywood can't produce movies that True Americans want to watch or how right wing teevee producers put on series condoning the use of rough interrogation tactics. You ask whether cartoon images that have as much relation to reality as Wile E. Coyote plummeting down a desert cliff onto a cactus consititute visual depictions of torture.

Me, I think art and fantasy aren't beholden to what Conrad rightly calls political correctness (whether it's liberal or conservative in focus), and, in fact, often operates best outside the bounds of respectability. Sandy made reference in this thread early on to these pictures reminding her of a "freak show." My own most recent story (originally done with illustrations by one of the two maligned artists in this thread) turns out to be set in a circus sideshow, in fact. To my admittedly warped eyes, the term "freak show" is not necessarily a pejorative &#8211; but, then, I remember an era in the sixties when many in my geezerly age group wore the name "freak" with pride. 

I'm also the guy, incidentally, who's put up the links on the front page for my stories and new galleries &#8211; and in the case of work like the BedBenders' gallery, I've typically tried to make it clear either in the link or the introductions just what kind of stuff is being displayed. Taking BedBender's two graphics away from the page explaining the science-fiction universe where these outlandish weight gain occur strikes me as more than a little manipulative. But, I suppose, if you put art up on the web, you have to be prepared to be taken out of context.

Obviously, I still think there's a place for this kind of fantasy on the _Dim _site. In my own work, I've personally tried to balance gonzo fanta-sizing with positive plus-sized statements, though not all writers or artists feel as beholden to this approach as I do. I _do_ feel bad for the two artists (one of whom I consider a good friend) who've been singled out in this occasionally vituperative discussion. It takes a certain courage to be willing to put your most extreme fantasies out there for the world to judge &#8211; and at times like this I know they've gotta be wondering whether it was at all worth it . . .


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus

Stan,

You're being a very bad boy. Do I have to get my whip? But I just love a shit stirrer that aint me. LOL:wubu::wubu::wubu:


----------



## superodalisque

i for one never said these kind of illustrations should be banned. the problem really isn't so much that this kind of art is linked on the front page. what i did say was that i personally don't care for them. i personally really wish they were not so much the focus of the front page for sure. i know that a lot of other people feel uncomfortable with them too. i don't expect to agree with everything that goes on here. but what i do expect is the right to have my own opinions respected even when they aren't those of others. per the illustrations i just wonder why its the only kind generally showcased here. where is the variety? and why isn't the work of any women shown?


----------



## Ernest Nagel

SamanthaNY said:


> First, thank you for the compliment & rep. We're a hard bunch here in the Big Apple, but sometimes we crack a smile when we put our weapons down .
> 
> Who gets to decide these non-warnings? Who picks out the links that are to be non-warned-about? For all your claims of "not a warning", all those examples are just that, warnings. Call it a disclaimer, call it a welcome, a guidance, a reality check... you're still saying "for the [insert negative adjective here] stuff, click over there", and that's putting a value judgment on whatever it is you're pointing to. Now, lest anyone think I'm too cool for school, I can SHOW you some stuff that will freak you right outta your loafers. I'm ALL about judgements! You're weird! That's sick! You're a perv! OMG, that top is hideous! But all that stuff is MY judgment. For me, and me alone. When I (or you, or Stan) try to impose that judgment on someone else, that's when we get into trouble. Because someone likes being weird. And they don't think that's sick, and they're happy with being a perv, and s/he thinks that top is gorgeous.
> 
> I think there may be a better way to counteract the stuff here that people feel needs to be... uh... counteracted. Instead of rallying against the tide of extremes that you feel are sending a bad message, why not add more vanilla content? Even the scales by adding content about 'regular' BBW/FA stuff, activism, etc. You're right, this is UGC, so start baking some white bread and I'll get the mayo. I'm quite serious in this suggestion. You're not going to be able to change the unVanillans, or to segregate that content... but by adding more of what you (or anybody) think is the Right Stuff, you can - as long as Conrad allows it [grumble about that WLS thread] - change Dimensions.



It ain't easy living without any natural empathy. I usually have to work hard to imagine how others feel in any given circumstance. It's really not that tough for me to guess what kind of impact the polled images would have on a woman here for the first time trying to come to grips with the whole FA concept though. Worrying about something like that probably makes me an arrogant misogynist to some but I'll stand by it.

From a recent Reuters article, my emphasis added:

Numbers posted by the National Center for Health Statistics show that more than 34 percent of Americans are obese, compared to 32.7 percent who are overweight. It said just under 6 percent are "extremely" obese.

"More than one-third of adults, or *over 72 million people, were obese in 2005-2006*, the NCHS said in its report.

The numbers are based on a survey of 4,356 adults over the age of 20 who take part in a regular government survey of health, said the NCHS, which is part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The figures come from the 2005-2006 survey and are the most current available.

34 thousand out of 72 million, not to mention the merely overweight. STG I'm not being critical but this is the #1 site for fat acceptance, right?

When I was a Boy Scout counselor and we would cut new trails for the campers they always reminded us that not everyone using them would be as accustomed to the woods as we were. They might be carrying more gear, shorter, taller, might not know what poison ivy looks like; lots of ways to be on the same trail. 

All I'm really talking about is a little consideration for the new scouts. Maybe everyone who's here on Dims now was tough enough for the trail they found or to get here without one. Maybe all we've got to say to those that follow is "good luck and watch your step"? If that's the case, so be it. The subject of an FA handbook has come up more than a few times and never got off the ground. Maybe getting dropped in the middle of the lake is the best swimming lesson? People who have been chewed and churned by the fat-phobic mainstream should be tough enough by the time they find their way here to deal with a non-traditional image, story or depravity or two, shouldn't they?!?

Mark the trails. I've tried to make that simple point as best I know how. I'm content to let nature and Dims take their course. Thanks to all for an enlightening, engaging and occasionally even civil conversation. :bow:


----------



## superodalisque

Ernest Nagel said:


> It ain't easy living without any natural empathy. I usually have to work hard to imagine how others feel in any given circumstance. It's really not that tough for me to guess what kind of impact the polled images would have on a woman here for the first time trying to come to grips with the whole FA concept though. Worrying about something like that probably makes me an arrogant misogynist to some but I'll stand by it.
> 
> From a recent Reuters article, my emphasis added:
> 
> Numbers posted by the National Center for Health Statistics show that more than 34 percent of Americans are obese, compared to 32.7 percent who are overweight. It said just under 6 percent are "extremely" obese.
> 
> "More than one-third of adults, or *over 72 million people, were obese in 2005-2006*, the NCHS said in its report.
> 
> The numbers are based on a survey of 4,356 adults over the age of 20 who take part in a regular government survey of health, said the NCHS, which is part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
> 
> The figures come from the 2005-2006 survey and are the most current available.
> 
> 34 thousand out of 72 million, not to mention the merely overweight. STG I'm not being critical but this is the #1 site for fat acceptance, right?
> 
> When I was a Boy Scout counselor and we would cut new trails for the campers they always reminded us that not everyone using them would be as accustomed to the woods as we were. They might be carrying more gear, shorter, taller, might not know what poison ivy looks like; lots of ways to be on the same trail.
> 
> All I'm really talking about is a little consideration for the new scouts. Maybe everyone who's here on Dims now was tough enough for the trail they found or to get here without one. Maybe all we've got to say to those that follow is "good luck and watch your step"? If that's the case, so be it. The subject of an FA handbook has come up more than a few times and never got off the ground. Maybe getting dropped in the middle of the lake is the best swimming lesson? People who have been chewed and churned by the fat-phobic mainstream should be tough enough by the time they find their way here to deal with a non-traditional image, story or depravity or two, shouldn't they?!?
> 
> Mark the trails. I've tried to make that simple point as best I know how. I'm content to let nature and Dims take their course. Thanks to all for an enlightening, engaging and occasionally even civil conversation. :bow:



i hear ya. can i add something else about the images. i think i was too late to add it to my other post. but i know that there are a lot of FAs as well who have a hard time coming to grips with thier preference because of images like those. they think of their fantasy as a hot,sexy, stylish, beautiful emotionally powerful and compelling BBW. they fear the sloppy, moomoo wearing, out of control steretype as the very image of the woman they are afraid to introduce to their friends. for some of them its not so much the idea of fat that keeps them in the closet, its what might come with it. so if the site looks like its trying to push that kind of image it can also be very insulting to some new FAs who don't understand the context as well. those images don't show you can have a big girl and a hot girl. what they show is that you have to make a choice between your private sexual fantasies and possibly feeling embarrassed. thats one way in which the times have changed. you don't have to keep your fantasy in the closet anymore. you can date her.

i want to also add that this idea of not giving a damn about the feelings of other people who need us is pretty worrisome as well. this all for me and my old pals attitude needs to be worked on.


----------



## Risible

Traveller said:


> It has been roughly an eon since I last posted on Dimensions. Not entirely sure why now or if anyone even remembers me. But something in this thread punched some buttons.
> 
> On the images itself and people's reactions. Those offended by them and wanting Dims to change seemingly want them kept in the internet site equivalent of a back room in the virtual video store, standard issue dirty raincoat and three days growth of beard required for acceptance to the dimly lit hallway leading to said room. Better yet, perhaps we could create some sort of back door access to the room so all the "mainstream" customers don't have to see them going back there. But are these offended people in favor of censorship? Heavens, no! They aren't asking for anything oppressive like that.
> 
> As to Dimensions itself and this thread. There is a common human tendency to want things to fit in convenient boxes. Such and such a thing is THIS and nothing else. Or, it would be better if such and such a thing were just THIS. Some people are more driven by this than others. There have been studies done and it has to do with acceptance of ambiguity.
> 
> The thread may have been started with just a poll but I think there's little question it also became a "what dimensions ought to be" discussion.
> 
> Sort of a "I think Dimensions is a great site, I really enjoy it and appreciate it but if it were MY site....." followed by advice as to what should be changed or what would make it better for the poster's personal preferences. Everyone wants it to be THEIR Dimensions.
> 
> I have a guilty pleasure way below my years known as World of Warcraft. (Bear with me, this is relevant). It's an online role playing fantasy game. Some content can only be played regularly with a large, organized, scheduled group and there are guilds (groups of associated players)formed for that purpose. There are also small guilds for just friendly co-op efforts and chatting outside of that special content as well. For a while once, I belonged to an open, free-wheeling, friendly guild that tried to be all-inclusive. Some members just liked occasionally helping out other members, some grouped up for that special content, just an all round relaxed group.
> 
> Until one faction started noticing we had a lot of members. Just like the really big dedicated special content guilds. And that maybe we should start getting more organized, scheduled, and compete with the other large guilds dedicated to special content. They pushed and they lobbied and they tugged to get the guild to their version of what they wanted the guild to be (over the wishes of the founder). And they stepped on a lot of people who didn't want the guild to become that. Ultimately they tore the guild apart to create their raid guild and one of the largest and longest running "casual" guilds in the game died. *There hasn't been another like it since. An something that was unique and fun was gone.*
> 
> Now this isn't the whining of some gamer geek over great times lost in a virtual game setting. It's no big deal. It's a game. But I found it tremendously similar to what this thread became. And the likely ultimate end of those kind of hijacking discussions if they are allowed to have their way.
> 
> To those who say to themselves, "Dimensions is a great site, I really like it and appreciate it but if it were MY site.......", stop right there. It's not. It's not going to be. It's not a pay subscription site so you have no financial right to demand the nature and shape of it's allowed content.
> 
> That does not mean you have no say or no influence. Someone said this site is not a democracy, but in a way it is. It is because you "vote" with your submissions and posts. Not in demanding it go in one direction or another. But in terms of the volume of content there is for all to see. As someone else has said, you want more of a vanilla FA site, post more vanilla content.
> 
> Conrad has stated fairly clearly how this site came to be and what he wants for this site. It does NOT fit in a convenient box. Like life, it's diverse and a little complicated. It has rough edges. It is NOT a size acceptance site though it is in favor and speaks support for size acceptance.
> 
> What it is, is a site for ALL things FAT related. And it attempts to cater to anything falling under that broad heading. No one and nothing is excluded unless it involves spewing hate, exploitation of children, or fraudulent business. So Stan, you want a site more directly supportive and representing size acceptance? Go start one of your own. Stop trying to hijack Conrad's.
> 
> I LIKE the fact Dimensions doesn't fit in a convenient box or serve some special politically correct interest. Insisting we hide away those less universally accepted parts is a little like demanding that everyone of a particular ethnic background behave strictly in a way we define as being a credit to their race.
> 
> So thank you Conrad for keeping Dimensions out of the box. Good for you and I wish you many years of success continuing to do so.



I quoted Traveller's post because it had many excellent points that bear repeating, but mostly because of the story s/he related about the now-defunct WOW guild. I thought that was particularly relevant to this discussion because, inasmuch that Stan and others here feel the images he posted, and others like them, are detrimental to the SA movement, and Dims in particular, I feel it's threads like this that tear the Dims community apart and cause harm. Newbies and old-timers alike must read these many posts, see the angst and the hate that is stirred up, want no part of it, and leave. 

We all know that starting a thread on a contentious topic that has no resolution but is nonetheless controversial is not productive (in that it will have no resolution), but will be hotly contested with lots of hurt feelings and ugliness. So why start it?


----------



## superodalisque

be quiet and go along ? communism didn't work either because its also against human nature


----------



## Wilson Barbers

superodalisque said:


> i personally really wish they were not so much the focus of the front page for sure. per the illustrations i just wonder why its the only kind generally showcased here. where is the variety? and why isn't the work of any women shown?



For a good number of years, the one consistent source of new creative material for this site was the WG stories and art that were being sent to yours truly in my then-capacity as Weight Room Stories editor. The front page consequently reflected that level of activity - and if you venture down into the library section of these forums, you'll see an active community of fanta-sizers still producing this material, though it isn't so consistently flogged on the front page.

There are, I should add, places on this site that feature art other than WG fantasy. The Exhibit Hall contains some Delacroix images and art by the Old Masters as well as current guys like Botero. (The Contemporary Art link appears to be broken, though.) I'd love to see a page devoted to any good fat-positive female artists, but the fact remains that for the longest time the most active and energetic contributors to this site have been the fanta-sizers . . .


----------



## T_Devil

This thread taught me one thing and one thing only:
*Always keep your guard up.*

If you let it down for even a moment, people will fuck with you in any way they can.

So, Stay Guarded. 
That's good advice, I'm putting that in my sig.


----------



## Mini

T_Devil said:


> This thread taught me one thing and one thing only:
> *Always keep your guard up.*
> 
> If you let it down for even a moment, people will fuck with you in any way they can.
> 
> So, Stay Guarded.
> That's good advice, I'm putting that in my sig.



Oh, get off it, ya' sissy.

Oh, and Stan: WHAT THE FUCK WERE YOU THINKING? I've seen Chinese fire drills that have been smaller clusterfucks. I like ya', dude, but goddamn, you need to learn when to shut the fuck up.


----------



## SocialbFly

Mini said:


> Oh, get off it, ya' sissy.
> 
> Oh, and Stan: WHAT THE FUCK WERE YOU THINKING? I've seen Chinese fire drills that have been smaller clusterfucks. I like ya', dude, but goddamn, you need to learn when to shut the fuck up.



hahaha, i am sorry i find this advice laughable, Mini, when it comes from you....just saying..


----------



## Mini

SocialbFly said:


> hahaha, i am sorry i find this advice laughable, Mini, when it comes from you....just saying..



Hey, in my defense I've actually started following my own advice.


----------



## tonynyc

T_Devil said:


> This thread taught me one thing and one thing only:
> *Always keep your guard up.*
> 
> If you let it down for even a moment, people will fuck with you in any way they can.
> 
> So, Stay Guarded.
> That's good advice, I'm putting that in my sig.



I'm curious T_Devil this is an online board not Rikers Island or San Quentin- what are you guarding yourself against?


----------



## Mini

tonynyc said:


> I'm curious T_Devil this is an online board not Rikers Island or San Quentin- what are you guarding yourself against?



Sand, methinks.


----------



## SamanthaNY

Chin up, T_Devil. Maybe you'll be included in the apology posts. I'm sure they'll start soon. And since this attention-whoring-tantrum-fest spanned at least 4 threads, the Forgive Me Tour '09 will be running for quite a while (Stan will no doubt what that done before his trip to Florida). Lots of ground to cover, fences to mend (I'm sure Heather will get you a nice room. Not near the dumpster.) don'tcha know. 

Gosh, that's gonna eat up more bandwidth. Maybe we could sell tickets? And T-shirts! (Sorry, they only come in vanilla.) HEY! That could be a sort of activism, right?! I'm sure those threads will inspire equal viewing numbers. That's what the poll indicates, right? 

Kumbaya.


----------



## T_Devil

Mini said:


> Sand, methinks.



bingo. if it is one thing I cannot stand is sand in my vagina.


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy

T_Devil said:


> bingo. if it is one thing I cannot stand is sand in my vagina.



Post pix plz kthx


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus

T_Devil said:


> bingo. if it is one thing I cannot stand is sand in my vagina.




NO NO NO - HE MEANT ME. CAUSE YA KNOW - *EVERYTHING* - POSTED IS ABOUT me - me - me goddammit!! EVERY FUCKING POST IS ABOUT ME!!!!!!! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

OK I'm better now - I just wanted to add to the lunacy over other's opinions. Don't sweat it T.D. eventually they will turn on me and you'll be in the clear. LOL (c'mon thats funny)

Now go back to ignoring me.


----------



## Carrie

T_Devil said:


> bingo. if it is one thing I cannot stand is sand in my vagina.


On the behalf of the Sandy Vagina Supporter Group (SVSG), I find this comment extremely offensive, and hurtful to our cause.


----------



## AnnMarie

Carrie said:


> On the behalf of the Sandy Vagina Supporter Group (SVSG), I find this comment extremely offensive, and hurtful to our cause.




Nobody wants your kind around here, gritty punanee.


----------



## Carrie

AnnMarie said:


> Nobody wants your kind around here, gritty punanee.


Fine. You're officially UN-invited to our annual Sandy Vagina cotillion. Stay home and cry with your fellow "smoothies".


----------



## Duniwin

fa_man_stan said:


> *Would you hang an image like this (a clothed one presumably...) in your place of work (office, cubicle etc...) or house or any other public place?
> *



No. However, I don't think that a page from the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition should be posted in an office environment either.




Sandie_Zitkus said:


> Do you think being a woman that size in reality would be fun (for the woman)??



I think that for some women, it would be fun to at least _imagine _to be that size, and it might even be fun for some women to actually be that size.



T_Devil said:


> exile in thighville said:
> 
> 
> 
> Majorities were also in favor of the holocaust, George W. Bush and Prop 8. They're not always right...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what is THAT supposed to mean?? I evoke Godwin's Law in the name of this being just about the dumbest internet fight I've ever been in and buster, I've been in A LOT of them!
Click to expand...

Recognizing Godwin's Law doesn't invalidate his argument.

That sums up all I have to say, except for total, word-for-word agreement with Mango's post.


----------



## T_Devil

Duniwin said:


> Recognizing Godwin's Law doesn't invalidate his argument.


No, the stupidity of bringing up the worst case of genocide in the history of the human race to state his case about a picture's popularity invalidates his argument.....
.... ok, why the fuck am I talking about this AGAIN?

note to T_Devil: STOP RESPONDING!!!


----------



## wrestlingguy

Sorry to arrive so late for the party, but Carla and I have been tending to a personal family emergency, so we've had little online contact over the past 2 days.

I love this site. I don't love all of the people here, but no one tells me to do so. When I came here for the first time over 10 years ago, the stories & drawings were there. I looked at them, even as a FA, they weren't for me, but I understood the fantasy, and how they figured into the overall scheme of things here. I talked with guys who found them erotic (fap material). I understood, even though I didn't partake. I fapped, talked with others, and learned, about my attraction, and about the movement.

There are other sites that prominently feature drawings and cartoons like this, as well as discussion of the fantasies. I think there are people who come here and feel this place should separate itself from the sites that feature this type of material.

Conrad, while it's his site, has always been open to change, as long as it keeps *his* site relevant, and it IS his site, we are just visitors. My posts from 10 years ago (yeah, this is not new) said that, and it won't change now.

I have some gay friends, some run on the down low, and some are flaming queens. To those who don't understand gay people, the flaming queens would likely be offensive to them, but there's also a good chance the down low folks would offend equally once their preference is known. It would likely not change that person's mind to encounter either. 

So, for a gay curious person, would the flaming queen kill that person's desire to to discover more about not only his attraction, but the gay movement as well? 

I think what separates Dimensions from all the other sites that are close, but no cigar, is BECAUSE it appeals to so many. I can take what I want from this site, leaving the rest for those who want what's important to them, and never the twain shall meet, except for whatever common ground we may share.

Let's face it, on any given day, there are more "guests" perusing the pages of Dimensions than those who choose to participate in ways other than lurking, regardless of the reasons. As someone who's been around for a while now, I'm here for the handful that post and participate. 

Dimensions, just like people, are like diamonds. Like diamonds, we (and Dimensions) are multi faceted. Not everyone will like all of our (or Dims)
facets, but we are still diamonds, as is this website.


----------



## FaxMachine1234

A big, dozen+ page thread that's degenerated into an argument? I'm astonished I wasn't a part of it. lol

I've skimmed the whole thing, and basically my opinion is exactly this:



Durin said:


> I don't really have anything to add to this Horrible thread but Good God People We ARE BETTER THAN THIS.
> 
> Isn't Dimensions supposed to be about tolerance. I believe last time I checked that tolerance imply's that even if you don't like something you Tolerate It.
> 
> It seems like maybe everybody decided to chuck thier empathy overboard when this thread started.
> 
> :bow:




Like wrestlingguy said, Dimensions is the only board of its type that I've seen that caters to both the size acceptance and fetish crowds, and I think that's excellent, as there are many people (like me) who have one foot on each side of the border. However, that means that threads like these are going to come up every once in awhile, because some jerk (sorry, Stan) feels the need to make the other "side" feel bad, more people get drawn into the attack, and everybody's just bitter afterwards.

Personally, the drawings didn't appeal to me (my personal taste is smaller) but on such stuff I shut my damn mouth.


----------



## LillyBBBW

SamanthaNY said:


> Chin up, T_Devil. Maybe you'll be included in the apology posts. I'm sure they'll start soon. And since this attention-whoring-tantrum-fest spanned at least 4 threads, the Forgive Me Tour '09 will be running for quite a while (Stan will no doubt what that done before his trip to Florida). Lots of ground to cover, fences to mend (I'm sure Heather will get you a nice room. Not near the dumpster.) don'tcha know.
> 
> Gosh, that's gonna eat up more bandwidth. Maybe we could sell tickets? And T-shirts! (Sorry, they only come in vanilla.) HEY! That could be a sort of activism, right?! I'm sure those threads will inspire equal viewing numbers. That's what the poll indicates, right?
> 
> Kumbaya.



I doubt that would make any difference. This has been one of the most hurtful threads of all time.


----------



## SocialbFly

LillyBBBW said:


> I doubt that would make any difference. This has been one of the most hurtful threads of all time.




what have i missed, i have read everything, and i see a discussion with differing views, i might not agree with everything, but i havent seen many say this is the way i see it and i see no other way...

I am truly sorry for those who have hurt feelings, i dont disagree, if you have hurt feelings, you have hurt feelings, i am just sorry that this is happening, cause i honestly felt this was an interesting conversation, and based upon that, i will withhold any further comments.

Hugs Lilly...i am sorry you have hurt feelings, i loves ya


----------



## James

So I agree with others. The original poll is flawed. Its weighted toward a particular response and its obviously achieved that response when one looks at the stats. Stan… I understand what you are saying and where you are coming from but I think you shot yourself in the foot a bit in the presentation and tone... 

Perhaps a better way to approach this might have been to give some context to your frustrations at the beginning of the thread? From our discussions, my understanding of your point of view is that the “fat-positive internet dimensions world” (I’m gonna call it &#8216;fatland’) has created a bubble of positivity that exists as a separate sub-culture but this culture is growing further and further from possible integration to a mainstream. The reason for the widening gap is twofold. Firstly, mainstream culture increasingly vilifies and morally ostracizes fat people as they aspire to unrealistic ideals. The second is that &#8216;fatland’ is increasingly advocating for extreme fatness, presenting associated imagery and lifestyles that create a pressure for equally unrealistic ideals. Both perspectives are 'flawed', but it does seem as if there is an increasing divergence between both &#8216;ideals’.

Whether or not Dimensions, Conrad or its members, acknowledge this openly or collectively feel inclined to do anything about isn’t something I think that they should be chastised about either way. If you (or I) want to make a case for something different then we’ve gotta think about what that might be? How we’d go about doing that? Or even if a &#8216;convergence’ of our little world with the mainstream is actually something that the majority of people want to aim for? 

I know your heart is in the right place dude and your frustrations are understandable. As you know, I share some of them. One thing’s a given though… you wont get people to have this debate, by approaching this issue tactlessly and with loaded premises (like the one that this thread is based on!) ha...


----------



## Wilson Barbers

James said:


> Firstly, mainstream culture increasingly vilifies and morally ostracizes fat people as they aspire to unrealistic ideals. The second is that fatland is increasingly advocating for extreme fatness, presenting associated imagery and lifestyles that create a pressure for equally unrealistic ideals.



While I can see your first point, I have to take issue with the loaded assumptions in the second. Fantasy has been a part of _Dimensions_ since it was a funky small-press organ of the Fat Admirers Special Interest Grouip - one of the first issues that I remember receiving, in fact, was a special fiction issue entirely devoted to storytelling. My own first "Fat Magic" tale appeared in the print mag back in 1988, so obviously fanta-sizing has been a part of the mag for quite some time. If you scroll down the front page of the site, you'll see that there's consistently been a lot of activity on the story writing front here.

But do these stories and images mean that the magazine is "advocating extreme fatness"? If you're the sort who believes that _Harry Potter_ promotes witchcraft, then I suppose they do. But this site has been careful about labeling its fantasy materials for exactly what they are from the get-go. The Weight Room Library says it best:

_"No sense beating around the bush. What we have here are, for the most part, heavy duty weight gain stories. They are not very politically correct and you either love this sort of fiction or you don't."_

Advocating for extreme fatness? Not to my eyes.


----------



## Jon Blaze

Santaclear said:


> To me they're just fetishy drawings, definitely kinda odd (since I'm not at all into the fetish) but I wouldn't go so far as to call them a detriment even tho some would use them as that (as elle camino noted.) Nor would I say they're in any way a benefit, except maybe to those who find 'em a turn-on. I believe in free speech and free expression so I'd hate to see them censored.
> 
> So I vote "no effect." Even tho they do have SOME effect. And as Ashley wrote in her excellent post, I believe "average" people would react negatively, yes.



Now I agreed with this, but I voted detriment. However, it's based on the same premise that overall it has little to no effect, but it does have some effect (It's like a net calculation). But it's really unrelated to Fat Acceptance as a concept anyway. Only those that wish to judge without any idea what it's about would instantly think "OH... So this is what that darn fat people movement is about."


----------



## James

Wilson Barbers said:


> While I can see your first point, I have to take issue with the loaded assumptions in the second. Fantasy has been a part of _Dimensions_ since it was a funky small-press organ of the Fat Admirers Special Interest Grouip - one of the first issues that I remember receiving, in fact, was a special fiction issue entirely devoted to storytelling. My own first "Fat Magic" tale appeared in the print mag back in 1988, so obviously fanta-sizing has been a part of the mag for quite some time. If you scroll down the front page of the site, you'll see that there's consistently been a lot of activity on the story writing front here.
> 
> But do these stories and images mean that the magazine is "advocating extreme fatness"? If you're the sort who believes that _Harry Potter_ promotes witchcraft, then I suppose they do. But this site has been careful about labeling its fantasy materials for exactly what they are from the get-go. The Weight Room Library says it best:
> 
> _"No sense beating around the bush. What we have here are, for the most part, heavy duty weight gain stories. They are not very politically correct and you either love this sort of fiction or you don't."_
> 
> Advocating for extreme fatness? Not to my eyes.


 
Oops, I just realized that what I wrote didn't clearly express what I was trying to say.

I wrote: 
_Firstly, mainstream culture increasingly vilifies and morally ostracizes fat people as they aspire to unrealistic ideals. _

which was potentially a bit misleading because what I meant was that mainstream ideals are unrealistic themselves...(i.e culture of thinness) and not that it ostracizes fat people (although of course it does that too).

Anyway, in response to your charge that 'fatland' doesnt advocate extreme fatness... I would say that it goes further than just weight gain fiction and paysites. 90% (or more) of the women I have spoken to on this subject are telling me that this is how they feel in relation to the whole bbw subculture (and it particular its online component). I'm not stating it to play devils advocate, I'm just listening to, and reflecting the opinions and frustrations I've heard.


----------



## AnnMarie

James said:


> Anyway, in response to your charge that 'fatland' doesnt advocate extreme fatness... I would say that it goes further than just weight gain fiction and paysites. 90% (or more) of the women I have spoken to on this subject are telling me that this is how they feel in relation to the whole bbw subculture. I'm not stating it to play devils advocate, I'm just listening to and reflecting the opinions I've heard.



I think it's as individual as the person, they way they internalize things. Among my friends (and no, not the ones who find gaining of basic interest) - NONE of them felt they're pressured with a bigger is better ideal. These are recent results, these threads have spurred the conversations in a "Do you feel that way?? I haven't... " way. 

I'm not saying anyone is right at all, just saying that if you keep asking, you'll find others who haven't felt that way at all. I really think it's very much about the person feeling it, how they internalize and deflect suggestions, etc.


----------



## Wilson Barbers

James said:


> Anyway, in response to your charge that 'fatland' doesnt advocate extreme fatness... I would say that it goes further than just weight gain fiction and paysites. 90% (or more) of the women I have spoken to on this subject are telling me that this is how they feel in relation to the whole bbw subculture (and it particular its online component). I'm not stating it to play devils advocate, I'm just listening to, and reflecting the opinions I've heard.



Some of this strikes me as comparable to some folks' reaction to the issue of gay liberation. Where most of the gay adults I've known basically want a world where they can simply live their lives, have a partner, get through the day without being harassed for who they are - many defensive straights see this request as an attempt at active "recruitment." That isn't the case at all, but there are people who'll you'll never convince otherwise. By the same token, there are people who'll react to the sight of a happy, provocative supersized woman - one who's getting along in the world without apologizing for herself - as if she's actively promoting supersized fatness for _everyone. _ 

I've gotta admit to feeling muddled about the parameters of "fatland," incidentally. When I read your first post, I saw it as encompassing the _Dimensions_ community, but, here, you seem to be applying it to the "whole bbw subculture." I'm confused, and I probably need to back out of this ever-shifting thread . . .


----------



## olwen

AnnMarie said:


> I think it's as individual as the person, they way they internalize things. Among my friends (and no, not the ones who find gaining of basic interest) - NONE of them felt they're pressured with a bigger is better ideal. These are recent results, these threads have spurred the conversations in a "Do you feel that way?? I haven't... " way.
> 
> I'm not saying anyone is right at all, just saying that if you keep asking, you'll find others who haven't felt that way at all. I really think it's very much about the person feeling it, how they internalize and deflect suggestions, etc.



Exactly. All of this was news to me since I've never felt pressured to be bigger by anyone ever.


----------



## Eclectic_Girl

AnnMarie said:


> I think it's as individual as the person, they way they internalize things. Among my friends (and no, not the ones who find gaining of basic interest) - NONE of them felt they're pressured with a bigger is better ideal. These are recent results, these threads have spurred the conversations in a "Do you feel that way?? I haven't... " way.
> 
> I'm not saying anyone is right at all, just saying that if you keep asking, you'll find others who haven't felt that way at all. I really think it's very much about the person feeling it, how they internalize and deflect suggestions, etc.





olwen said:


> Exactly. All of this was news to me since I've never felt pressured to be bigger by anyone ever.



I've never *felt* pressure to be bigger, but the suggestion has been made to me. Thing is, it was either made to me by someone whose opinion I have no reason to value (random dude at a dance) or by someone who was deliberately trying to gain the upper hand in a power game I had no interest in playing. In the first case, I brushed it off (whatevs, random dude). In the second case, it was one more straw on the load that eventually broke the relationship. The point is, even though pressure may have been intended, I did not accept it.

And what people perceive as pressure may not always be intended as such. As AnnMarie was getting at (I think - we haven't synced up our brains yet today...), people respond to things differently. For example, someone who is used to passive-aggressiveness as the main mode of communication would be more likely to see a positive comment about gaining weight as pressure to gain more, when it might just have been meant as a "you look hot" observation (coming from a fat-admiring viewpoint).

And, oh yeah, original question? I think the impact of these images to the outside world is a moot point. They weren't made as PR or propaganda pieces, they were made by a member of this community for members of this community. Just not *all* members of this community. It doesn't turn my crank, but I am not offended by the images (a couple, I think are kinda cute in an exaggerated cartoony way). As a noob, I might have been a little put off by the degree of exaggeration in these, but I've seen a lot more of real life as a fatty since then. At that point, I was more put off by drawings of immobile women hooked up to force feeding machines, because putting myself in that person's place threatened my sense of self-determination. Again, I've learned a lot since then about how strong I truly am, so it doesn't threaten me any more. It just ain't gonna happen. 

As an artistic critique, I much prefer someone explore his/her fantasies in cartoon medium rather than morphs. I think it's because it's a purer expression of creativity than taking something (some*one*) that already exists and bending it to his/her preferred vision. Also, there are some pretty crappy morphs out there.


----------



## Shosh

The images are definately not my thing, however I have learnt from being here at Dimensions, to each their own.

Maybe Stan should have thought more carefully about what he wrote, and the poll should maybe have been worded differently, but I find it upsetting to see him attacked in such a manner.

Stan has been a wonderful friend to me here, and a friend to many others, and he has done much for the SA movement.
It has upset me to read some of what I have read directed at Stan.

Stan is a good person, as you all are.


----------



## William

Hi Susannah

Tolerance is a two way street. If the supporters of this type of drawings deserve tolerance then so does Stan who put his question out there in a totally reasonable fashion.

William




Susannah said:


> The images are definately not my thing, however I have learnt from being here at Dimensions, to each their own.
> 
> Maybe Stan should have thought more carefully about what he wrote, and the poll should maybe have been worded differently, but I find it upsetting to see him attacked in such a manner.
> 
> Stan has been a wonderful friend to me here, and a friend to many others, and he has done much for the SA movement.
> It has upset me to read some of what I have read directed at Stan.
> 
> Stan is a good person, as you all are.


----------



## LalaCity

post deleted.


----------



## mergirl

Sandie_Zitkus said:


> If you want an answer I'll give you one.
> 
> How are these pictures of torture of women? They are "fantasized" (is that a word) art of something that in reality would be torturous to a woman to experience. Do you think being a woman that size in reality would be fun (for the woman)?? And I'm just guessing here but if a woman was any of the sizes depicted in reality - her heart could not handle that for too long.
> 
> There are all kinds of art that depicts women being tortured, mamed, dismembered etc., all in the name of art. This is just another one of those catagories. If I had a painting of a women being dismembered but she was smiling - does that mean she's enjoying it? No. It means the artist is enjoying the fantasy and in his head he fantasises that she enjoys it too. Right? I mean - look she's smiling it can't hurt too much right??
> 
> In this country you are allowed to do anything as long as you call it "Artistic Expression." That doesn't mean I have to like it.


I think its important to remember that women have these fantasys too R.e Heathers earlier post, so it might have actually been a woman who drew these pictures. Anyone has the "right" (wiring and experiences might be more accurate) to dislike any art, but to try to ban it would be tauntamount to the mcarthy book burnings really. Besides, you cant erase peoples fantasies and i think its healthy to express inner thoughts as art.


----------



## mergirl

BothGunsBlazing said:


> ok, NOW it is a detriment.


Sorry, thats just brilliantly funny, but i canny rep you again cheeky bastard with charisma!! lmao


----------



## mergirl

Ella Bella said:


> Agreed, one of the reasons I haven't introduced my sister to this site is that I'm worried about some of the more extreme stuff she'd see.


Actually, thats a good point ella. I waited a while before introducing my gf to Dimensions until we knew each other a bit better because i wanted to explain some of the other stuff that she would find here, a lot of which she either hadnt heard of or stuff that she had seen one sided Documentaries of ie stuff about feeders. Stuff that while i have no objection to, is personally not my fetish/fantasy (whichever term is apropriate). I sort of got sick of explaining to friends etc that actually i'm not a feeder when i tell them i'm an "Fa". I in part Blame those mental Docu's but also if they look on Dimensions, fleetingly it might seem that Being an Fa is synonomous with all other Sub fetish too. 
So for that reason, i can kinna see why if art like this is shown, where it might be the first impression new peeps to dimensions see it might well put them off or frighten them, if its not shown in proper context. Although when i voted i did say i dont think it would make a difference.. hmm.. Honestly, my reaction to the pics is that they were funny..in a kinna strange way. Of course if someone was so big they had to have a harness to support thier tits it wouldnt be.. But i'm pretty sure ive never heard of that happening.


----------



## BothGunsBlazing

LillyBBBW said:


> No. Because people like you are incapable of love.



I know what an erection feels like, Lilly. 

So, there goes THAT theory.


----------



## mergirl

Carrie said:


> On the behalf of the Sandy Vagina Supporter Group (SVSG), I find this comment extremely offensive, and hurtful to our cause.


gawwd! And i thought it sucked when i ate a sandy sandwhich!!


----------



## LillyBBBW

olwen said:


> Exactly. All of this was news to me since I've never felt pressured to be bigger by anyone ever.



Me either olwen, at least not directly. I've been in the fat social scene for many years and notice that I get way more attention now at over 400 than I did when I was 320. This may be the 'pressure' that some are referring too. In the past I've been in conversations with guys who will trail off midsentence because a bigger girl walked through the doorway and passed by. For many the bigger size is the ideal which can leave many feeling wholy inadaquate. Too big for the real world, too small for Dimensions. 

On the other hand bigger isn't always better. Being that large can be problematic and the realities of that are often difficult to reconcile. A bigger woman may long to be not so big either for health reasons or personal preference. Seems there's no happy existence for the FA either who can't do much about his wiring and responses. 

Sprinkled in all of this are the seemingly happy supersized females who don't have any issues with being the size they are or the complications that accompany. There is even an extreme where there are women who are actively gaining to seemingly unrealistic levels. People who make this declaration are often peppered with frustrated incredulous questions galore: aren't you worried about xyz? How can you want that? Don't you know what you're headed for? People who want that are quickly labeled psychopaths or suspected of deliberatey saying things to get attention from men. If she has a partner he is instantly loathed as some form of predator who is taking advntage. Inevitably some FA will sigh wistfully and say, "Wish I could be lucky enough to find a gal like that," which inspires this sense of pressure to be fat and remain that way despite the consequences. There's enough room for just about anybody to feel some resentment directed towards them for one reason or another and the mantra is the same on each side: "they just don't get it." I'm at the point where I've completley lost my faith in the idea that there can ever be a respectful coexistence.


----------



## chunkeymonkey

LillyBBBW said:


> Me either olwen, at least not directly. I've been in the fat social scene for many years and notice that I get way more attention now at over 400 than I did when I was 320. This may be the 'pressure' that some are referring too. In the past I've been in conversations with guys who will trail off midsentence because a bigger girl walked through the doorway and passed by. For many the bigger size is the ideal which can leave many feeling wholy inadaquate. Too big for the real world, too small for Dimensions.
> 
> On the other hand bigger isn't always better. Being that large can be problematic and the realities of that are often difficult to reconcile. A bigger woman may long to be not so big either for health reasons or personal preference. Seems there's no happy existence for the FA either who can't do much about his wiring and responses.
> 
> Sprinkled in all of this are the seemingly happy supersized females who don't have any issues with being the size they are or the complications that accompany. There is even an extreme where there are women who are actively gaining to seemingly unrealistic levels. People who make this declaration are often peppered with frustrated incredulous questions galore: aren't you worried about xyz? How can you want that? Don't you know what you're headed for? People who want that are quickly labeled psychopaths or suspected of deliberatey saying things to get attention from men. If she has a partner he is instantly loathed as some form of predator who is taking advntage. Inevitably some FA will sigh wistfully and say, "Wish I could be lucky enough to find a gal like that," which inspires this sense of pressure to be fat and remain that way despite the consequences. There's enough room for just about anybody to feel some resentment directed towards them for one reason or another and the mantra is the same on each side: "they just don't get it." I'm at the point where I've completley lost my faith in the idea that there can ever be a respectful coexistence.



I have given up on trying to figure out how the minds of FA's work in real. After being married to one for over 10 years one would think I could figure it out. When I first met him he showed me his preference of 400lbs +. I felt like he settled for a 250 lb girl. I gained weight in hopes to measure up. Along with the weight gain came health issues. Nothing major but none the less issues. I went to BBW dances and thinking I was huge found out I was on a very small end. I could have jumped up and down naked and still gone unnoticed. I lost weight my lowest down to 210lbs felt great physically however my husband was really disappointed. I slowly gained back the weight back and hit the scale at 278 lbs last week. Its a catch 22. I am back to health issues. So what does a girl do? I find no matter what, I can't stop comparing me to what fantasy girl my husband might have in his head and how can I measure up...........


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus

That is a really tough question to answer. My hubby is a lifelong FA, I understand the fear of him finding a bigger woman more attractive. However - I got over that by knowing it wasn't about him and his preference - it was about me and my insecurities. Everyone fantasizes. So for him to have a fantasy size is not a big deal. If he hasn't asked you to gain weight chances are pretty good he's happy with you just as you are. If he has asked you to gain - that's another post. 

After 10 years of marriage he is probably very happy with you no matter what your weight is. He may look honey (they all do) but that doesn't mean he wants anyone else. You are a strikingly beautiful woman - he's lucky to have you. 




chunkeymonkey said:


> I have given up on trying to figure out how the minds of FA's work in real. After being married to one for over 10 years one would think I could figure it out. When I first met him he showed me his preference of 400lbs +. I felt like he settled for a 250 lb girl. I gained weight in hopes to measure up. Along with the weight gain came health issues. Nothing major but none the less issues. I went to BBW dances and thinking I was huge found out I was on a very small end. I could have jumped up and down naked and still gone unnoticed. I lost weight my lowest down to 210lbs felt great physically however my husband was really disappointed. I slowly gained back the weight back and hit the scale at 278 lbs last week. Its a catch 22. I am back to health issues. So what does a girl do? I find no matter what, I can't stop comparing me to what fantasy girl my husband might have in his head and how can I measure up...........


----------



## olwen

LillyBBBW said:


> Me either olwen, at least not directly. I've been in the fat social scene for many years and notice that I get way more attention now at over 400 than I did when I was 320. This may be the 'pressure' that some are referring too. In the past I've been in conversations with guys who will trail off midsentence because a bigger girl walked through the doorway and passed by. For many the bigger size is the ideal which can leave many feeling wholy inadaquate. Too big for the real world, too small for Dimensions.
> 
> On the other hand bigger isn't always better. Being that large can be problematic and the realities of that are often difficult to reconcile. A bigger woman may long to be not so big either for health reasons or personal preference. Seems there's no happy existence for the FA either who can't do much about his wiring and responses.
> 
> Sprinkled in all of this are the seemingly happy supersized females who don't have any issues with being the size they are or the complications that accompany. There is even an extreme where there are women who are actively gaining to seemingly unrealistic levels. People who make this declaration are often peppered with frustrated incredulous questions galore: aren't you worried about xyz? How can you want that? Don't you know what you're headed for? People who want that are quickly labeled psychopaths or suspected of deliberatey saying things to get attention from men. If she has a partner he is instantly loathed as some form of predator who is taking advntage. Inevitably some FA will sigh wistfully and say, "Wish I could be lucky enough to find a gal like that," which inspires this sense of pressure to be fat and remain that way despite the consequences. There's enough room for just about anybody to feel some resentment directed towards them for one reason or another and the mantra is the same on each side: "they just don't get it." I'm at the point where I've completley lost my faith in the idea that there can ever be a respectful coexistence.



I've been in and out of the scene for a while. I was a little bigger then too, so maybe that's why I never felt any pressure. I was already the size that some of them seemed to want. Regardless, I just feel that the size I am, whatever it is, is the size I am and any guy who would want to be with me would have to accept it. I'm not going to make such a sacrifice (in either direction) for anybody. When I started out to loose weight I admit, it was because of a guy and part of the way in I realized how fucking stupid that was. How could I let some guy make me do something so drastic? Then I came to my senses and it stopped being about him thank god. I vowed never do something like that again. No one is worth my comfort. I have to live with my body so how I feel in it trumps anybody else's concerns including a lover. He would just have to be accommodated in other ways. If he can't be satisfied with that then he's not the guy for me. So in that way I feel no pressure from FAs to change my size, and I never will. If I decide to change my size in either direction again it will be my choice and mine alone.

I think there can be a respectful coexistence. I wouldn't give up on it just yet. We just need to have these sorts of dialogs every now and again to remind ourselves - each one of us as individuals - that we are not the center of the world. We have to accommodate each other at most if we're all trying to achieve some common goal and at least, if we are to share the same space. This bit may not have anything to do with anything but I thought I'd say it anyway: Human sexuality will always be important to people because it is a source of power. We don't always consciously do it, but when we make value judgments based on a person's sexuality we are trying to take away their power, which is why I try really hard not to judge that stuff, I mean who the hell am I to judge anybody else's sex/fantasy life considering what I like to do? We just have to remember that power is bigger than all of us, we are insignificant compared to it and to try to harness that power (without sharing it) only leads to chaos - thus we get threads like this one.



Sandie_Zitkus said:


> That is a really tough question to answer. My hubby is a lifelong FA, I understand the fear of him finding a bigger woman more attractive. However - I got over that by knowing it wasn't about him and his preference - it was about me and my insecurities. Everyone fantasizes. So for him to have a fantasy size is not a big deal. If he hasn't asked you to gain weight chances are pretty good he's happy with you just as you are. If he has asked you to gain - that's another post.
> 
> After 10 years of marriage he is probably very happy with you no matter what your weight is. He may look honey (they all do) but that doesn't mean he wants anyone else. You are a strikingly beautiful woman - he's lucky to have you.



I agree with what Sandie is saying. Guys do look, including the ones who like thin women and their wives and gfs have the same concerns and wonder if they measure up to the fantasy. If he's still with you chunkeymonkey, it's just proof that the fantasy doesn't measure up to you!


----------



## LillyBBBW

olwen said:


> Sandie_Zitkus said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is a really tough question to answer. My hubby is a lifelong FA, I understand the fear of him finding a bigger woman more attractive. However - I got over that by knowing it wasn't about him and his preference - it was about me and my insecurities. Everyone fantasizes. So for him to have a fantasy size is not a big deal. If he hasn't asked you to gain weight chances are pretty good he's happy with you just as you are. If he has asked you to gain - that's another post.
> 
> After 10 years of marriage he is probably very happy with you no matter what your weight is. He may look honey (they all do) but that doesn't mean he wants anyone else. You are a strikingly beautiful woman - he's lucky to have you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with what Sandie is saying. Guys do look, including the ones who like thin women and their wives and gfs have the same concerns and wonder if they measure up to the fantasy. If he's still with you chunkeymonkey, it's just proof that the fantasy doesn't measure up to you!
Click to expand...


That can be so much easier said than done though. I'm on the other end of the spectrum where I prefer being larger. The pressure to lose weight is... immense. EVERYWHERE. Books, movies, jobs, friends, family, doctors - they're all about being slim and trim for one reason or another. I do love my friends but at times I feel pressured to play along with the diet talk or feel completely shut out or even scorned. I would imagine if you feel deeply connected to someone, especially a spouse or a family member, you want to make them happy and feel more strongly connected. In my case it's wanting so much to put my mother's mind at ease. I am somehow made to feel responsible for her endless worrying over my health in her old age. I don't usually have a problem with ceasing to give a shit about things but with people you love and feel particularly close to it can be hard. I don't even have any health issues but I feel pressured to acknowledge imaginary ones for her sake and the sake of my friends. I would imagine the frustrations to be similar when dealing with someone whose ideal is on the other side of the spectrum and you're caught in the middle somewhere feeling tepid and uninteresting.


----------



## olwen

LillyBBBW said:


> That can be so much easier said than done though. I'm on the other end of the spectrum where I prefer being larger. The pressure to lose weight is... immense. EVERYWHERE. Books, movies, jobs, friends, family, doctors - they're all about being slim and trim for one reason or another. I do love my friends but at times I feel pressured to play along with the diet talk or feel completely shut out or even scorned. I would imagine if you feel deeply connected to someone, especially a spouse or a family member, you want to make them happy and feel more strongly connected. In my case it's wanting so much to put my mother's mind at ease. I am somehow made to feel responsible for her endless worrying over my health in her old age. I don't usually have a problem with ceasing to give a shit about things but with people you love and feel particularly close to it can be hard. I don't even have any health issues but I feel pressured to acknowledge imaginary ones for her sake and the sake of my friends. I would imagine the frustrations to be similar when dealing with someone whose ideal is on the other side of the spectrum and you're caught in the middle somewhere feeling tepid and uninteresting.



I understand that. I solve that problem by staying far away from that kind of talk. It urkes me, and if possible I leave the room, if not, like at work I try to change the subject and if that doesn't work I go on a rant about feminism and food/dieting and since I work for a feminist organization that usually shuts them up.


----------



## NancyGirl74

I know we've kind of gotten off onto another topic but I wanted to throw my two cents in about feeling that being over a certain size or gaining to be a certain size is what Dims is primarily about. I have been told many times that I'm on the small side and not by only men. The only place I have ever been made to feel "small" is here at Dims or at functions with other Dims members. Every where else I am the largest person I know. I deal everyday with less-than-chubby women calling themselves fat. If they are fat what am I? If I'm small here and fat every where else where does that leave me? Too big for the title BBW, too small for SSBBW. I guess it depends on point of view but still when women I count as my fat peers tell me I'm small and can never understand what its like to be a certain weight I feel extremely disheartened. I have been told by men that my weight is fine as long as I don't lose any more...and oh, have I been heavier or do I want to be. Heaven forbid, I'm honest and say I'd like to lose about 50 lbs for health reasons. Who care's about your health, you just another cursed dieter. So, even though I truly get that those pictures represent a fantasy, to me they are another example of what I have to be or should be but can never be in order to be thought of as true Dims material. 

I am fully aware that these issues are personal and I am in no way calling for a ban of those types of pictures because they bother me. I'm just putting my feelings on the subject out there. I'm also ok with saying what annoys me about Dims because what I love about it far outweighs what I don't. Dims is not perfection but what place or person is?

PS...I'm sorry that this thread has hurt so many feelings. I personally never intended to hurt or offend anyone with any of my posts and hope I haven't.


----------



## mergirl

chunkeymonkey said:


> I have given up on trying to figure out how the minds of FA's work in real. After being married to one for over 10 years one would think I could figure it out. When I first met him he showed me his preference of 400lbs +. I felt like he settled for a 250 lb girl. I gained weight in hopes to measure up. Along with the weight gain came health issues. Nothing major but none the less issues. I went to BBW dances and thinking I was huge found out I was on a very small end. I could have jumped up and down naked and still gone unnoticed. I lost weight my lowest down to 210lbs felt great physically however my husband was really disappointed. I slowly gained back the weight back and hit the scale at 278 lbs last week. Its a catch 22. I am back to health issues. So what does a girl do? I find no matter what, I can't stop comparing me to what fantasy girl my husband might have in his head and how can I measure up...........


Its sad that you have felt you have had to "measure" up somehow to someones preference. Some Fa's prefer women on the lower end of big and some prefer those on the bigger end and i think thats it really. Though if you have felt "actual" pressure from anyone to gain weight (or for that case to become anything you are not) and not just a form of self pressure then i would say it would time to think about the other person and how much they actually must care for you. I think there is a lot of pressure from women in relationships regarding thier weight. I have known so many women (role models??!) as i was growing up who were constantly on excruciating diets cause they think it will please their partners. Most of the time their partners dont even notice slight changes in weight. So i think that all women of all sizes try to be what they consider their partners find attractive.. which is a pity.


----------



## GWARrior

NancyGirl74 said:


> I know we've kind of gotten off onto another topic but I wanted to throw my two cents in about feeling that being over a certain size or gaining to be a certain size is what Dims is primarily about. I have been told many times that I'm on the small side and not by only men. The only place I have ever been made to feel "small" is here at Dims or at functions with other Dims members. Every where else I am the largest person I know. I deal everyday with less-than-chubby women calling themselves fat. If they are fat what am I? If I'm small here and fat every where else where does that leave me? Too big for the title BBW, too small for SSBBW. I guess it depends on point of view but still when women I count as my fat peers tell me I'm small and can never understand what its like to be a certain weight I feel extremely disheartened. I have been told by men that my weight is fine as long as I don't lose any more...and oh, have I been heavier or do I want to be. Heaven forbid, I'm honest and say I'd like to lose about 50 lbs for health reasons. Who care's about your health, you just another cursed dieter. So, even though I truly get that those pictures represent a fantasy, to me they are another example of what I have to be or should be but can never be in order to be thought of as true Dims material.
> 
> I am fully aware that these issues are personal and I am in no way calling for a ban of those types of pictures because they bother me. I'm just putting my feelings on the subject out there. I'm also ok with saying what annoys me about Dims because what I love about it far outweighs what I don't. Dims is not perfection but what place or person is?
> 
> PS...I'm sorry that this thread has hurt so many feelings. I personally never intended to hurt or offend anyone with any of my posts and hope I haven't.




i feel the same.


----------



## mergirl

I think its shitty but maby this has something to do with it..
"Published bimonthly as a forum for those with a preference for the large figure and the people who attract them."
Thats the descriptor of Dimensions when you google it..So, Fatties on here, your only role is to attract us Fa's.. so you better quit your whining and keep on fattin!!!!:eat2:


----------



## superodalisque

getting back to the original issue, i still find it highly conflicting that people complain about these kinds of stereotypes and images when done by the outside world but they are fine here. i see all kinds of stories here about how people feel hurt by stuff like this. if most people found the image on thier desk at work or at school with thier face on it they'd probaby be upset and take it as a personal attack. but somehow here the same group of people say that makes them feel ok or even happy? ok. i think gaining feeding stuff can be cute but this doesn't really feel that way to me. i think its because they looked trapped in a way. i like to see fat folk out in the world doing their thing and not being embarrassed about it. to me these look rather sad dependent and under someone else's control. but thats just me.

sometimes i wonder if this is acceptable here because a lot of people use dims to find sexual partners? is it because people feel afraid to tell the truth because they might scare away someone who might have a sexual interest in them? the reason i'm asking is because i've noticed that there seems to be a lot of sensitivity around anything that might seem to bruise an FAs ego--( i admit to same with BBWs too but the assumption differs here because there are supposedly not enough men attracted to fat women to go around). even though i know a lot of FAs are much tougher than that and welcome discussing a lot of tender issues openly because they just want to know. yes, there are some who kick. but i find its usually the few who will have thier fantasy at anyone's expense and don't really care to know what their partner really feels. it seems people might be intent on protecting something that really doesn't need protecting because they might be afraid that it looks as though they are turning someone away if they talk about things that might be difficult. all i know is from what i've heard privately over the years there is a level of discomfort about things that isn't being acknowledged in public. or if they do there are prompt attempts to squash them stating community as the reason. the shame is that we don't make people feel safe in saying what their truths are whether they are an FA, FFA, BBW or BHM. there is always the threat sometimes voiced and sometimes not that if one does not go along they won't be desireable or includeable. that encapasses issues that go along with the thoughts voiced about weight gain etc... both pro and con.

all of this also makes me wonder if the wishes of Conrad are being interpellated in some way that he hasn't even intended by well intentioned folk who think thats what he wants. it has been said here in many ways that dims is for him and his fantasies. but i would think that he could indulge himself much better by really using all of his resources specifically for him. he could probably buy all of the art he wanted and he could even pay people to gain for his own private entertainement. and don't think someone wouldn't do it either. so why all of this fear mungering about what the webmaster wants when it comes to trying to silence people's opinions? even if he closed it down tomorrrow there are empty sites we could go to invade as a group already set up. so why all this heavy handed reference to him when we are just trying to discuss an issue. isn't it time we stopped relying on him and calling out his name whenever there is a difficult issue to talk about? i think we should stop trying to control a situation by trying to invoke some power that we don't even have or need to have to just talk. we are intelligent enough to sway a conversation by being logical relevant and respectful of other people. i wonder why its so hard for us to do that? if it bothered people how Stan presented the question in it would have been easy to diffuse it and just talk about the pertinent points, because there are some. instead of blaming Stan maybe we ought to think about why we were so anxius to bite. one problem dims has, and yes its natural, is that we love picking sides. we love creating cliques. i personally think its because a lot of people here have been on the outs for most of their lives and enjoy being with the in crowd for once in their life, sometimes enjoying being "better" than someone else a little too much. maybe its time to realize that underneath it all we are all on the same side. so don't blame Stan.


----------



## exile in thighville

The difference between the outside world stereotypes and the ones you see on this site are because stereotypes are romanticized. They are characters...you don't have to believe in them to be aroused by them. The drawings on this site are just that, they represent a fantasy of fat girls losing control. It doesn't mean you think fat girls have no self-control, it means you are turned on by these taboo thoughts that are distinctly different from reality.

It would be like if someone had sexual fantasies about a very stereotypical "ghetto" black girl. They may well know that they're not all like that, but they can't control the character in their fantasy that turns them on is a total cliche. They could date someone completely unlike that too, as long as she had fun playacting the type in bed.

This isn't in conflict with the site. This site has a lot of material for fantasy and unreality, and a lot to say for reality too. Dimensions isn't beholden to one or the other.

I agree that if someone stumbles upon Dimensions they might be confused when they see the images. But there are plenty of disclaimers around denoting what is here for fantasy and what we actually believe to be real. Unfortunately, most (including you guys) don't read the fine print. I don't think it's hard to make the distinction either, and I think these complaints are overreaching. AKA It's _your_ fault not mine, if you don't understand my porn.


----------



## superodalisque

exile in thighville said:


> The difference between the outside world stereotypes and the ones you see on this site are because stereotypes are romanticized. They are characters...you don't have to believe in them to be aroused by them. The drawings on this site are just that, they represent a fantasy of fat girls losing control. It doesn't mean you think fat girls have no self-control, it means you are turned on by these taboo thoughts that are distinctly different from reality.
> 
> It would be like if someone had sexual fantasies about a very stereotypical "ghetto" black girl. They may well know that they're not all like that, but they can't control the character in their fantasy that turns them on is a total cliche. They could date someone completely unlike that too, as long as she had fun playacting the type in bed.
> 
> This isn't in conflict with the site. This site has a lot of material for fantasy and unreality, and a lot to say for reality too. Dimensions isn't beholden to one or the other.



i understand the arousal factor and taboo. i'm not questioning whether its a factor for a group of people. but the question is who is turned on and who is turned off? and isn't it ok sometimes to have things around that most people can be turned on by? am i wrong in assuming that those ar not the only things the people who like them are turned on by?


----------



## exile in thighville

superodalisque said:


> i understand the arousal factor and taboo. i'm not questioning whether its a factor for a group of people. but the question is who is turned on and who is turned off? and isn't it ok sometimes to have things around that most people can be turned on by? am i wrong in assuming that those ar not the only things the people who like them are turned on by?



there's plenty of more "tasteful" images around here as well that receive less publicity.


----------



## olwen

superodalisque said:


> i understand the arousal factor and taboo. i'm not questioning whether its a factor for a group of people. but the question is who is turned on and who is turned off? and isn't it ok sometimes to have things around that most people can be turned on by? am i wrong in assuming that those ar not the only things the people who like them are turned on by?



I'm a bit confused. I'm not sure why it should matter who is and who isn't turned off or on or the point in exposing people who choose to remain anonymous....How are we to determine what most people are turned on by? Is there a common denomenator, something that everyone can agree to? No. There isn't. It's impossible to do determine that because of the variety. Here you have a group of people who are stating explicity what turns them on. Sure there could be other things, but the explicit thing is the one they care to share. In that way they know they aren't alone and that they have a sense of community. If you have a kink that is extreme you want to know that you are not alone. It doesn't mean tho that your sexual repetoire is limited to that thing alone. I would feel uncomfortable with someone else trying to guess at what would or wouldn't turn me on....I would feel uncomfortable trying to guess that of someone else. There are just too many things to choose from....not to mention the fact that over time what we like might change, then how to determine at what point in someones life they'll switch from X to Y?...


----------



## superodalisque

exile in thighville said:


> there's plenty of more "tasteful" images around here as well that receive less publicity.



why do you think that is? is it because they are boring or ...?


----------



## superodalisque

olwen said:


> I'm a bit confused. I'm not sure why it should matter who is and who isn't turned off or on or the point in exposing people who choose to remain anonymous....How are we to determine what most people are turned on by? Is there a common denomenator, something that everyone can agree to? No. There isn't. It's impossible to do determine that because of the variety. Here you have a group of people who are stating explicity what turns them on. Sure there could be other things, but the explicit thing is the one they care to share. In that way they know they aren't alone and that they have a sense of community. If you have a kink that is extreme you want to know that you are not alone. It doesn't mean tho that your sexual repetoire is limited to that thing alone. I would feel uncomfortable with someone else trying to guess at what would or wouldn't turn me on....I would feel uncomfortable trying to guess that of someone else. There are just too many things to choose from....not to mention the fact that over time what we like might change, then how to determine at what point in someones life they'll switch from X to Y?...




sorry but i don't think i should need to go into why other people matter or not.


----------



## olwen

superodalisque said:


> sorry but i don't think i should need to go into why other people matter or not.



....I'm just genuinely confused and trying to understand....


----------



## ashmamma84

NancyGirl74 said:


> I know we've kind of gotten off onto another topic but I wanted to throw my two cents in about feeling that being over a certain size or gaining to be a certain size is what Dims is primarily about. I have been told many times that I'm on the small side and not by only men. The only place I have ever been made to feel "small" is here at Dims or at functions with other Dims members. Every where else I am the largest person I know. I deal everyday with less-than-chubby women calling themselves fat. If they are fat what am I? If I'm small here and fat every where else where does that leave me? Too big for the title BBW, too small for SSBBW. I guess it depends on point of view but still when women I count as my fat peers tell me I'm small and can never understand what its like to be a certain weight I feel extremely disheartened. I have been told by men that my weight is fine as long as I don't lose any more...and oh, have I been heavier or do I want to be. Heaven forbid, I'm honest and say I'd like to lose about 50 lbs for health reasons. Who care's about your health, you just another cursed dieter. So, even though I truly get that those pictures represent a fantasy, to me they are another example of what I have to be or should be but can never be in order to be thought of as true Dims material.
> 
> I am fully aware that these issues are personal and I am in no way calling for a ban of those types of pictures because they bother me. I'm just putting my feelings on the subject out there. I'm also ok with saying what annoys me about Dims because what I love about it far outweighs what I don't. Dims is not perfection but what place or person is?
> 
> PS...I'm sorry that this thread has hurt so many feelings. I personally never intended to hurt or offend anyone with any of my posts and hope I haven't.



Just cause it bears repeating.


----------



## exile in thighville

superodalisque said:


> why do you think that is? is it because they are boring or ...?



i was being tongue-in-cheek. ask "publicists" like stan.


----------



## CurvaceousBBWLover

I think that kind of art is most appropriate for the mainstream. 

I would not post this in the workplace because my preferences on expansion are different from yours. Besides, the women would feel offended and may call you a pervert behind your back.

I don't think this art is appropriate for a BBW party either. Most big women are not trying to get immobile.


----------



## LillyBBBW

NancyGirl74 said:


> I know we've kind of gotten off onto another topic but I wanted to throw my two cents in about feeling that being over a certain size or gaining to be a certain size is what Dims is primarily about. I have been told many times that I'm on the small side and not by only men. The only place I have ever been made to feel "small" is here at Dims or at functions with other Dims members. Every where else I am the largest person I know. I deal everyday with less-than-chubby women calling themselves fat. If they are fat what am I? If I'm small here and fat every where else where does that leave me? Too big for the title BBW, too small for SSBBW. I guess it depends on point of view but still when women I count as my fat peers tell me I'm small and can never understand what its like to be a certain weight I feel extremely disheartened. I have been told by men that my weight is fine as long as I don't lose any more...and oh, have I been heavier or do I want to be. Heaven forbid, I'm honest and say I'd like to lose about 50 lbs for health reasons. Who care's about your health, you just another cursed dieter. So, even though I truly get that those pictures represent a fantasy, to me they are another example of what I have to be or should be but can never be in order to be thought of as true Dims material.
> 
> I am fully aware that these issues are personal and I am in no way calling for a ban of those types of pictures because they bother me. I'm just putting my feelings on the subject out there. I'm also ok with saying what annoys me about Dims because what I love about it far outweighs what I don't. Dims is not perfection but what place or person is?
> 
> PS...I'm sorry that this thread has hurt so many feelings. I personally never intended to hurt or offend anyone with any of my posts and hope I haven't.



Thank you Nancy  I can't Rep you yet for this great post but I'm on my way. So many good points. :happy: Unfortunately this is what just about every woman has to live with. On one side someone is holding up a picture of Marie Osmond in her new skinny jeans and then on the other is an equally impossible image of the happy fat immobile queen waiting for her next cheesecake. We're surrounded by dreamgirl images that make one feel an often unspoken pressure to measure up in one way or another. Somewhere in the midst of all that are normal men who can value the person beyond the dreamgirl image. Even they have their pinups though. Many men do manage to have successful relationships and still enjoy pictures of Cindy Crawford or CindyG. I wonder though, is it worth it to feel threatened by any of it? Is it all just mindless cheese? Not talking about the stupid apes who actually SAY things like, "You'd be so hot if only you lost/gained 60 pounds," of course. In those instances I think it's best to consider the source.


----------



## swordchick

chunkeymonkey said:


> I have given up on trying to figure out how the minds of FA's work in real. After being married to one for over 10 years one would think I could figure it out. When I first met him he showed me his preference of 400lbs +. I felt like he settled for a 250 lb girl. I gained weight in hopes to measure up. Along with the weight gain came health issues. Nothing major but none the less issues. I went to BBW dances and thinking I was huge found out I was on a very small end. I could have jumped up and down naked and still gone unnoticed. I lost weight my lowest down to 210lbs felt great physically however my husband was really disappointed. I slowly gained back the weight back and hit the scale at 278 lbs last week. Its a catch 22. I am back to health issues. So what does a girl do? I find no matter what, I can't stop comparing me to what fantasy girl my husband might have in his head and how can I measure up...........



Thank you for sharing this. I am sure that there are many people who are going through the same thing or have in the past. Some people are too afraid to speak up. In a relationship, it takes two to build up love, emotionally and physically.

I was in a relationship with someone that tried to manipulate me into gaining weight for him. And when I asked if he was into gaining, he would say he was just joking. But I knew what he was trying to do and I ended the relationship.



superodalisque said:


> getting back to the original issue, i still find it highly conflicting that people complain about these kinds of stereotypes and images when done by the outside world but they are fine here. i see all kinds of stories here about how people feel hurt by stuff like this. if most people found the image on thier desk at work or at school with thier face on it they'd probaby be upset and take it as a personal attack. but somehow here the same group of people say that makes them feel ok or even happy? ok. i think gaining feeding stuff can be cute but this doesn't really feel that way to me. i think its because they looked trapped in a way. i like to see fat folk out in the world doing their thing and not being embarrassed about it. to me these look rather sad dependent and under someone else's control. but thats just me.
> 
> sometimes i wonder if this is acceptable here because a lot of people use dims to find sexual partners? is it because people feel afraid to tell the truth because they might scare away someone who might have a sexual interest in them? the reason i'm asking is because i've noticed that there seems to be a lot of sensitivity around anything that might seem to bruise an FAs ego--( i admit to same with BBWs too but the assumption differs here because there are supposedly not enough men attracted to fat women to go around). even though i know a lot of FAs are much tougher than that and welcome discussing a lot of tender issues openly because they just want to know. yes, there are some who kick. but i find its usually the few who will have thier fantasy at anyone's expense and don't really care to know what their partner really feels. it seems people might be intent on protecting something that really doesn't need protecting because they might be afraid that it looks as though they are turning someone away if they talk about things that might be difficult. all i know is from what i've heard privately over the years there is a level of discomfort about things that isn't being acknowledged in public. or if they do there are prompt attempts to squash them stating community as the reason. the shame is that we don't make people feel safe in saying what their truths are whether they are an FA, FFA, BBW or BHM. there is always the threat sometimes voiced and sometimes not that if one does not go along they won't be desireable or includeable. that encapasses issues that go along with the thoughts voiced about weight gain etc... both pro and con.
> 
> all of this also makes me wonder if the wishes of Conrad are being interpellated in some way that he hasn't even intended by well intentioned folk who think thats what he wants. it has been said here in many ways that dims is for him and his fantasies. but i would think that he could indulge himself much better by really using all of his resources specifically for him. he could probably buy all of the art he wanted and he could even pay people to gain for his own private entertainement. and don't think someone wouldn't do it either. so why all of this fear mungering about what the webmaster wants when it comes to trying to silence people's opinions? even if he closed it down tomorrrow there are empty sites we could go to invade as a group already set up. so why all this heavy handed reference to him when we are just trying to discuss an issue. isn't it time we stopped relying on him and calling out his name whenever there is a difficult issue to talk about? i think we should stop trying to control a situation by trying to invoke some power that we don't even have or need to have to just talk. we are intelligent enough to sway a conversation by being logical relevant and respectful of other people. i wonder why its so hard for us to do that? if it bothered people how Stan presented the question in it would have been easy to diffuse it and just talk about the pertinent points, because there are some. instead of blaming Stan maybe we ought to think about why we were so anxius to bite. one problem dims has, and yes its natural, is that we love picking sides. we love creating cliques. i personally think its because a lot of people here have been on the outs for most of their lives and enjoy being with the in crowd for once in their life, sometimes enjoying being "better" than someone else a little too much. maybe its time to realize that underneath it all we are all on the same side. so don't blame Stan.



Well said! 
I do not like the hypocrisy that some like to display in here. Many people were offended by use the "n" word in the forums. Meanwhile, others were saying that these people were being too sensitive. Then the excuse for using that word or any racist crap is that they were making a point. I think that was the most hurtful thing in Dims. If you oppose to anything regarding fat sexual fantasies, some will accuse you of having low self esteem, being ignorant, not understanding sexuality, hating FAs and/or men, in general. I do not mind have heated discussions. I just hate when you can't express your opinions without being verbally attack by a group of people.


----------



## exile in thighville

T_Devil said:


> No, the stupidity of bringing up the worst case of genocide in the history of the human race to state his case about a picture's popularity invalidates his argument.....
> .... ok, why the fuck am I talking about this AGAIN?
> 
> note to T_Devil: STOP RESPONDING!!!



My only case was disproving your argument that the pics are wrong because the majority says so.

Also, Chunky Monkey, I'm really sorry about your insecurity about your body re: your husband but you should never change what you want to be for someone else. And ha - that's coming from a fan of these pics.


----------



## Dr. P Marshall

I'm not even voting in this poll, because I think we all know the poll is irrelevant. You know I'm crazy about you Stan,and so I am just honestly addressing this to you and Ernest(of whom I am also very fond). Everytime this issue comes up, in whatever guise it takes, I always feel that there is a certain dishonesty to the debate. That is not an accusation towards you Stan, it is merely my belief that the REAL discussion you(and others) want to have never actually takes place. There is always some "topic" that meanders around the actual issue. Why don't you just start the thread that discusses that feeders, and weight gain fetishist FAs bother you and then discuss why? Or start a thread that is an honest, civil discourse between non-fetishist FAs and fetishists? Oh, and for the record, this is not only an FA issue. There is a BBW or BHM on the other side of every feeder relationship. There are gainers. So let me restate that as the fetishist/non-fetishist (of all sizes) debate. Ask questions. Hear what we have to say. Maybe we could actually have a civil debate without too much defensiveness or judgment. Is that too much to ask from a bunch of adults? (Maybe it is, I sometimes am too hopeful by nature.) My point is, why must this conversation always be dragged out through some specious side argument? 

I always take a deep breath when I read these type of threads because I know that you are not trying to personally offend me. And I DO believe that both sides of the issue have merit and should be dealt with. The problem is that I am often mystified by what I read in these type of threads as they progress. I think everyone who is bothered by the fetishes and especially the extremes should speak openly about it, of course. And honestly, I am very upset that images such as this cause chinks in the armor of self esteem in women of whom I think highly(hi Lala). But the fact remains, I AM one of THOSE PEOPLE that sits on the fetishist side of the fence. I did not choose it. I am not sorry for it, I am not ashamed of it and I don't think that I have ever tried to impose it on anyone here. I have not even imposed it on anyone in my own life. I believe everything must be consensual. But it doesn't change what goes through my brain. The truth is I too have problems with some aspects of the fetishist sexuality, even within my own mind. But that is for me to deal with, it is not something that someone else should try to curb about me. The bounadaries of my actions are for me to define, but what I fantasize about is really beyond my control. It has been stated many times, but I will repeat it, there is a difference between fantasy and reality and many, many people know that difference and practice that difference in real life. But what is so wrong about having a place to explore the fantasies on this forum? The reality is that because I have issues with some aspects of my own sexuality and because I found them difficult to deal with in the past, it actually made me appreciate the Weight Board and the Library that much more when I found Dimensions. I know that many people find it difficult to believe that the fantasy elements can serve as anything other than spank fodder, but to me, when I first found this place, the very fact that I was not the only person who thought these things meant the world to me after years of thinking I might be a freak. Now that doesn't mean I think everyone should like them, or that they should be in a place of high visibility, but I do think that to out of hand villify them and the people who like them is unfair to say the least. I am not talking about these particular pictures, but what they represent, the fantasy element of Dimensions.

And I'm going to get personal in (hopefully) a more positive way here for a minute. I know you like me Stan. So if you can separate the fetish from the fetishist when it comes to me personally, why can't you do that with the greater concept of the site as a whole. The truth is if it hadn't been for the BHM weight gain stories in the library, I would have never lurked a second day at Dimensions.. A lot has changed for me now, and I have "evolved" as an FA, but back in the beginning, it was ONLY the fantasy elements that kept me coming back here. Once I discovered the discussion part of the forum, everything changed, but that is not how I arrived, or why I stuck around long enough to discover anything else. I currently have 800 plus posts here. If you think even one of those contributed anything positive to this community in any way, you might want to remember that without the fantasy and objectification, I never would have stayed long enough to join and participate here in the forums. I'm just trying to throw out another way of looking at this. I am NOT trying to tell anyone what to think, feel, accept or believe.:bow:


----------



## T_Devil

exile in thighville said:


> My only case was disproving your argument that the pics are wrong because the majority says so.



I honestly really don't give a shit anymore.


----------



## paul smith

I think most people that are unaware of fat acceptance and "this world" will find those pictures to be completely fetish related, disgusting and/or negative.


----------



## butch

Somewhere back in the beginnings of this thread, Stan mentioned my take on the concept of 'fetish,' and while I've written about it various times here on the board, I don't know if my strong beliefs about the validity of labeling many aspects of fat sexuality a fetish is pertinent to this thread now. Let me just say that the term fetish is problematic, and if anyone proudly uses it, I hope they do so in manner that recognizes the distorted origins of the concept in Freudian psychoanlysis. Otherwise, those of you who are women can't claim to have a fetish at all, since Freud believed only men could have a fetish.

I won't vote on the poll, because my reaction to those images doesn't fit any of the choices for the poll. I will say, though, that I don't view this as a website that is equal parts 'size acceptance/fat acceptance' and fat sexuality. If I want a web site that is mostly about size acceptance, I go to Shapely Prose. If I want a web site that is about fat culture, and fat community, and fat sexuality, I come here, and am thankful for the size acceptance that happens here, but I don't view it primarily as a fat acceptance site, for a lot of reasons. 

One of those reasons is the fact that this site often conflates 'being attractive' with size acceptance, and that in itself excludes many people who don't fall within the framework of what is held up as the gold standard of fat attraction-thin straight men and fat straight women. As someone who prefers to be found attractive by women of all sizes and fat men, this site isn't particularly interested in my own needs to be found 'attractive' as a fat woman, and yet how many times have we heard the refrain that when fragile fat female noobs come here, the idea that others find them attractive is a huge step in their journey towards size acceptance?

In fact, certain notorious posters seem to be blissfully unaware that their own brand of fat activism is only geared towards making the world better for the women they find attractive, and that form of paternalism is not size acceptance, but instead just servicing one's own sexual desires. Making the world safe for why my dick gets hard, in other words, and not size acceptance.

I stumbled on this site many years ago, in its old form, because I wanted to find websites about fat guys, and my attraction to them. As someone who weighs over 300 pounds, I didn't stumble upon this site and think, "Oh, now I can feel better about myself because I'm a big fatty," but instead "Oh, now there is a site where I can finally read about other women who share my desires" since I knew NO ONE in real life who thought fat guys were hot. I had already met my share of FAs in real life, and was already down with fat acceptance because of hearing about NAAFA, reading books by folks like Marilyn Wann and Charlotte Cooper, and being someone who is well versed in what goes on in our culture when it comes to fat.

I agree wholeheartedly with Fascinita's points that fat sexuality is an important, and often marginalized, aspect of size acceptance, but I don't know, in all honesty, what role FAs play in that dynamic. In my view, the genesis of fat hatred and stigma is the fact that our culture teaches people that fat is ugly, and therefore fat people are not worthy of love and sex and lifelong intimate partnerships, which is a basic human right. This is what I value about Dimensions, that it allows a space for fat people to reclaim their rights to being sexual, to being part of the human fabric that demands most of us to partner up in order to have a 'full' life. 

No one web site can be all things to all people, but Dimensions does a good job of being a lot of things to a lot of people. While those images in this poll do nothing for me, as a FFA and a fat person, I don't think they are damaging to fat acceptance because they are meant to serve one narrow audience-the usually thin male FAs who get off on the fantasy of extreme largeness. Now, I'll be the first to admit that if a photo of a fat man in the 350-550 pound range had been posted, and in this image he was eating a big turkey leg and his shirt was straining against his belly fat, then yes, it would turn me on. And I'd want a place to see that image, because my rights as a fat person to explore my sexuality is just as important as my rights as a fat person to have equal access to employment opportunites, or humane treatment at the doctor's office.

Ugh, I'm probably all over the place in this post, and I'm not sure it is useful to the debate, but hey, when have I been known to ignore a heated debate?


----------



## Wilson Barbers

What bothers me most about threads like these is the speed with which they move from discussion of the works (fair enough) to broad-brushed tarring of their artists and audience. Thus we read (as per Wayne) that the artists in question all "hate women" and that the readers all, without exception, look to this material purely as wank fodder. My own belief is that the world is much more diverse  that while there are men who come to this work primarily out of a misogynist impulse (as there are in much of the world of erotica), that's not all there is to it.

More importantly, I believe this shift from work to artist/audience does significant damage to _Dimensions_ as a community. It takes a certain amount of risk to put your fantasies out there like this and being labeled a member of the He-Man Woman Haters Club for doing so can't help but get some artists wondering about whether the time and considerable energy they spent producing this work was worth it. You could argue, of course, that any artist who produces such calculatedly outlandish work needs to develop a thick skin  but this, too, ignores the fact that we are not all the same . . .


----------



## BothGunsBlazing

butch said:


> Great post here!



Interesting, fascinating! I really do like the aspect you touched on with certain people on here feeling the need to only respect that which they want to bang. 

It reminds me of an argument I had on here with some one saying IF GUYS DON'T LIKE FAT GIRLS YOU CAN'T FORCE THEM TO THEREFORE YOU CAN'T EXPECT THEM TO NOT BE ASSHOLES TO THEM.. Damn my expectation for what should be common human decency. 



Wilson Barbers said:


> More importantly, I believe this shift from work to artist/audience does significant damage to _Dimensions_ as a community. It takes a certain amount of risk to put your fantasies out there like this and being labeled a member of the He-Man Woman Haters Club for doing so can't help but get some artists wondering about whether the time and considerable energy they spent producing this work was worth it. You could argue, of course, that any artist who produces such calculatedly outlandish work needs to develop a thick skin &#8211; but this, too, ignores the fact that we are not all the same . . .



It's true. If the person behind this artwork really despised women so much, I doubt he'd create so much woman per drawing. That'd just be counterproductive. 

yes, that was a joke, but seriously, doubt this person hates women.


----------



## Jon Blaze

butch said:


> AWESOME POST!



REPSUDEN! I agree.


----------



## Accept

I think fat acceptance is properly classified as a political issue (in that it has to do with the common value and image, and how that common perception categorizes and reacts to things), in which case the publicity of this kind of art is probably a detriment.

This is coming from a fellow who did this kind of art in the late 90s. :\


----------



## Haunted

First off you really can't include those pictures they where created for a specific interest/fetish, and if your gonna rail against drawings of fat woman eating then we should start hunting down some of the models on the paysite board also. 

I'm sure some people will see them and be put off by it, what about all the people who have taken weight loss to an extreme level. You could say that they pose a threat to the Skinny people, that noone should be allowed to weigh under 120lbs. But it doesn't happen that way, those individuals have an eating disorder. 

and i can totally relate to Dr. P i have this odd battle being waged in my head over my interest's it's not a big deal it's my own little thing but threads like this pop up and i feel like i'm suddenly called to the carpet. And Dr. P is right we are forever tap dancing around whatever the issue is.

My Name is Bill and i am a Weight Gain Fetishist 

Am I An FA ? Hell Yeah
-Am i a feeder ? sometimes 
-Do I impose my fetish on my GF or any past relationships ? No way !!! 
-Is it possible that because of my preference My gf may gain, or fear losing me if she lost weight? Sure it's possible i certainly hope she knows me better than that and never feels pressured by me in ANY way!

I didn't choose to be into gaining, i don't know why i'm into it, But i do know the difference between right and wrong, and hold nothing but respect for the love of my life.


----------



## exile in thighville

T_Devil said:


> I honestly really don't give a shit anymore.



g0th

d33p


----------



## T_Devil

exile in thighville said:


> g0th
> 
> d33p



Was _THAT_ necessary?
It's this shit that makes Dimensions so pitiful. I mean really, what's the point other than to incite some kind of misguided anger? What? You think you're so fucking witty or some shit?

And people are pissed off at _STAN_? Hell, at least his bullshit was relevant.


----------



## vardon_grip

TD
Rule 14


----------



## Uriel

Er, the first woman has great hair.
That's about all I can say positive about the pictures.

As a guy who found this website while looking up 'girls who like fat guys' on Google (And spending 99% of my time on Dims in the BHM or The Lounge), the shock of the whole Feederism/Immobility/Weight Gain aspect hit me as a bit freakish. They still do. I try not to judge, but images like this are akin to those in the Gay community (Yes, I know of what I speak, I live in San Francisco, and am very familiar with their Fetishistic art) of men with 4 foot long and 2 foot around Penises. 
Likewise, those Morphed photos of women's breasts that are the size of beach balls (And I love busty women, but these are strange as well)
If such images are your fancy, then cool, and I have nothing bad to say about it (Other than wondering if Jabba the Hutt is a fetish figure, similar to Santa being one for the Bear community...which I found way more disturbing than if someone were to say 'Jabba is Hott!').
Where was I...Oh yeah.

As a fairly 'normal' man, coming upon this site, Yes, such images could easily be construed as Way Out There (This from a blue haired gamer nerd/death metal guitarist/bartender who raises venomous fish for a hobby). Is it wrong for you to like them? No.
Just saying... Negative is what folks who are unfamiliar (With the aspects of the various Interests represented here on Dims) are going to take away from such exposure.


-Uriel

PS: Seriously, is Jabba sexy to some FFAs? That would be odd...but strangely cool:




Luke Skywalker: Seriously, we came all this way to rescue you and I mean...sorry dude.

Han Solo: I don't get it...I read the script, I get the girl.

Luke: I'll talk with her, she might listen to me. I sort of have this Force thing down...

Boba Fett (Noshing on a gyro between scenes)
"That ain't gonna help ya,Skywalker...Leia's got it bad for the Big Guy.
She's FFA, all the way. I've seen it before. Hutt's Smoove..."

Han Solo: Crap, Chewie's a Furry...he's been wearing that damned suit for years, refuses to talk in anything but 'Wookie'talk.
Then there's that thing I found you doing with the Taun Taun on Hoth...'

Luke: Hey man, you said you'd never mention that again...I am from the Farm. Sheeit, back home, you should see what those Jawas will do for a little hooch and some spare droid parts...'

Boba Fett: 'Hey man, I'm trying to eat over here!!! '

Han Solo: Sorry Fett. And now Leia...she said she wasn't into a guy unless he weighed at least 2 tons. I mean, I've put on a little weight since Star Wars...'

Luke: You mean A New Hope?

Fett: Pshaw...Don't get me started on Re imaginings, they turned me into a whiny Tongan kid in those damed Prequels.

R2-D2: "Retor-darto-Etorr Weel Re-ort!"

Fett: The little guy's got a point, at least none of us looks like a dildo.

Han Solo: Point taken Short stuff. And I've seen the way C3-PO looks at you. Does he even know that he's gay? I mean...Come out of the closet already, we all know, we all still accept you. Just...come out already.

Luke: Um, so, what'll we do now? There's some Banthas out near the Jundland Wastes who are real friendly...'

Fett: Jeesus!!! Oh sorry. Um, By the Force, Enough already. Solo, do you really hang with this guy? I mean, C'mon...

Han: Ok, Ok...Ah screw it, let's go to Mos Eisley and get some Hookers and Blow.

R2-D2: "Gre-tor E-tor Reowr!"

Han: Yeah, yeah...and a lube job for you.


----------



## BothGunsBlazing

Uriel said:


> Likewise, those Morphed photos of women's breasts that are the size of beach balls (And I love busty women, but these are strange as well)
> If such images are your fancy, then cool, and I have nothing bad to say about it (Other than wondering if Jabba the Hutt is a fetish figure, similar to Santa being one for the Bear community...which I found way more disturbing than if someone were to say 'Jabba is Hott!').
> 
> 
> .



I'm actually wondering how the bigger ladies on Dims with actual mobility issues feel about being compared to Jabba The Hut.


----------



## Tooz

BothGunsBlazing said:


> I'm actually wondering how the bigger ladies on Dims with actual mobility issues feel about being compared to Jabba The Hut.



well.

MY CHINS GO FOR MILES. I HAVE A JABBA THE HUT FETISH.


----------



## TraciJo67

BothGunsBlazing said:


> I'm actually wondering how the bigger ladies on Dims with actual mobility issues feel about being compared to Jabba The Hut.



Well, I have wattles that stretch for miles, except when the weather is sub-zero, in which case the face freeze works better than botox. On behalf of wattle-sprouters everywhere, I'm ... meh. Indifferent.


----------



## cinnamitch

Pay je sagi nu ura mo bi sayu.


----------



## Wild Zero

Bun yo kabuk noni Solo.


----------



## AnnMarie

BothGunsBlazing said:


> I'm actually wondering how the bigger ladies on Dims with actual mobility issues feel about being compared to Jabba The Hut.




Just sayin'.... I didn't read it that way at all. I think he was talking about EXTREME fantasy art where the woman takes up a house or a room and she's more "mountain like". I don't think he was making any reference to real people anywhere.


----------



## Eclectic_Girl

Uriel said:


> PS: Seriously, is Jabba sexy to some FFAs? That would be odd...but strangely cool:



And I didn't read it as being about BBWs as much as BHMs (since he hangs on the BHM board and is into girls) so, if anything, he's putting himself in the place of Jabba as the fantasy object. Reads like a thought experiment to me.


----------



## William

Hi TD

I think that you should not let these things bother you. In choices like this poll I think that most (not all) people will vote based on what is more important to them. Fat Admiration or Fat/Size Acceptance.

William





T_Devil said:


> I honestly really don't give a shit anymore.


----------



## Uriel

Eclectic_Girl said:


> And I didn't read it as being about BBWs as much as BHMs (since he hangs on the BHM board and is into girls) so, if anything, he's putting himself in the place of Jabba as the fantasy object. Reads like a thought experiment to me.



Correct. Evidently, there was a thread last year asking the same thing (Had I looked back that far, I wouldn't have posted).
I'm not comparing anyone to Jabba directly, but I have seen several 'Fantasy' threads about people becoming huge and immobile. As a Sci-Fi/Fantasy nerd, I don't perceive anything particularly offensive in the Jabba question. One could just as easily (As a short person) become offended when one stated that they found hobbits sexy. Actually, I know a couple of girls who do, but that is beside the point. It was just a question. Seeing as those cartoons depict impossibly large human beings, I didn't feel that (At least the size question) was unfounded. Of course, I was not implying that anyone had a Fetish for Amphibians (Or whatever Jabba is...)

Jabba is a massive, immensely powerful and influential being, surrounded by dutiful henchmen and slave girls chained to him. I could see some guys digging the concept (Not for me, really, but still...)

As I stated over on the BHM board (Where I posted a longer FanFic Sw thing), I should have asked 'What if Leia was an FFA...?' instead, as I did the writing more to point out Fetishes, and Jabba was a mere passing comment. 

-Uriel


----------



## William

Hi 

The scene with Jabba walking with Han Solo was cut from the film "The Empire Strikes Back" to save time.













William






Uriel said:


> Correct. Evidently, there was a thread last year asking the same thing (Had I looked back that far, I wouldn't have posted).
> I'm not comparing anyone to Jabba directly, but I have seen several 'Fantasy' threads about people becoming huge and immobile. As a Sci-Fi/Fantasy nerd, I don't perceive anything particularly offensive in the Jabba question. One could just as easily (As a short person) become offended when one stated that they found hobbits sexy. Actually, I know a couple of girls who do, but that is beside the point. It was just a question. Seeing as those cartoons depict impossibly large human beings, I didn't feel that (At least the size question) was unfounded. Of course, I was not implying that anyone had a Fetish for Amphibians (Or whatever Jabba is...)
> 
> Jabba is a massive, immensely powerful and influential being, surrounded by dutiful henchmen and slave girls chained to him. I could see some guys digging the concept (Not for me, really, but still...)
> 
> As I stated over on the BHM board (Where I posted a longer FanFic Sw thing), I should have asked 'What if Leia was an FFA...?' instead, as I did the writing more to point out Fetishes, and Jabba was a mere passing comment.
> 
> -Uriel


----------



## bigcutiejacki

I understand where 'stan' is coming from. The topic, the story, the feeling a picture gives someone. Some pictures make us feel sexy or horny, some may disgust the viewer. Its all about perception, although I did mention to the Curvage webmaster to create a sub-forum for the really XXX stuff, and he did, yet its not sorted like that always. Maybe pictures need to be sorted into topic categories. or XXX & No Muff,lol. Or maybe we don't know where our pic should go, but whose to make that judgement? 

How we see ourselves is not how others see us.


Jacki


----------



## kayrae

I've been reading this thread for days and have only reached page 11. But I did want to say that I'm glad this thread isn't locked, and that we are allowed to read, respond, and generally debate this issue. As a newcomer to size acceptance and as a woman who is only now starting to accept and love my FAT body, I have pored through pages and pages of threads in Dimensions. I've laughed, cried, and been turned on by these conversations. 

I'll be up front: I don't understand feederism or inflation fantasies. Images like these do nothing for me. And this particular sexual lifestyle scares me. However, discussions like this one as well as any of the threads in the Erotic Weight Gain board have educated me to see that Feeders and Gainers aren't weird freaks, that this particular kink is something that quite a lot of people enjoy. These are the same people I admire, respect, and am attracted to. And let's face it, my own fantasies are even more extreme than these tame cartoon images.

*goes back to page 11 to read more*



Webmaster said:


> The founders didn't begin Dimensions as a haven for their fantasies! Instead, realizing that the organization had little to offer to FAs, who were among their most dedicated supporters and volunteers, the FA-SIG was specifically formed as a place for FAs within NAAFA, a place where men who were attracted to fat women could meet and discuss their preferences and desires as well as the real world issues they had in coming to terms with their preferences and in meeting the fat women of their dreams. Early on I decided that the communication should be two way, and that the FA-SIG would also be open to fat women. In other words, I saw it as a place where two groups of people who were uniquely made for each other could learn about each other and find each other.
> 
> All of that developed very much in tandem with size acceptance activism as the social side of things was always part of NAAFA, the larger part actually, and the one that raised most of the money for the organization's work and survival. As far as I am concerned, coming to terms with one's size or preferences for size, is a crucial part of acceptance -- doubts and warts and all. It's, in fact, when NAAFA grimly began trying to regulate people's thoughts, preferences and social lives that the organization's status and influence waned into insignificance.
> 
> Those who know me know that I have a very low tolerance level for political correctness and hypocrisy. As a result, Dimensions never shies away from letting the whole story be told, and not just the politically correct, clean and pleasant one. As a result, Dimensions has grown into a global community with almost half a million posts a year, a community where over 6,000 unique visitors every day discuss issues ranging from size to health to relationships to fashion to politics and more, one where people blog, and one that grows and evolves as more people realize it is okay to be themselves and that they do not owe an apology to anyone for being fat or having a preference for fat people.
> 
> *Rational, reasonable suggestions on how Dimensions can better fill its mission are always welcome*.


----------



## LalaCity

James said:


> Firstly, mainstream culture increasingly vilifies and morally ostracizes fat people as they aspire to unrealistic ideals.



I'm probably stirring up another hornet's nest by saying this, and I am _not_ trying to denigrate anyone's sexual fantasies, but your comment, as well as many of the sentiments expressed throughout this thread, made me think of the _other_ unattainable ideal fat women face, that thing which I believe is causing so much tension with regard to these pics and the fantasy element of weight gain in general: many fat women I've spoken with, and myself included, feel an unrealistic pressure to maintain an impossible level of self-esteem over our weight; to evince this perfectly perky, confident demeanor at all times to please FAs. 

We are not allowed to complain about physical pain or discomfort, we need to bottle up the hurt feelings we deal with daily in a culture that despises us, and we're utterly forbidden -- on pain of social death -- to address the taboo subject of wanting to lose weight for any reason. There is a distinct impression that the message being sent to us by some men in the movement is, "We don't want to see your low self-esteem, your unhappy days, your physical difficulties, or any cracks in the veneer of the fantasy." In other words, shut the hell up and let _us_ set the tone for how you're going to feel and respond to the vicissitudes of daily life as a fat woman. 

Yes, I get the counter-argument: "This is fantasy _only_. No one expects a real woman to look or behave like that!" But I don't rule out the very real possibility that fantasy can, on occasion, heavily influence preference and expectation after a time -- as with men who, gazing too long at the airbrushed images of so-called "perfection" in Playboy, sometimes develop issues in dealing with the less-than-perfect, wholly real specimens of femininity they encounter outside of the pages of a magazine...and I wonder how much of the above-mentioned observation of "happy fat girl" expectations among FAs can be attributed to this effect..

Thus it's frustrating to look at that weight gain art because we (some of us, anyway) interpret it as being indicative of what an FA wants, deep in his heart, but representing nothing to which we can realistically aspire. Between the pained woman encased in medieval contraptions or the bouncy cherub delighted by her immobility and thrilled with the fact that her furniture is all in pieces, there's not a lot to identify with as a real woman, as a person whose existence is complex, nuanced, and full of the usual ups and downs that characterize life on earth. 

Now, I know that not _all_ FAs have such unrealistic expectations, but so many really..kind of, well..._do_. These boards are, frankly, full of it in one way or another. It leaves me with a vague but definite impression that something in the evolution of the movement has _somehow_ gotten a bit stuck, that there's a bit of a frozen-in-time attitude passed down from the old-guard who seem unwilling to concede that they may not be as "in touch" as they think they are with the needs of fat chicks. 

I understand that people might think I'm saying all this just to take an unjustified and unkind swipe at the men who are producing these pics...but that's not my honest intent. And, based on numerous conversations I've had behind closed doors, I know I'm definitely not alone in feeling this.

Considering this thread has kind of worn out its welcome and doesn't seem to be a hot topic anymore, maybe nobody will read this (hell, maybe that's for the best..). But it's been knocking around in me and I guess I just felt I needed to get it out there.


----------



## Fascinita

LalaCity said:


> I'm probably stirring up another hornet's nest by saying this, and I am _not_ trying to denigrate anyone's sexual fantasies, but your comment, as well as many of the sentiments expressed throughout this thread, made me think of the _other_ unattainable ideal fat women face, that thing which I believe is causing so much tension with regard to these pics and the fantasy element of weight gain in general: many fat women I've spoken with, and myself included, feel an unrealistic pressure to maintain an impossible level of self-esteem over our weight; to evince this perfectly perky, confident demeanor at all times to please FAs.
> 
> We are not allowed to complain about physical pain or discomfort, we need to bottle up the hurt feelings we deal with daily in a culture that despises us, and we're utterly forbidden -- on pain of social death -- to address the taboo subject of wanting to lose weight for any reason. There is a distinct impression that the message being sent to us by some men in the movement is, "We don't want to see your low self-esteem, your unhappy days, your physical difficulties, or any cracks in the veneer of the fantasy." In other words, shut the hell up and let _us_ set the tone for how you're going to feel and respond to the vicissitudes of daily life as a fat woman.
> 
> Thus it's frustrating to look at that weight gain art because we (some of us, anyway) interpret it as being indicative of what an FA wants, deep in his heart, but representing nothing that we can realistically aspire to. Between the pained woman encased in medieval contraptions or the bouncy cherub delighted by her immobility and thrilled with the fact that her furniture is all in pieces, there's not a lot to identify with as a real woman, as a person whose existence is complex, nuanced, and full of the usual ups and downs that characterize life on earth.
> 
> Now, I know that not _all_ FAs have such unrealistic expectations, but so many really..kind of, well..._do_. These boards are, frankly, full of it in one way or another. It leaves me with a vague but definite impression that something in the evolution of the movement has _somehow_ gotten a bit stuck, that there's a bit of a frozen-in-time attitude passed down from the old-guard who seem unwilling to concede that they may not be as "in touch" as they think they are with the needs of fat chicks.
> 
> I understand that people might think I'm saying all this just to take an unjustified and unkind swipe at the men who are producing these pics...but that's not my honest intent. And, based on numerous conversations I've had behind closed doors, I know I'm definitely not alone in feeling this.
> 
> Considering this thread has kind of worn out its welcome and doesn't seem to be a hot topic anymore, maybe nobody will read this (hell, maybe that's for the best..). But it's been knocking around in me and I guess I just felt I needed to get it out there.



I say set your own course and live by your own expectations. Fuck what the old or the new guard expects. Live large and love yourself and your body first, but make sure you share your love, too. The rest is sugar on top, as far as I'm concerned, and there are never any guarantees for anyone, fat or thin, young or old, hot or not. Fuck paternalistic BS and long live the art of living well.


----------



## LalaCity

Fascinita said:


> I say set your own course and live by your own expectations. Fuck what the old or the new guard expects. Live large and love yourself and your body first, but make sure you share your love, too. The rest is sugar on top, as far as I'm concerned, and there are never any guarantees for anyone, fat or thin, young or old, hot or not. Fuck paternalistic BS and long live the art of living well.



Heh heh...of course, you are right. I think I am just coping with a bit of the ol' "Feeling out of place at Dimensions" syndrome because of my battles with self-esteem. True, I do often feel down on myself that, by my nature, I can't live up to the dreaded "must-have confidence" requirement in every FA personal ad (quite the vicious circle, isn't it?)...but yeah -- Fuck it. The only thing worth having has to be with someone willing to accept me just as I am -- neurotic, over-analytical and (occasionally) imperfect.


----------



## Fascinita

LalaCity said:


> to accept me just as I am -- neurotic, over-analytical and (occasionally) imperfect.



Sounds good to me.


----------



## LalaCity

P.S.

I really think there needs to be a codified -- institutionalized, even -- resource for "Fascinita's tips on living well." A book, a blog..._something_.

I get tantalizing glimpses of wine and poetry and a dozen other delights from your posts, but I really need to understand more of this art of the _bon vivant_...

I'm sadly not so good with it myself...but more than willing to be a disciple, a Maenad in the cult, if you will...


----------



## Fascinita

LalaCity said:


> P.S.
> 
> I really think there needs to be a codified -- institutionalized, even -- resource for "Fascinita's tips on living well." A book, a blog..._something_.
> 
> I get tantalizing glimpses of wine and poetry and a dozen other delights from your posts, but I really need to understand more of this art of the _bon vivant_...
> 
> I'm sadly not so good with it myself...but more than willing to be a disciple, a Maenad in the cult, if you will...




You're right that happiness begins with dancing, dear Lala. That plus starring in a musical of your own life in your head. Plus good food and a few friends to share it with. Plus a little something something nice from time to time, if you know what I mean , but not tooooo often or it loses its draw. Plus a little swagger (captains of industry and male supermodels alike both fear and respect this). That's alls I know. Tune in again soon. :bow:


----------



## butch

Fascinita said:


> Sounds good to me.



me too. As a fellow "neurotic, over-analytical and (occasionally) imperfect" person myself, where's our dating site? 

I'm pre-ordering Fascinita's guide to living well right now over at Amazon, too.


----------



## olwen

LalaCity said:


> Fascinita said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say set your own course and live by your own expectations. Fuck what the old or the new guard expects. Live large and love yourself and your body first, but make sure you share your love, too. The rest is sugar on top, as far as I'm concerned, and there are never any guarantees for anyone, fat or thin, young or old, hot or not. Fuck paternalistic BS and long live the art of living well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heh heh...of course, you are right. I think I am just coping with a bit of the ol' "Feeling out of place at Dimensions" syndrome because of my battles with self-esteem. True, I do often feel down on myself that, by my nature, I can't live up to the dreaded "must-have confidence" requirement in every FA personal ad (quite the vicious circle, isn't it?)...but yeah -- Fuck it. The only thing worth having has to be with someone willing to accept me just as I am -- neurotic, over-analytical and (occasionally) imperfect.
Click to expand...


What Fascinita said is pretty much what I would say. The thing is, the FAs who actually do expect some unrealistic woman either has no experience with an actual fat woman or they have experience and get frustrated and like the fantasy better than reality. Either way, we are not beholden to their unrealistic expectations. It just doesn't make sense to try to live up to them. WE set the tone. WE are the ones who get to tell them what to expect. Not the other way around. WE are the ones living in the fat bodies and they should be glad we let them revel in them. In other words if they are going to be lovin on our fat bodies then they have to learn to deal with the realities of living in a fat body. If they can't handle it they have no business being with fat people, after all, they can't be with us without our consent. 

At the same time, I see no harm in their fantasies because they are just that. No matter what their fantasies are, at the end of the day, the real fat people they come home to are better than the fantasies. If they can't see that they either need to find new partners, give up dating fat people all together, or they just need a swift kick in the ass. If they are lucky, they will find women whose fantasies match their own. I'm sure too they know how hard it is to find women with similar fantasies, so this is yet another reason for the fantasies to stay in the clouds. We are not beholden to their unrealistic expectations.

As far as confidence is concerned, I just feel like it doesn't make sense to try to live up to other people's expectations. All I can be is me and other people just have to deal with it. How they deal with it isn't my responsibility, and I'm too busy living my life to be thinking about it. Do I have moments sometimes where I do think about what other people think? Sure, but I try not to let those opinions get to me, and what I think about myself really is what matters more. For the most part tho, I don't give a fuck. That's all confidence is - not giving a fuck because I am lazy, and because I am not beholden to anyone's unrealistic expectations.


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy

olwen said:


> What Fascinita said is pretty much what I would say. The thing is, the FAs who actually do expect some unrealistic woman either has no experience with an actual fat woman or they have experience and get frustrated and like the fantasy better than reality. Either way, we are not beholden to their unrealistic expectations. It just doesn't make sense to try to live up to them. WE set the tone. WE are the ones who get to tell them what to expect. Not the other way around. WE are the ones living in the fat bodies and they should be glad we let them revel in them. In other words if they are going to be lovin on our fat bodies then they have to learn to deal with the realities of living in a fat body. If they can't handle it they have no business being with fat people, after all, they can't be with us without our consent.



This...is the obvious. Funny how we tend to get mind f*cked though and lose sight of it.......

Good post and point, Olwen.


----------



## Dr. P Marshall

LalaCity said:


> I'm probably stirring up another hornet's nest by saying this, and I am _not_ trying to denigrate anyone's sexual fantasies, but your comment, as well as many of the sentiments expressed throughout this thread, made me think of the _other_ unattainable ideal fat women face, that thing which I believe is causing so much tension with regard to these pics and the fantasy element of weight gain in general: many fat women I've spoken with, and myself included, feel an unrealistic pressure to maintain an impossible level of self-esteem over our weight; to evince this perfectly perky, confident demeanor at all times to please FAs.
> 
> We are not allowed to complain about physical pain or discomfort, we need to bottle up the hurt feelings we deal with daily in a culture that despises us, and we're utterly forbidden -- on pain of social death -- to address the taboo subject of wanting to lose weight for any reason. There is a distinct impression that the message being sent to us by some men in the movement is, "We don't want to see your low self-esteem, your unhappy days, your physical difficulties, or any cracks in the veneer of the fantasy." In other words, shut the hell up and let _us_ set the tone for how you're going to feel and respond to the vicissitudes of daily life as a fat woman.
> 
> Yes, I get the counter-argument: "This is fantasy _only_. No one expects a real woman to look or behave like that!" But I don't rule out the very real possibility that fantasy can, on occasion, heavily influence preference and expectation after a time -- as with men who, gazing too long at the airbrushed images of so-called "perfection" in Playboy, sometimes develop issues in dealing with the less-than-perfect, wholly real specimens of femininity they encounter outside of the pages of a magazine...and I wonder how much of the above-mentioned observation of "happy fat girl" expectations among FAs can be attributed to this effect..
> 
> Thus it's frustrating to look at that weight gain art because we (some of us, anyway) interpret it as being indicative of what an FA wants, deep in his heart, but representing nothing to which we can realistically aspire. Between the pained woman encased in medieval contraptions or the bouncy cherub delighted by her immobility and thrilled with the fact that her furniture is all in pieces, there's not a lot to identify with as a real woman, as a person whose existence is complex, nuanced, and full of the usual ups and downs that characterize life on earth.
> 
> Now, I know that not _all_ FAs have such unrealistic expectations, but so many really..kind of, well..._do_. These boards are, frankly, full of it in one way or another. It leaves me with a vague but definite impression that something in the evolution of the movement has _somehow_ gotten a bit stuck, that there's a bit of a frozen-in-time attitude passed down from the old-guard who seem unwilling to concede that they may not be as "in touch" as they think they are with the needs of fat chicks.
> 
> I understand that people might think I'm saying all this just to take an unjustified and unkind swipe at the men who are producing these pics...but that's not my honest intent. And, based on numerous conversations I've had behind closed doors, I know I'm definitely not alone in feeling this.
> 
> Considering this thread has kind of worn out its welcome and doesn't seem to be a hot topic anymore, maybe nobody will read this (hell, maybe that's for the best..). But it's been knocking around in me and I guess I just felt I needed to get it out there.



I read this post. I liked this post. I liked it so much that I am quoting the entire thing to emphasize it. I don't think that what you are saying here denigrates anyone's fantasies. I think you are absolutely right that FAs often push for unrealistic expectations of confidence. And as much as I would like to say that being women we know better, the truth is the FFAs do this same thing sometimes to the BHM on that board. The word confidence is thrown around all the time. I think it's true that no one wants to deal with actual self loathing in a partner of any size, but I think confidence isn't always as clear cut a topic. No one that I know anywhere is confident ALL THE TIME about anything. When dealing specifically with size acceptance, the very fact that it is called "acceptance" should indicate to most people involved that this is something that is acquired for all of us whether we are fat, like fat people or what have you. I agree with Fasc's point that everyone should love themselves and their bodies, but I can understand that that may take different amounts of time for different people. And even once acceptance is reached EVERYBODY has "those days" when feeling confident just isn't going to happen. Seeing as how so many FAs have trouble coming to terms with their own attraction to fat, we should probably offer greater understanding towards fat people coming to terms with being fat. I'm sure sometimes it is done out of callousness, but I often wonder if sometimes it is also an issue of FAs (I'm referring to both genders here) wanting so badly to believe that somehow the right FA can turn everything around for a fat person. Or even that a place like Dimensions can. I know that sounds condescending and I don't mean it that way. I'm not even sure FAs who think that mean it that way. I guess we all (FAs and non) on some level want our partners(or potential partners) to be happy and when that doesn't happen as easily as we think it should, there's the desire to DO something about it. I think for many Dims is a haven where they can feel free about being an FA and many make the mistake of checking reality at the door. They want to create a world where total confidence and acceptance is possible, but they want to shut out the real world so badly, they forget it still exists sometimes. Then,everything gets turned on its head and the expectation falls to the BBW or BHM to create an excessive sense of confidence that isn't real(or practical, for anyone actually) in order to make the FA feel better about our own thoughts, fantasies and attractions. I'm not making excuses for anyone,nor am I trying to imply that all FAs are insecure in their own attractions, or paternalistic, or anything else. I'm actually trying to think this through as an FA and just as a person, because I get a little confused about this pushing of confidence that I see around here too. And since I like to blab and brain storm publicly, what the hell, right?

The FA guilt may also play a part. Somewhere deep down you wrestle with knowing that things aren't as easy for the fat person as they might be if that person were thin and maybe that is part of why the ideal becomes almost excessive confidence. It also may be a projection of the FAs' desire to have our own sexuality normalized and having to confront the challenges and conflicts some fat people experience day to day can make that feel like a shaky proposition at times. Then of course there are people who just never can deal with partners as people and always get undone by the day to day reality of relationships and so they stay stuck in the realm of fantasy even when confronted with reality. 

I'm not speaking for anyone obviously, and I'm not trying to cause any trouble. I am mostly thinking out loud here, but anyway, those are some of my thoughts. Not that anyone asked.


----------



## butch

Here, here! Great post as always, Dr. P. Gave me lots of food for thought.


----------



## Tad

I love both LaLa and DrP's posts, I won't quote them, but both just chalk-full-o' crunchy thoughts.

The one thing I'd throw in, from an FA perspective, is that I think most FA feel some guilt for their preference, since they grow up knowing that it is 'wrong' according to most people. So I suspect that part of what drives this tendency amongst FA to want that perfect confidence from their partners is that the FA want to be able to lust without guilt, they would love to be able throw themselves fully into enjoying their partner, without always having to second guess, tone it down, and generally hobble their sexuality.

Which should be the FAs' issue, not their partners', but inherently it affects the partner too if the FA either ties themselves in mental knots or exudes excessive effusiveness for fat. 

This humanity thing, it comes with its share of complications.


----------



## olwen

butch said:


> Here, here! Great post as always, Dr. P. Gave me lots of food for thought.



Yeah, and she needs no permission.


----------



## Ernest Nagel

For all the folks who condemned this thread (and by extension Stan) I hope they stuck around long enough to see the cogent, powerful and poignant posts by the likes of Lala, Olwen and Dr. P. I owe you all rep out the wazoo for articulating so well the downsides of images/fantasies such as those in question. 

I've mentioned before that I hold Dims as a kind of sanctuary from the fat-phobic, thin-centric world. I don't fault anyone for their fantasies or feelings. I just don't think everyone is prepared to deal with certain extremes without understanding the scope of Dims. Maybe just some basic alert to the unfamiliar like "This is a very diverse community which includes members with a wide range of tastes and preferences. Dimensions is committed to the principle that judging or criticizing human beings based on body size/shape is never acceptable. Images and stories that represent extreme size and weight gain which some may find distasteful are not blocked or censored. No single image or story reflects the comprehensive scope of Dimensions. We expect all who visit this site to uses common sense and adult judgment as to content they may deem disturbing or offensive." Well that's too long and wordy but you get the idea. Just post something like that at the top of the Gallery and Story pages. Mods protect us from trolls and noob creeps. Why not offer just a little guard rail for noobs? 

While I'm on the subject (sort of) I'd just like to say I've never liked the term BBW. It sets the wrong priorities, imo. I like women who happen to be large. It's too late I suppose but WBB would've been better if only to help FA's remember the woman should always come first (npi). FA isn't that much better. I don't admire _just_ FAT, it's the whole package. I think those are a couple of things I'd like women coming here for the first time to know. Most of us aren't looking for someone so big s/he can't enjoy life. FA's don't objectify women any more or less than those with conventional preferences. The majority would like to know someone as a complete person even if their fantasies and fetishes aren't for everyone.

I get that their needs to be room for everyone on a site about size acceptance but newcomers and curious visitors don't see the whole site all at once. They see it a page at a time, just like the rest of us. I'm guessing quite a few hit the Gallery page sooner rather than later (guys anyway, I'm pretty sure I did)? I doubt it will really interfere with those looking for wank fodder to have a little friendly note for those looking for more to take some time and discover Dimensions is ultimately about _people _who happen to be fat or attracted to _people_ who happen to be fat. If someone needs Dims I think it's right to give them every chance to find out _everything_ it is before a few extreme images skeeve them away.


----------



## The Orange Mage

edx said:


> I love both LaLa and DrP's posts, I won't quote them, but both just chalk-full-o' crunchy thoughts.
> 
> The one thing I'd throw in, from an FA perspective, is that I think most FA feel some guilt for their preference, since they grow up knowing that it is 'wrong' according to most people. So I suspect that part of what drives this tendency amongst FA to want that perfect confidence from their partners is that the FA want to be able to lust without guilt, they would love to be able throw themselves fully into enjoying their partner, without always having to second guess, tone it down, and generally hobble their sexuality.
> 
> Which should be the FAs' issue, not their partners', but inherently it affects the partner too if the FA either ties themselves in mental knots or exudes excessive effusiveness for fat.
> 
> This humanity thing, it comes with its share of complications.



This sums everything up so nicely, with a little bow on top, too!:bow:


----------



## superodalisque

Wilson Barbers said:


> What bothers me most about threads like these is the speed with which they move from discussion of the works (fair enough) to broad-brushed tarring of their artists and audience. Thus we read (as per Wayne) that the artists in question all "hate women" and that the readers all, without exception, look to this material purely as wank fodder. My own belief is that the world is much more diverse &#8211; that while there are men who come to this work primarily out of a misogynist impulse (as there are in much of the world of erotica), that's not all there is to it.
> 
> More importantly, I believe this shift from work to artist/audience does significant damage to _Dimensions_ as a community. It takes a certain amount of risk to put your fantasies out there like this and being labeled a member of the He-Man Woman Haters Club for doing so can't help but get some artists wondering about whether the time and considerable energy they spent producing this work was worth it. You could argue, of course, that any artist who produces such calculatedly outlandish work needs to develop a thick skin &#8211; but this, too, ignores the fact that we are not all the same . . .



if someone is an artist a person should be used to critiques. artists are supposed to put it out there and take a risk. thats part of being an artist. its not always just working in a studio alone and having everyone say how pretty it is when its complete. sometimes its a back and forth communication with the rest of the world as well. if someone is that sensitive then they should not read critiques because someone is bound not to like what you do. people will always misinterpret your goal. they might even see a part of the artist that they aren't even ready to address consciously. it shouldn't damage the entire community to do something that the world does, which is engage in a discussion that its not even necessary for the artist to read or care about.

to me this reminds me of the tendency we have here not to discuss certain things because it might hurt an FAs feelings and we are sensitive to the trash they often have to take from the outside world. but never mind if some BBWs or FAs feel hurt when something is assigned to them that isn't a part of thier comfort zone. we are just supposed to take a large chill pill and swallow hard. however if an artist is dealing in a lot of strong archetypical images its unrealistic to think that people won't be highly affected. it taps into a primal part of people that spreads into thier perceptions about all kinds of other things. it would be impossible to keep a focused discussion going in the face of that. it would be unnatural.

its a bad idea to decide to take the crayons and go home just because something someone may say here might hit a tender spot. its a better idea to either read it and think about it and provide your perspective, or to not engage at all. but, also remember when complaining about something you percieve as censorship i think its important to think about whether you might be censoring other people. asking people if they think something is SA related or not has nothing to do with the value of someone's work. and even if the value is commented upon i doesn't have to be the one defining definition. its about where people think the classification is. whether the work exists or not is up to the artist not the audience anyway. art is all about a back and forth conversation. if there is no discussion its just a project in a dusty corner somewhere that no one cares about that illicits no emotion. at least the art shown here caused a lot of discussion and created a lot of strong emotions. in most places an artist would take that as a sign that they were successful. at least it was not approached with indifference.


----------



## exile in thighville

T_Devil said:


> Was _THAT_ necessary?
> It's this shit that makes Dimensions so pitiful. I mean really, what's the point other than to incite some kind of misguided anger? What? You think you're so fucking witty or some shit?
> 
> And people are pissed off at _STAN_? Hell, at least his bullshit was relevant.



how do you _incite_ something misguided?


----------



## Ruffie

Super. Wanted to rep you for your post but system won't let me. Well said and great points!
Ruth


----------



## swordchick

No worries, Ruth. I got her for you!



Ruffie said:


> Super. Wanted to rep you for your post but system won't let me. Well said and great points!
> Ruth


----------



## JoyJoy

LalaCity said:


> I'm probably stirring up another hornet's nest by saying this, and I am _not_ trying to denigrate anyone's sexual fantasies, but your comment, as well as many of the sentiments expressed throughout this thread, made me think of the _other_ unattainable ideal fat women face, that thing which I believe is causing so much tension with regard to these pics and the fantasy element of weight gain in general: many fat women I've spoken with, and myself included, feel an unrealistic pressure to maintain an impossible level of self-esteem over our weight; to evince this perfectly perky, confident demeanor at all times to please FAs.
> 
> We are not allowed to complain about physical pain or discomfort, we need to bottle up the hurt feelings we deal with daily in a culture that despises us, and we're utterly forbidden -- on pain of social death -- to address the taboo subject of wanting to lose weight for any reason. There is a distinct impression that the message being sent to us by some men in the movement is, "We don't want to see your low self-esteem, your unhappy days, your physical difficulties, or any cracks in the veneer of the fantasy." In other words, shut the hell up and let _us_ set the tone for how you're going to feel and respond to the vicissitudes of daily life as a fat woman.
> 
> Yes, I get the counter-argument: "This is fantasy _only_. No one expects a real woman to look or behave like that!" But I don't rule out the very real possibility that fantasy can, on occasion, heavily influence preference and expectation after a time -- as with men who, gazing too long at the airbrushed images of so-called "perfection" in Playboy, sometimes develop issues in dealing with the less-than-perfect, wholly real specimens of femininity they encounter outside of the pages of a magazine...and I wonder how much of the above-mentioned observation of "happy fat girl" expectations among FAs can be attributed to this effect..
> 
> Thus it's frustrating to look at that weight gain art because we (some of us, anyway) interpret it as being indicative of what an FA wants, deep in his heart, but representing nothing to which we can realistically aspire. Between the pained woman encased in medieval contraptions or the bouncy cherub delighted by her immobility and thrilled with the fact that her furniture is all in pieces, there's not a lot to identify with as a real woman, as a person whose existence is complex, nuanced, and full of the usual ups and downs that characterize life on earth.
> 
> Now, I know that not _all_ FAs have such unrealistic expectations, but so many really..kind of, well..._do_. These boards are, frankly, full of it in one way or another. It leaves me with a vague but definite impression that something in the evolution of the movement has _somehow_ gotten a bit stuck, that there's a bit of a frozen-in-time attitude passed down from the old-guard who seem unwilling to concede that they may not be as "in touch" as they think they are with the needs of fat chicks.
> 
> I understand that people might think I'm saying all this just to take an unjustified and unkind swipe at the men who are producing these pics...but that's not my honest intent. And, based on numerous conversations I've had behind closed doors, I know I'm definitely not alone in feeling this.
> 
> Considering this thread has kind of worn out its welcome and doesn't seem to be a hot topic anymore, maybe nobody will read this (hell, maybe that's for the best..). But it's been knocking around in me and I guess I just felt I needed to get it out there.





Ernest Nagel said:


> For all the folks who condemned this thread (and by extension Stan) I hope they stuck around long enough to see the cogent, powerful and poignant posts by the likes of Lala, Olwen and Dr. P. I owe you all rep out the wazoo for articulating so well the downsides of images/fantasies such as those in question.
> 
> I've mentioned before that I hold Dims as a kind of sanctuary from the fat-phobic, thin-centric world. I don't fault anyone for their fantasies or feelings. I just don't think everyone is prepared to deal with certain extremes without understanding the scope of Dims. Maybe just some basic alert to the unfamiliar like "This is a very diverse community which includes members with a wide range of tastes and preferences. Dimensions is committed to the principle that judging or criticizing human beings based on body size/shape is never acceptable. Images and stories that represent extreme size and weight gain which some may find distasteful are not blocked or censored. No single image or story reflects the comprehensive scope of Dimensions. We expect all who visit this site to uses common sense and adult judgment as to content they may deem disturbing or offensive." Well that's too long and wordy but you get the idea. Just post something like that at the top of the Gallery and Story pages. Mods protect us from trolls and noob creeps. Why not offer just a little guard rail for noobs?
> 
> While I'm on the subject (sort of) I'd just like to say I've never liked the term BBW. It sets the wrong priorities, imo. I like women who happen to be large. It's too late I suppose but WBB would've been better if only to help FA's remember the woman should always come first (npi). FA isn't that much better. I don't admire _just_ FAT, it's the whole package. I think those are a couple of things I'd like women coming here for the first time to know. Most of us aren't looking for someone so big s/he can't enjoy life. FA's don't objectify women any more or less than those with conventional preferences. The majority would like to know someone as a complete person even if their fantasies and fetishes aren't for everyone.
> 
> I get that their needs to be room for everyone on a site about size acceptance but newcomers and curious visitors don't see the whole site all at once. They see it a page at a time, just like the rest of us. I'm guessing quite a few hit the Gallery page sooner rather than later (guys anyway, I'm pretty sure I did)? I doubt it will really interfere with those looking for wank fodder to have a little friendly note for those looking for more to take some time and discover Dimensions is ultimately about _people _who happen to be fat or attracted to _people_ who happen to be fat. If someone needs Dims I think it's right to give them every chance to find out _everything_ it is before a few extreme images skeeve them away.



Quoting both of these again for awesomeness, and because they both said pretty much what I've felt for awhile but have been unable to say. Can't rep them, but love their words.


----------



## Wilson Barbers

superodalisque said:


> if someone is an artist a person should be used to critiques. artists are supposed to put it out there and take a risk. thats part of being an artist. its not always just working in a studio alone and having everyone say how pretty it is when its complete. sometimes its a back and forth communication with the rest of the world as well. if someone is that sensitive then they should not read critiques because someone is bound not to like what you do. people will always misinterpret your goal. they might even see a part of the artist that they aren't even ready to address consciously. it shouldn't damage the entire community to do something that the world does, which is engage in a discussion that its not even necessary for the artist to read or care about.



Again, my point was to separate discussion of the work (which I think is perfectly legitimate) with discussions/snap judgments/psychological assessments of the artist. It's the difference between saying, "I don't like your work" and "I think you're a creep for producing that work." The first course can still be hard for any artist to take, but it still has the potential of yielding helpful discussion. All the second does is make the targeted person defensive.

It's a basic principle in communications counseling: keep the critical focus on the behavior/action/work and not on the person. You can talk about FA behavior that you consider inappropriate without tar and feathering the FA. Is that censorship? I prefer to think of it as self-editing for the purposes of more effective interactive communication.


----------



## LillyBBBW

Ernest Nagel said:


> For all the folks who condemned this thread (and by extension Stan) I hope they stuck around long enough to see the cogent, powerful and poignant posts by the likes of Lala, Olwen and Dr. P. I owe you all rep out the wazoo for articulating so well the downsides of images/fantasies such as those in question.
> 
> I've mentioned before that I hold Dims as a kind of sanctuary from the fat-phobic, thin-centric world. I don't fault anyone for their fantasies or feelings. I just don't think everyone is prepared to deal with certain extremes without understanding the scope of Dims. Maybe just some basic alert to the unfamiliar like "This is a very diverse community which includes members with a wide range of tastes and preferences. Dimensions is committed to the principle that judging or criticizing human beings based on body size/shape is never acceptable. Images and stories that represent extreme size and weight gain which some may find distasteful are not blocked or censored. No single image or story reflects the comprehensive scope of Dimensions. We expect all who visit this site to uses common sense and adult judgment as to content they may deem disturbing or offensive." Well that's too long and wordy but you get the idea. Just post something like that at the top of the Gallery and Story pages. Mods protect us from trolls and noob creeps. Why not offer just a little guard rail for noobs?
> 
> While I'm on the subject (sort of) I'd just like to say I've never liked the term BBW. It sets the wrong priorities, imo. I like women who happen to be large. It's too late I suppose but WBB would've been better if only to help FA's remember the woman should always come first (npi). FA isn't that much better. I don't admire _just_ FAT, it's the whole package. I think those are a couple of things I'd like women coming here for the first time to know. Most of us aren't looking for someone so big s/he can't enjoy life. FA's don't objectify women any more or less than those with conventional preferences. The majority would like to know someone as a complete person even if their fantasies and fetishes aren't for everyone.
> 
> I get that their needs to be room for everyone on a site about size acceptance but newcomers and curious visitors don't see the whole site all at once. They see it a page at a time, just like the rest of us. I'm guessing quite a few hit the Gallery page sooner rather than later (guys anyway, I'm pretty sure I did)? I doubt it will really interfere with those looking for wank fodder to have a little friendly note for those looking for more to take some time and discover Dimensions is ultimately about _people _who happen to be fat or attracted to _people_ who happen to be fat. If someone needs Dims I think it's right to give them every chance to find out _everything_ it is before a few extreme images skeeve them away.



Many people come here for many reasons. Some will see a bloated view of a fat woman with a cheeseburger in her hands and think, "Eew," and leave. Some will see a woman lacking in confidence and complaining about back problems and do the same. People are going to be turned off by whatever turns them off and won't stay long enough to see that there are people here of all beliefs, all pursuasions. This community is a whole community with different kinds of people. I don't think that those who struggle with self confidence should be hidden or made to feel as if they are a detriment. I undestand where people are coming from but it becomes dangerous when we start setting people into categories of reality. If you exist you *are* a reality. If you set the controvercial things aside, people will eventually see them anyway and the questions and discomfort will be the same. How much easier is it going to be for these individuals to reconcile things then when the people who are already here and have been here for quite some time can't even reconcile them now? Someone is always going to be a turnoff here. Maybe it will be you, maybe it will be me. Somewhere out there is a person who left because they didn't like what one of us stands for. Which one of us goes to the attic and which one goes to the basement? And of the people who are left in the middle, are they truly a full reality when we can't even open the attic/basement door for fear of what will come out? I think we have to find a way to confront these controversies rather than hide them and pretend that their numbers aren't significant.


----------



## superodalisque

Wilson Barbers said:


> Again, my point was to separate discussion of the work (which I think is perfectly legitimate) with discussions/snap judgments/psychological assessments of the artist. It's the difference between saying, "I don't like your work" and "I think you're a creep for producing that work." The first course can still be hard for any artist to take, but it still has the potential of yielding helpful discussion. All the second does is make the targeted person defensive.
> 
> It's a basic principle in communications counseling: keep the critical focus on the behavior/action/work and not on the person. You can talk about FA behavior that you consider inappropriate without tar and feathering the FA. Is that censorship? I prefer to think of it as self-editing for the purposes of more effective interactive communication.



i agree that maybe it shouldn't get personal but it will. art is a very personal thing. that should be expected. this isn't the usual place for art like a gallery or the forums of professional critics, but even if it was you'll find that art is indeed very personal. you should read some of the critiques of Picasso, Toulouse Letrec and Van Gogh. you must have no idea of how personal the interpretation of art gets. i think having a critique like that would be more honorable to the artist than comparing him to some situation in a corporate workplace. the two things are different because work someone does only because he is paid to is very different from what an artist does. and i also think artists feel that their work is much more than just a product or a widget. so often all bets are off when it comes to comparing communications counceling to what happens in the art world. part of the excitement is the unquantifiable emotions people are going to feel and show on both ends.

people here have a lot personally invested in many of the images shown here. not only is the artist represented but many people feel they are being personally represented. anytime you use a community as inspiration you'll find that not all of them are going to agree with your take on things. being fat is very personal for the people here. loving fat is also very personal for the people here. people put fat and their preference for fat out there every day and its difficult for them. the entire situation is difficult and thats why the SA question is important in dims. people have their own feelings about how certain images hurt or help that. and really, they probably should. i'm going to use this as an illustrative example. people might find it offensive but here it is. if you put out a very stereotypical image of people who might feel oppressed like black people-lets say its step and fetch it or black sambo, black people might have some similar concerns. some wouldn't care because they feel they are beyond that. some might find the images funny and kitchy and display them in their house to show how far they have come. others would out right hate them and see them as fodder for people who already want to engage in racism. no one would question the right black people would have to feel in all of those ways. why should it be any different here?

people have a right to feel and express those feelings about anything that they have an opinion about, just as an artist has the right to create anything they want to create. there has to be equality in that. i would think an artist would feel supportive of the right of his audience to feel anyway they like about the work. especially one who gets valuable inspiration and support from that same audience. and yes people may make some personal observations that is felt to be unwaranted. but that happens to any artist. i would think the artist would be interested to know what people feel his/her drives are. it could help him to hone in on something or even inspire him to target his message better if there is one. if he would simply like to do his work and be left alone he can do that as well without ever reading a critique. if his/her message is simply "i find very fat women lovely" then it might be of interest to know if people felt that when they saw his work. then again it might not because all of the people looking may not be the particular audience he is aiming at. knowing that already, the artist needs to take that into account. he/she needs to understand that all people will not understand what he is trying to do and take it with a grain of salt. no matter where an artist is comming from his/her goal should never be to stop communication but to start it. censorship is never what art is about when it comes to the work or the interpretation of it unless you work for hitler or stalin or some other despot--and i don't think that is the case here. i just think your points about protecting the artist, however well intentioned, don't make any sense and aren't really applicable in the real world.


----------



## chicken legs

As a FFA, they are a benefit, and i appreciate them for what they are and in the light that they were created in.


----------



## WG Story Drone

_(Message deleted.)_


----------



## mergirl

WG Story Drone said:


> _(Message deleted.)_


exactly!!!


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy

WG Story Drone said:


> _(Message deleted.)_





mergirl said:


> exactly!!!



I hear ya!


----------

