# FA Myths thread # 5



## James (Nov 2, 2009)

_*"**Fat Admirers are fetishists and thus tarnish the credibility of the size acceptance movement through their association with it*__*"*_



> *(Please read the following before posting a response)*
> 
> This is the fifth topic for discussion in relation to the FA board project "FA Myths and Misconceptions". It will be discussed for 2 weeks in this thread before being edited and ultimately posted to the FA Myths and Misconceptions sticky.
> 
> ...


----------



## Fascinita (Nov 2, 2009)

James said:


> _*"**Fat Admirers are fetishists and thus tarnish the credibility of the size acceptance movement through their association with it*__*"*_



Depends on how you define "Fat Admirer" and "fetish."

Many people who are fat fetishists like to claim that they're Fat Admirers for reasons that have nothing to do with admiration of fat people. The two ideas may not necessarily co-exist happily, or at all, in the same person. In my opinion, some fat fetishists are merely not comfortable with calling themselves "fetishist" and so feel they have to put a veneer of acceptability on their practices by calling themselves "FA."

"FA" can act as a self-closeting label for fetishists.

So really, this issue is complicated by those problems.

OTOH, people who call themselves "FAs" are not necessarily fetishists in practice. But claiming that fetish is the same as admiration in an effort to legitimize fetishism as belonging with the cause of SA is wrongheaded, IMO. 

Fetishism is good for getting fetishists off, and that's great, but it is not always compatible with a philosophy of fat civil rights.

So FAs should be clear on these issues when they claim the label "FA" for themselves. And they should be clear on why, if they are for the civil rights of people of all sizes, the ideas about fat that fetishists bring to the table can turn out to be problematic and incongruent with the political and civil interests of the fat people FAs admire.


----------



## BeautifulPoeticDisaster (Nov 2, 2009)

I would say that FA's who *obviously have a fetish* hender the SA movement, but not all FA's. But I don't think Dimensions is a place of SA. It is a fat acceptance AND is a place designed for the male eye. "Where Big is Beautiful" how many guys you know like to be desribed as beautiful? I don't know of any. So where big is beautiful, you would expect to see lots of big women. So this site was made for men with a passion (not all FAs have a fetish), but none the less it is not size acceptnace, but fat woman acceptance....maybe.

My brain hurts. I know what I mean, but I'm not expressing it well. For the record, I am a ok with this being a mans playhouse....just wish there was a place/forum for serious SA without the overtly sexual stuff and that isn't totally old school.


----------



## BothGunsBlazing (Nov 2, 2009)

I've got quite a few fetishes and what not and I can go about being here without making them the sole focus of my existence. 

I think the lack of balance for some people is the problem. Don't be in full on CHECK OUT MY FETISH AND CATER TO IT mode constantly because that will just make you look creepy and no one will want to interact with you anyway, so you'll basically get nowhere with it. If you can show there is more to you then just being a walking hard on, you'll get much further on this particular forum and well, most places.


----------



## Dr. Feelgood (Nov 2, 2009)

BigBellySSBBW said:


> just wish there was a place/forum for serious SA without the overtly sexual stuff and that isn't totally old school.



I hear you, but ... is it even possible to have serious SA without the overtly sexual stuff? Or is it like what Piet Hein says about dreams:

"Since everything's either concave or convex,
Whatever you dream will be something with sex."

Seriously, SA is about relating to other people, and relations seem inevitably to include sexual ones. I'm not saying that's good or bad, just that it seems inevitable to me.


----------



## BeautifulPoeticDisaster (Nov 2, 2009)

Dr. Feelgood said:


> I hear you, but ... is it even possible to have serious SA without the overtly sexual stuff? Or is it like what Piet Hein says about dreams:
> 
> "Since everything's either concave or convex,
> Whatever you dream will be something with sex."
> ...



My fat self being able to get a job, rent an apartment, walk down the street without being shouted at or assaulted....all have 0 to do with sex or sexuality. There are many sides to size acceptance and most of them have nothing to do with sex.


----------



## Fascinita (Nov 2, 2009)

Dr. Feelgood said:


> Seriously, SA is about relating to other people, and relations seem inevitably to include sexual ones. I'm not saying that's good or bad, just that it seems inevitable to me.



But let's not confuse the sexuality of fat people with the sexuality of "those who admire them." They don't always intersect.

As far as I'm concerned, where the interests of "those who admire" fat people do not actually further the interests of fat people, they should not be considered within SA's reach. 

When we talk about SA, we aren't talking about the civil or political rights of fat fetishists or even of Fat Admirers as a group, just to be clear. Those are separate movements that may or may not have things in common with SA. 

When we talk about SA, we're talking about Size Acceptance. 

Let's be clear.


----------



## Webmaster (Nov 2, 2009)

James said:


> _*"**Fat Admirers are fetishists and thus tarnish the credibility of the size acceptance movement through their association with it*__*"*_



Personally, I can't even imagine who'd come up with a statement like that as it shows an appalling degree of negativity and cynicism, let alone an utter lack of knowledge about the size acceptance movement and its history that is filled with FA contributions. 

It also reeks a bit of the concentrated efforts of a few to paint and disqualify all male interest in fat partners as some mere fetish. Tell that to all the FAs who have fat partners they care for and adore. 

The statement as is makes about as much sense as attempting to disqualify gays and lesbians with sexual interests from the gay rights movement. We're all human beings with our private sides and interests that can very well co-exist with our political and philosophical goals and leanings.


----------



## joh (Nov 2, 2009)

Webmaster said:


> Personally, I can't even imagine who'd come up with a statement like that as it shows an appalling degree of negativity and cynicism, let alone an utter lack of knowledge about the size acceptance movement and its history that is filled with FA contributions.
> 
> It also reeks a bit of the concentrated efforts of a few to paint and disqualify all male interest in fat partners as some mere fetish. Tell that to all the FAs who have fat partners they care for and adore.
> 
> The statement as is makes about as much sense as attempting to disqualify gays and lesbians with sexual interests from the gay rights movement. We're all human beings with our private sides and interests that can very well co-exist with our political and philosophical goals and leanings.


I couldn't of said it better!

Does it even make sense that the only possible way someone could be interested in a fat person is through a fetish? Sure, there are FAs who have fetishes that will act on those fetishes in a rude and crude manner that will diminish the SA movement, but I highly doubt that is even close to the majority, or even close to 5 or 10 percent of FAs.


----------



## fffff (Nov 2, 2009)

This is the relevant definition of fetish: 

Psychology. any object or nongenital part of the body that causes a habitual erotic response or fixation.

Fetishes are extremely common, in fact I don't believe I've ever meant anyone who didn't have some sort of fetish. It's a normal and vital part of human sexuality. I absolutely believe that most, if not all fas, have fetishes because that is just the way the brain is wired to interpret sexual stimulus. 

The real question is why so many people here seemed to have developed the idea that fetishes are bad. Or that anyone with a fetish is a sex-obsessed weirdo. They may vary in degree but once again, fetishes are extremely common if not almost universal. 

Some people have fetishes for blonde hair, dark eyes, six pack abs, flat stomachs, big stomachs, muscles, bald heads, fat thighs, etc etc and etc. It's not some deviant behavioral flaw. It comes with the development of a sexual preference.


----------



## butch (Nov 3, 2009)

fffff said:


> This is the relevant definition of fetish:
> 
> Psychology. any object or nongenital part of the body that causes a habitual erotic response or fixation.
> 
> ...



Yep, I was thinking all this as I read this thread, thanks for posting it here. The use of 'fetish' as a meaningful word here at Dims is impossible, because there seem to be 153 different definitions of fetish used by folks who post, and 85% of those folks use it in a negative way, which does a disservice to SA because it allows the culture at large to continue to define any fat attraction AT ALL as a pathological psychological condition that needs to be fixed.

So, in order to further the cause of SA, lets stop throwing the word fetish around as if we all have PhDs in sexuality, and talk about the realities, the particularities, of fat attraction and fat sex.


----------



## BeautifulPoeticDisaster (Nov 3, 2009)

butch said:


> So, in order to further the cause of SA, lets stop throwing the word fetish around as if we all have PhDs in sexuality, and talk about the realities, the particularities, of fat attraction and fat sex.



I know enough about fat fetishes and do not need a PhD to have an opinion. That is quite condescending actually.


----------



## Melian (Nov 3, 2009)

Yes, I have a sexual fat fetish.

It coexists with my love of fat people, which I express through kindness, respect and support of fat friends and family members. 

So while the fetish element is there, I feel it tarnishes nothing.


----------



## Fascinita (Nov 3, 2009)

butch said:


> So, in order to further the cause of SA, lets stop throwing the word fetish around as if we all have PhDs in sexuality, and talk about the realities, the particularities, of fat attraction and fat sex.



Why? Because we're afraid of how we're seen by the world? Because there isn't a *real* problem at Dimensions of some vocal self-described "fetishists" who say things like "the non-fetish content at Dimensions is unimportant"?

I'm sorry you don't feel like these dynamics pose a real problem for fat people who want the space to explore their sexuality when it exceeds what others deem important for them, but count me as one fat person for whom this does pose a very real problem of gender oppression.

The OP poses a loaded question. The "myth" itself posits "fetish" as something negative. Even Webmaster responds that Fat Admiration is no "mere fetish." We can hope that it becomes a more neutral and less problematic term, but for now this discussion seems to be _exactly_ about the word itself.


----------



## Santaclear (Nov 3, 2009)

The issue here is that the term "fetish" is getting deliberately blurred to suit different agendas. I'd say we have two roughly main schools of what "fetish" means here at Dimensions:

1. Fetish, as in "I haz a fetish for fat chicks/guys. They're hot!" :smitten:

2. Fetish, as in feeder, which can range from anything light and casual to serious single-minded feeding that might fuck up a person's health.

I think it's fair to say that the second kind has fuck-all to do with fat acceptance. It's fat _fetish_, and that's fine and nobody else's business BUT IT IS NOT FAT ACCEPTANCE. It kinda doesn't do fat people a service nor help fat acceptance that the two concepts are deliberately blurred.


----------



## BeautifulPoeticDisaster (Nov 3, 2009)

Santaclear said:


> The issue here is that the term "fetish" is getting deliberately blurred to suit different agendas. I'd say we have two roughly main schools of what "fetish" means here at Dimensions:
> 
> 1. Fetish, as in "I haz a fetish for fat chicks/guys. They're hot!" :smitten:
> 
> ...



Will you marry me in the next life? Seriously. You have said exactly what I was meaning to say, but you made sense!

It could be argued that #2 is anti size acceptance....but thats a fish to fry for another day.


----------



## Fascinita (Nov 3, 2009)

I say things like this...



Fascinita said:


> Why? Because we're afraid of how we're seen by the world? Because there isn't a *real* problem at Dimensions of some vocal self-described "fetishists" who say things like "the non-fetish content at Dimensions is unimportant"?




So I also have to acknowledge the beauty and truth in posts like these: 



Melian said:


> Yes, I have a sexual fat fetish.
> 
> It coexists with my love of fat people, which I express through kindness, respect and support of fat friends and family members.
> 
> So while the fetish element is there, I feel it tarnishes nothing.



The "myth" in the OP assumes that "fetish" does tarnish the name of FAs. I feel that what happens is that some people who are secretly embarrassed by their fetish usurp the "FA" label because they think it covers their shame. But that does a disservice to more than just fat people. It is unfair to people who identify as fetish-ey and who have nothing to hide. So it keeps "fetish" in a kind of limbo of shadiness that it doesn't deserve. 

Not all fetish sexuality seems compatible with SA. But this doesn't mean that fetishists can't participate in SA as a civil rights movement, or even a liberation movement, for fat people. So long as the interests of fat people--maybe inclusive of fat sexuality, depending on who you ask--come front and center and first, no one who loves fat people and is willing to work with them should be excluded from SA.


----------



## Wild Zero (Nov 3, 2009)

Didn't NAAFA already have the discussion where they declared feedism anti-size acceptance? And hasn't that been a spectacular failure because it assumes that clear thinking people who are committed to size acceptance can't separate their sexuality from political involvement?


----------



## Fascinita (Nov 3, 2009)

deleted post because it was largely OT


----------



## Tad (Nov 3, 2009)

I think the real issue here is that fat admirer is an incredibly broad term. It is a bit like saying 'athletes' or 'music lovers.' "Fat admirer" could mean someone who prefers a little padding, it could mean someone who doesn't look at anyone under four hundred pounds, it could mean someone whose only real preference is that the amount of fat be increasing, it could mean someone into big, muscular, athletic with some padding, and so on.

Some people who fall under the umbrella "FA" may have a fetish somehow related to fat. Those who do have a fetish may or may not also have a more normal preference for fat partners.

Anyway, in my opinion the existence of fat admirers in general should be at most a side issue in size acceptance. I do get that some people would argue "well, maybe all that you say about choice and health are true, but fat people are still ugly and nobody wants them" at which point the existence of fat admirers may be relevant (although maybe a better answer is "I think that is really my issue to worry about....and believe me, I'm not worried." After all, the main message is supposed to be about the inherent value of all people, no matter size, NOT that some other people value you in particular.


----------



## Santaclear (Nov 3, 2009)

Wild Zero said:


> Didn't NAAFA already have the discussion where they declared feedism anti-size acceptance? And hasn't that been a spectacular failure because it assumes that clear thinking people who are committed to size acceptance can't separate their sexuality from political involvement?



Anyhow, this thread isn't about NAAFA. I don't think all feedism = anti-size acceptance, just that they're essentially unrelated concepts that intersect socially.


----------



## joswitch (Nov 3, 2009)

Wild Zero said:


> Didn't NAAFA already have the discussion where they declared feedism anti-size acceptance? And hasn't that been a spectacular failure because it assumes that clear thinking people who are committed to size acceptance can't separate their sexuality from political involvement?



Good point. Well made.


----------



## musicman (Nov 3, 2009)

James said:


> _*"**Fat Admirers are fetishists and thus tarnish the credibility of the size acceptance movement through their association with it*__*"*_




Of all the myths presented so far, this is the most clearly "mythological". If you think that FAs are irrelevant or harmful to the size acceptance movement, then you are defining SA too narrowly. How can we convince society that fat people, as a group, are just as worthy, valuable, and lovable as thin people, if no one is willing to openly express love for them as individuals? I don't think the SA movement can succeed without including FAs. On the flip side, if the stigma of being fat is removed, so is the stigma of loving a fat person, so FAs have a lot to gain from supporting SA.

And what's wrong with lusting after a fat body? Or being the object of that lust? (I refuse to use the word "fetish" for this, because it serves only to demonize a legitimate preference.) Is it not important for a fat person to feel loved and desired as a sexual being? There are some fat people who feel successful and accepted in all aspects of their life EXCEPT love and sex. What can SA offer to those people? Should we tell them, "Sorry, but anyone who thinks you're hot must be a pervert". To me, that sounds a lot like "No one will really love you unless you lose weight." That's the opposite of SA, in my opinion.

Those who would classify all FAs as fetishists are, in reality, insulting all fat people by implying that a fat person cannot be loved as part of a healthy sexual relationship. If we believe in SA, we must do everything we can to fight this attitude.


----------



## rollhandler (Nov 3, 2009)

The size acceptance movement is politic based. As such its agenda is a tool used to lever the government to improve the quality of life while decreasing the negative aspects inherent in society toward fat people as a group.

That being said, what is the role of FAs in this?
We are not the ones whose lives are being improved directly by this body of politic unless we ourselves are fat. 

The affects we feel as FAs are indirect through our relationships with those of our preference. Why then would it matter whether or not our attraction to fat is a fetish or preference?

By our association either with those of our preference or the body of politic fighting for the rights of the ones we admire and prefer, our roles are: activist, support, and promotion of size acceptance through the day to day living as FAs in relationships with those we admire. All of FAdom, BECAUSE of this preference directly support and join the fight for SA at the grass roots level by being seen with fat people with our heads held high, answering questions posed by our friends and families about our preference, enlightening people of the difference between our preference and what might be seen as a fetish, and by doing what we can to seek out the tools that make our fat partners lives better daily. 

Directly and indirectly we project a sense of normalcy through these (inter)actions in society that is contrary to the popular belief. Others rally directly in support politically in ways similar to what Conrad has done with websites, and talk show appearances, and petitions to stop prejudicial behaviours, and denying business to those not equipped for them and their partners as clientele.

Regardless of how our preference is perceived at any level I see the myth as being one of natural assumption that the ignorant and uneducated perceive as a threat to the status quo. I see a large economic cost impact in how business runs itself if size acceptance wins. (business hates, and fights ruthlessly anything that may cost them at the bottom line). I see a divide and conquer aspect to the propaganda that this myth promotes through its implication, causing those of size to question the motives of those who admire them. I also see it as a naturally attained hurdle, in the course of progress, to overcome in the fight for Size Acceptance that starts with fat people fighting for their rights, and continues with FAs supporting their efforts through day to day living with them, amongst them, showing our acceptance of them; proudly. It is not only myth but misdirection and propaganda.

Rollhandler


----------



## swamptoad (Nov 4, 2009)

Are we discussing the compulsion, excessive regard or attachment of using something physical (all that there entails about fat, weight, gaining, etc.) in the minds eye to attain sexual gratification?

Some made up examples:

Walking in the mall and a glance essentially turns into a stare. Creepy, yes .. but does it discredit?

On the computer and gazing at porn hours on end ... does that discredit?


Well ... clearly noted .. there's excess and compulsion. Does that hinder or potentially hinder the movement of size acceptance? I wouldn't think so.


Yes, people have been known to do this.


But how does that give credibility to tarnishing or diminishing the SA movement if one is associated with that?


Aren't they private thoughts, anyhow? Unless the thoughts take hold of you and you become a stalker. And yes, mannerisms are important. Not polite to stare. :blink::doh:


----------



## bbwsrule (Nov 4, 2009)

Tad said:


> I think the real issue here is that fat admirer is an incredibly broad term. It is a bit like saying 'athletes' or 'music lovers.' "Fat admirer" could mean someone who prefers a little padding, it could mean someone who doesn't look at anyone under four hundred pounds, it could mean someone whose only real preference is that the amount of fat be increasing, it could mean someone into big, muscular, athletic with some padding, and so on.
> 
> Some people who fall under the umbrella "FA" may have a fetish somehow related to fat. Those who do have a fetish may or may not also have a more normal preference for fat partners.
> 
> Anyway, in my opinion the existence of fat admirers in general should be at most a side issue in size acceptance. I do get that some people would argue "well, maybe all that you say about choice and health are true, but fat people are still ugly and nobody wants them" at which point the existence of fat admirers may be relevant (although maybe a better answer is "I think that is really my issue to worry about....and believe me, I'm not worried." After all, the main message is supposed to be about the inherent value of all people, no matter size, NOT that some other people value you in particular.



I just have to say...well said! You cut through the idea of obsessing about FA's and how to classify their "thing". It can be a wide variety of things and have little relation to SA. As you just said.


----------



## butch (Nov 4, 2009)

butch said:


> Yep, I was thinking all this as I read this thread, thanks for posting it here. The use of 'fetish' as a meaningful word here at Dims is impossible, because there seem to be 153 different definitions of fetish used by folks who post, and 85% of those folks use it in a negative way, which does a disservice to SA because it allows the culture at large to continue to define any fat attraction AT ALL as a pathological psychological condition that needs to be fixed.
> 
> So, in order to further the cause of SA, lets stop throwing the word fetish around as if we all have PhDs in sexuality, and talk about the realities, the particularities, of fat attraction and fat sex.



Funny how people have a problem with the second part of my post, and not the first, but when someone else says the same thing as I do in the first paragraph, they get pats on the back. No offense meant to those making a similar point, but an observation that I felt needed to be made.

I stand by my second paragraph not because it is meant to demean anyone or close down discussion, but because I've had the fetish discussion too many time at Dims to count, and we never make any headway because no one agrees on what a fat fetish is, and how damaging aspects of fat fetishism may be to SA.

Because we can't use the terms with the specificity they need, then we further stereotypes that seep out of our fat communities and infect the culture at large. I'm tired of having smart, supportive non-fat folks think all fat sexuality is a fetish, and that anyone who would want to partner with a fat person for any reason must be a fetishist. This happened to me recently when telling someone I went to a bbw bash, after telling them that bashes for fat people were a lot like the historical gay bar for queers-the primary spot for socialization and community building for a marginalized community. To think they couldn't grasp the need for solidarity and socialization for fat people, all because the specter of thin men who like fat women also occupy this space, was disheartening to me. 

So, my complaint is about the violence words do, the damage fuzzyily defined words do to us in the larger world. I think anytime we use fetish, we perpetrate a belief that no fat sexuality can be healthy, normal, and mentally sound. That isn't to say that there is no fat fetish, and that there is no damaging fat fetish, but that we have to be precise and clear about how we use fat and fetish in the same sentence, and we have to be mindful of exactly who gets caught up in our individual definitions of fetish. 

If you still think my words are harsh and meant to shout down opposing views, so be it.


----------



## BeautifulPoeticDisaster (Nov 4, 2009)

No, I get it butch...and for the most part, I agree with you.

It's just that you could use the "you don't have a PhD" against anything. Like you can't talk about Women's Rights because you don't have a PhD in Women's Studies. It's a slippery slope were at the end, no one can talk about anything because we don't have PhDs.

PS-I'm one of "them"....a person with a fetish. I just tend to completely separate that side from my activism side.


----------



## kioewen (Nov 4, 2009)

It's a pity that the original myth was worded the way it was, because I think the questions about "fetish" and such are a separate issue (possibly related, but not necessarily).

Rather, I think the most important aspect of the myth is this:

*"Fat Admirers...tarnish the credibility of the size acceptance movement through their association with it"*

And to that, I can only second what the Webmaster said, which was 100% true.

And if the above is the myth, then this is the reality:

_"Fat Admirers* benefit* the size acceptance movement (and benefit it greatly, tremendously, and invaluably) through their association with it"_


----------



## Fascinita (Nov 4, 2009)

butch said:


> I stand by my second paragraph not because it is meant to demean anyone or close down discussion, but because I've had the fetish discussion too many time at Dims to count, and* we never make any headway* because no one agrees on what a fat fetish is, and how damaging aspects of fat fetishism may be to SA.



I disagree.

If the word is so tortured and obfuscated, it's worth looking into just why it has such a difficult history.

You may think your experience of having the discussion too many times is reason enough to stop talking about this, but if others now want to enter the discussions over the word, please take the time to acquaint yourself with the specifics of the current conversation before you try to shut it down. And if you want to enter the current conversation in a position of leadership because of your experiences, maybe try to do it in a constructive spirit. Telling people to hush because they don't have PhDs--all because your smart friends aren't smart enough to parse out the issues for themselves--is demeaning of any grassroots effort to grapple with issues that affect people directly. It's not acceptable.


----------



## Elfcat (Nov 4, 2009)

James said:


> _*"**Fat Admirers are fetishists and thus tarnish the credibility of the size acceptance movement through their association with it*__*"*_



My own take on this is that the "Admirer" term is a little ambiguous, which is why I am starting to gravitate toward calling myself a "fat-positive lover", or to mirror the greek root of a term like hetero- or homo- or bi- sexual, that I would say that just as each person manifests a somatomorphism, each also harbors a somatotropism. On that logic a fat person for instance is lipomorphic (as opposed to myomorphic or osteomorphic), and one who sexually favors the fat is lipotropic.

I suppose the question is whether fat is being regarded as a separate part of the body. I would argue that body size and shape are in the context of the overall body structure and therefore not localized in the sense that is defined for a fetish.

The foot fetish is one of the better known fetishes. And one could be either an osteotropic, myotropic, or lipotropic (or "bone-positive", "muscle-positive" or "fat-positive") foot fetishist. Even with regard to a gluteal fetish or an abdominal fetish, one of the most obviously likely fetishes for the fat-positive, there are certainly the counterparts who proclaim for the six-pack and say "tight butts drive me nuts". The flavor of the allegation as worded above speaks to the more general allegation that demonizes all fetishes and kinks and seeks to keep sexual mechanics confined to the single procedure or few procedures sanctioned as proper by various societal endeavors at control over individuals. The irony is that what is commonly called the traditionalist paradigm is so infused with proceduralism, domination, submission, corporal punishment, shaming, and even the catharsis of victimhood and martyrhood real or imagined ("If anyone else does anything different, the material representation of our all powerful master will utterly collapse!"), this construction itself manifests something at least one infiltrator and reporter on the ultraconservative culture has called spiritual sado-masochism.

Of course fetishes also refer often to extrasomatic objects, things to be worn or used in the execution of kinks - kinks to my mind describing sexual favoring of specific actions.

One wouldn't doubt that some fetishes and kinks arise more often in one somatotropism than another. Lifting one's legs over one's head? Probably a kink more likely in the thin-positive. Lifting and carrying a partner? Probably the most likely in the muscle-positive. Tight and narrow squeezes? That's most frequently the fat-positive's turf. Obviously there are people who are both muscular and fat and would therefore have an appeal to both the muscle-positive and fat-positive.

And none of this really has in the strictest sense to do with what kind of political activist one is, save only for the fact that fat people have been systematically targeted for desexualization as one component of the program of somatic cleansing endeavored against them. I would say therefore that having fetishes or kinks does not in itself tarnish anything, but that the more precise issue is that attempting to conflate these things alone into activism produces an incomplete and ineffectual result. If people with fetishes or kinks put their boots on and march for the political objectives, then they are to be as much commended for showing up as anyone else; those who never do this could be alleged to be more concerned with their own individual pleasure than with making the world a better place for the people who possess the characteristics which sexually inspire them.


----------



## butch (Nov 5, 2009)

Fascinita said:


> I disagree.
> 
> If the word is so tortured and obfuscated, it's worth looking into just why it has such a difficult history.
> 
> You may think your experience of having the discussion too many times is reason enough to stop talking about this, but if others now want to enter the discussions over the word, please take the time to acquaint yourself with the specifics of the current conversation before you try to shut it down. And if you want to enter the current conversation in a position of leadership because of your experiences, maybe try to do it in a constructive spirit. Telling people to hush because they don't have PhDs--all because your smart friends aren't smart enough to parse out the issues for themselves--is demeaning of any grassroots effort to grapple with issues that affect people directly. It's not acceptable.



Ha, that is not at all what I was doing, but I was using snark, which perhaps in retrospect should not have been used. I guess I've just seen too much snark here lately in all the boards, and I let it go to my head. I am free to express my opinion, and you're free to disagree. fwiw, I included myself in the original 'PhD' reference, so there was no division of us and them, or me pretending to have some knowledge other didn't have. After all, I don't have a PhD in sexuality.

Please, continue to discuss fat fetishism. I don't have any power to stop anyone, nor would I.


----------



## BeautifulPoeticDisaster (Nov 5, 2009)

I'm going to make a statement that I am not sure belongs on this thread, but I need to get it out.

People are confusing the "SA movement" with the "SA community". There is no need for admirers, fetishists, or the like in the movement...they serve no political value. Of course FAs and fetishists can participate in the movement, but the labels they have no bearing (did I spell that right? lol) on politics. However, I think FAs and fetishists have a vital place in the community.

How many people with a fat fetish do you know who would go to a march in washington just to wank off? I am sure there are some, but you can't wank and petition congress at the same time.


I don't know if I made myself very clear. But I think people are lumping "the movemnt" with "the community" and those two things are very different beasts.


----------



## Tad (Nov 5, 2009)

BigBellySSBBW said:


> I don't know if I made myself very clear. But I think people are lumping "the movemnt" with "the community" and those two things are very different beasts.



Great point--and I can't rep you again just yet  So I'll just gush about it here. One of those simple but really key points....I don't know about anyone else, but I'd not really thought of that distinction before, so I'm really glad you brought it up!

Thanks!


----------



## swamptoad (Nov 5, 2009)

James said:


> _*"**Fat Admirers are fetishists and thus tarnish the credibility of the size acceptance movement through their association with it*__*"*_




This may have already been questioned or stated .. but are Fat Admirers being tagged as fetishists? I mean you have two words .. Fat .. and then you have... Admirer. This described admirer is a Fat Admirer, indicating an attraction to thus said attribute "Fat". "Fat" is a physical attribute and is thus objectified ..but only if there is a compulsion desire for this attribute does it then become a "fetish." I just wanted to see if anyone agrees with that.

I don't see how even having this particular fetish has an effect on the size acceptance movement. I still see them as private thoughts/actions done maturely and consensually.

People who have fat fetishes can still promote SIZE ACCEPTANCE and fight SIZE DISCRIMINATION. It's a personal and natural thing to us all - having these fetishes. 

There are negative aspects though. If this fetish acts out in public or private with a certain demeaning factor (even as innocent as it were) THAT could possibly indicate bigotry. The person whose esteem was attacked may potentially make (the person as a whole being) feel undervalued, humiliated or unacceptable. This can initiate the tarnishing of that individual's integrity. Individualized behaviors and actions in us all make dents/impacts (good or bad) when you look at the bigger spectrum of things.

Something that MAY also have some negative impact is when fat-related HATE blogs spew belligerence and grow a "following" number of participants online and they may take THAT hostility with them when they leave their computer.


----------



## James (Nov 5, 2009)

Ok - I think we've reached a consensus that the first part of the myth is a straw man. Fat Admirers are not all fetishists and indeed, the key point to this myth is to discuss whether Fat Admiration and Size Acceptance can be compatible? People like Kate Harding refer to non-fat people who are invested in forwarding the cause of size acceptance as fat 'allies'. Are FAs fat 'allies' or does our aesthetic preclude us from being so?

This is the crux of what I want to get to with addressing this myth.... Do fat admirers help advance fat acceptance or does their association with it devalue the cause? 

I have my own opinions and I'll bring them in at some point but I'd be interested to hear more of yours ! 

Thanks to all who have contributed so far. I think this is a very important topic.


----------



## joh (Nov 5, 2009)

Most certainly FAs can add value to fat acceptance through association. I can see several cases in which they could help:

(a) They provide direct support to their fat-counterpart, be a friendship, marriage, or any other sort of relationship. By loving another for who they are I believe then that person will gain a lot more confidence, thus enabling them, in this particular case, to advance fat acceptance. I think this is true under any circumstance; I know personally just having my girlfriend, Rachel, by my side makes me a more confident and outgoing person.

(b) FAs can be role models of what fat acceptance could or should be. This is a double edged sword though; it would be easy enough to become a negative role model and thus hinder fat acceptance.

(c) Assuming we're referring to an "open-FA", they are a form of "fat-acceptors", are they not? They accept fat for what it is, _and_ they love it. They are apart of the progression of fat acceptance. The more open-FAs there are is directly correlated to an increase in acceptance, right?

I do acknowledge that FAs could detract from fat acceptance, but couldn't that be true for anybody, in any form of "crusade", or even a fat person themselves?


----------



## SocialbFly (Nov 6, 2009)

*This is the crux of what I want to get to with addressing this myth.... Do fat admirers help advance fat acceptance or does their association with it devalue the cause? *

So, my answer (btw I like the questions James, as it is something i have personally discussed with other people in size acceptance groups) is as usual not an easy one...i think the truest answer lies in the FAs desire of a fat partner, or if the desire is just one to view and etc...

my opinion, if you are involved with someone, or have the desire to be involved with a fat someone, you have a vested interest to make sure the person is happy and has access to everything you do...you want them to be able to sit with you in a cafe, to ride with you in a plane, to sit with you in a theatre...so your motivation is simple, you want them in your life so you are more apt to fight to have them there....

those that find fat more of a looky looky thing such as ______(without naming, insert any of the different kink things here) then i dont think your interest is how this person fits in to your life and i dont think they have the same vested interest in seeing the fat person in their everyday life...

So, to answer your question, in my mind, i think the first FA type advances size acceptance, and the second FA, unless he is extremely vocal on his kink...actually is a non entity in the size accceptance community, for it isnt what they are there for...

now the mixes...that all depends on the person...and that has too many shades of grey...


----------



## SocialbFly (Nov 6, 2009)

joh said:


> Most certainly FAs can add value to fat acceptance through association. I can see several cases in which they could help:
> 
> (a) They provide direct support to their fat-counterpart, be a friendship, marriage, or any other sort of relationship. By loving another for who they are I believe then that person will gain a lot more confidence, thus enabling them, in this particular case, to advance fat acceptance. I think this is true under any circumstance; I know personally just having my girlfriend, Rachel, by my side makes me a more confident and outgoing person.



Can i just say, i love this statement?


----------



## Verdant (Nov 6, 2009)

The collequial definition of a fetish is the sexual response to something that is not typically found sexual. 
That's why the famous foot fetish is a real fetish; most men care nothing about feet when choosing a mate. They care much more about women's torsos and brains. The average man prefers thin torsos, while FAs prefer fat torsos -- but they are both focused on the same body parts. They just disagree about how those body parts should look. 
Therefore, an FA is decidedly not a fetishist (unless he only cares about fat feet, hands, earlobes, etc.). The term fat fetish is a nisnomer. Any definition of fetish that would include FAs would have to be so broad that anything would be a fetish. 
An FA saying a woman is only attractive if she is fat is like an average man saying a woman is only attractive if she is thin, and the latter is never called a fetish (not that either comment is necessarily laudable).


----------



## swamptoad (Nov 6, 2009)

SocialbFly said:


> Can i just say, i love this statement?



Me too! :bow:


----------



## Dr. P Marshall (Nov 6, 2009)

I think this is an interesting topic, so I am briefly coming out of hiding to put in my two cents. I agree with Socialbfly that fat admirers as a group are very likely to be aware and personally invested in the issues of the size acceptance movement. What I was thinking, when I first read this topic, was that as a group we are a good pool from which to pull SA allies. But that does not mean all F/FAs will be allies of the SA movement, nor that all thin allies of SA wil be fat admirers. The issues and reasons Socialbfly addressed for F/FA participation could equally be true for someone who was not an F/FA, but had a fat spouse, partner, best friend, child, etc. 

I think BigBellySSBBW is right in stating that there is a difference between the SA movement and the SA community. I also agree with her point that most issues of SA as a movement have nothing to do with attraction, sexual or otherwise. It is mostly civil rights issues on the table. Having said that, joh and swamptoad have both brought up the importance of social support or (unfortunately) lack of support that an experience with an F/FA can create. And I do agree that in that way, our FAness can have an impact on individual fat people. 

As far as F/FAs being a detriment to the SA movement, again, I think that's only on an individual basis. I'm going to be honest, most people outside of the SA community don't think much about fat admirers, many don't even know we exist. Basically, if there was a rally or protest and there were a mixture of thin and fat people, most outside SA wouldn't stop to think who the thin people were. They would just assume they were allies who believed in the cause. So I don't personally think that even if someone had a bad impression of fat admirers, that they would necessarily think about them one way or the other when it came time to decide about issues of seating, airline policy, job discrimination, etc. 

Sorry I didn't mulitquote you all, I wrote this out somewhere else and copied it in the post.


----------



## joh (Nov 6, 2009)

SocialbFly said:


> my opinion, if you are involved with someone, or have the desire to be involved with a fat someone, you have a vested interest to make sure the person is happy and has access to everything you do...you want them to be able to sit with you in a cafe, to ride with you in a plane, to sit with you in a theatre...so your motivation is simple, you want them in your life so you are more apt to fight to have them there....
> 
> those that find fat more of a looky looky thing such as ______(without naming, insert any of the different kink things here) then i dont think your interest is how this person fits in to your life and i dont think they have the same vested interest in seeing the fat person in their everyday life...
> 
> ...


I completely agree, couldn't said it better myself (and this was mainly what I was trying to get at too).

And thanks SocialbFly and swamptoad!


----------



## swamptoad (Nov 7, 2009)

James said:


> Ok - I think we've reached a consensus that the first part of the myth is a straw man. Fat Admirers are not all fetishists and indeed, the key point to this myth is to discuss whether Fat Admiration and Size Acceptance can be compatible? People like Kate Harding refer to non-fat people who are invested in forwarding the cause of size acceptance as fat 'allies'. Are FAs fat 'allies' or does our aesthetic preclude us from being so?
> 
> This is the crux of what I want to get to with addressing this myth.... Do fat admirers help advance fat acceptance or does their association with it devalue the cause?
> 
> ...




See, here's the thing. I see fat admiration as being compatible with size acceptance as no different than skinny admiration. It's all preference. So what? There's people with an admiration of fat men or fat women. How does that factor in that they have any less concern with the bigotry, discrimination, and disadvantaged conditions which people in the world are facing? I just don't see fat admirers as an enemy on the issue of size acceptance. Ally, sure! 

Put simply, caring is caring. Another question comes to mind. Do you think FAs will be judged more harshly _for being who they are_ while carrying the beliefs that fat should be acceptable? 

Both are allies; non-fas _or_ fas. Either can forward the cause. Its possible for either to take action. There shouldn't be implications that those admiring "fat" are also advocating the world to be larger. Same goes with skinny admirers; they wouldn't be advocating the world to be thinner. It's freedom of choice. Be skinny. Be big. Be who you want to be. Be happy. 

Being one or the other doesn't pose ignorance or an unfulfilled livelihood. It still allows discrimination to flourish, however. It's something that will always be. 

People _can_ and _will_ discriminate on all sorts of stuff. It's the way we make _fine distinctions_ or _considerations_. We have made distinctions in favor or against by differentiating each other throughout history. 

And also to add ....
_
Discrimination_ can mean _differentiation_. Meaning .. the process by which two stimuli differing in some aspect (*Example:* subject A - a skinny person and subject B - a larger person) are responded to differently.
I took the medical dictionary meaning. But as I thought about it, it just made sense to me.


Its also important not to form prejudices, as they are the _feelings_ formed beforehand without knowledge, thought, or reason; speaking in regard to size acceptance. 

And then there's refusal to tolerate; where those _feelings_ are acted upon with opinions and beliefs beholding exact opposition.

Some viewpoints I thought to share .... 

You can pollute the body at a skinny size just as you can pollute the body at a larger size when you talk about eating habits. The thing is ... A person who is larger sized really shouldn't be summed up/analyzed at first glance just as a skinnier person should not be summed up/analyzed at first glance. What your eyes tell you does not always distinguish the truth of a persons physical well-being. In other words a person looked at with much more fat on their body could be potentially much healthier than the skinnier person. The skinnier person could still be healthier. Every person is not designed the same. 

This is how _discrimination_, for the most part, is made to _differentiate_ people each and everyday; formed assumptions based on what society encourages or allows us to think or what the media or television pours into our noggins. 

People will depict who is more deserving of reward or praise than the other based on those _societal norms_ and sadly that is done with no consideration to individualized virtue. An individualized virtue could mean a person (even a fat admirer) that fights for a cause (be it fat acceptance and size acceptance) even if others think of him/her as a hypocrite or whatever judgment that they may pass along to them, if that may be the case.

I still think fat admiration and size acceptance are compatible, for those who invest in forwarding the cause by _simple everyday actions_ as previously discussed. I'd imagine that fat admirers, the ones who live with a fat partner would _think and act beyond their kinks_ to by and large serve a greater meritorious purpose.


----------



## Jon Blaze (Nov 7, 2009)

I understand your point about the fetish comment. It's a common logic used to put down FAs, but as said before I think that's a separate issue all together. Some are and some aren't.

That being said: Simply being an FA doesn't tarnish the credibility of the size acceptance movement, because FAs have things to add that can be both related to and non-related to how they feel about larger people as partners. 

FAs can be added strength in numbers in spreading the messages, and in the past I've noticed that some people that newly learn about the movement really gain some hope when they find out FAs exist. Even just in general for larger people at times. Some of my past girlfriends that are big think it's interesting and/or a good thing. 

I have to echo what BGB said. That kind of thing can be a form of tarnish.

Now bringing up my preferences has led people to respond awkwardly, and yes I like women of various sizes, but I think some people have trouble separating not being attracted to something, and not accepting it. I don't think FAs are obligated to join the movement (Or to even give support), but I think the ones that do need to consider the former (Accepting those you may not be attracted to) before joining up. Of course, not all people in the movement believe in that sort of thing as well.


----------



## chicken legs (Nov 7, 2009)

It doesn't make sense to me that people who say they are fat or were fat dislike people who are Fa's. Its like a catch 22.

Reality is ...no one is forcing you to be fat (if they are..then thats a subject for discussion somewhere else). If you dont like being that way...change it and move on. Its like a rock star talking shit about his/her fans.:doh:


----------



## pickleman357 (Nov 7, 2009)

I was actually thinking of the whole fetish thing recently and it dawned on me. I think almost everyone has a fetish. Let's take a look at it

Fetish
_Psychology_. any object or nongenital part of the body that causes a habitual erotic response or fixation.

So if a guy gets aroused by long legs then he has a leg fetish. Is this going to hinder the acceptance of short skirts and pantyhose?

If a guy gets aroused by physically fit women, then he has a muscle fetish. Does this fact hinder the acceptance of women going to the gym, or competing in the olympics?

If a guy gets aroused by fat on a woman, then he has a fat fetish. Why would this hinder the acceptance of fat women when none of the other examples do?

This seems to me like a chicken and egg senerio. The chicken is getting blamed for a rotten egg that it didn't lay!


----------



## swamptoad (Nov 8, 2009)

Melian said:


> Yes, I have a sexual fat fetish.
> 
> It coexists with my love of fat people, which I express through kindness, respect and support of fat friends and family members.
> 
> So while the fetish element is there, I feel it tarnishes nothing.




That's how I view it! :bow:


----------



## musicman (Nov 8, 2009)

James said:


> This is the crux of what I want to get to with addressing this myth.... Do fat admirers help advance fat acceptance or does their association with it devalue the cause?




Some are saying that FAs have no place in SA, because it is a political movement. I don't understand that argument, but in any event, I think it is wrong to define SA as ONLY a political movement, where we pass a few laws, and then go home to live in some sort of paradise. Yes, laws will help, but laws won't stop the fat jokes, the diet scams, the harrassment of fat kids that have driven some to suicide, or the media portrayals of near-anorexia as "beauty". These things won't end until people no longer consider them as acceptable behavior. I hate to use a tired cliche, but this is really a battle for the "hearts and minds" of people. For this, we need FAs because we need all the warriors we can get. In addition, every mind we can change becomes an ally in this battle, and I think FAs can be especially valuable as "mind changers".

You can argue whether any one particular FA is good or bad for his/her particular partner, just like you can argue about people in any relationship. But it's undeniable that FAs are way ahead of the general public in their acceptance of fat people. I think this gives FAs an important role to play. 

Discrimination and hatred of any minority is fueled by ignorance. If you don't know anyone in a particular group, it's easy to accept the propaganda that they are inferior. But once you know someone as a person, it's much harder to accept propaganda about them. This is true for any religious, racial, ethnic, or sexual preference group. For example, inter-racial dating and relationships do as much to combat racial discrimination, in the minds of people, as laws do. Joe is dating a girl of another race and she's nice and her family's nice, so how can all of "those people" be as bad as they say?

The same thing can help SA, if more FAs will come out of the closet. How many guys make fun of fat girls because they don't know that any of their friends are FAs? 

The preference of FAs for fat partners is intimately tied up with the SA movement. Fat people will never get the acceptance they deserve, unless those with a preference for fat bodies are also accepted. Could we ever hope for full racial equality if inter-racial marriages were still illegal? For SA to succeed, the preference of FAs will have to be viewed by society with just as much legitimacy as a preference for any other human characteristic (tall, short, quiet, outgoing, blonde, brunette, etc.).

I think that most fat people just want to be accepted as people, regardless of their weight. By the same token, FAs must be accepted as people, no better or worse than others. In any group, some people are "good" and some are "bad". We deal with those on an individual basis. But as a group, the acceptance of FAs is vital to SA.


----------



## Santaclear (Nov 8, 2009)

James said:


> Ok - I think we've reached a consensus that the first part of the myth is a straw man. Fat Admirers are not all fetishists and indeed, the key point to this myth is to discuss whether Fat Admiration and Size Acceptance can be compatible? People like Kate Harding refer to non-fat people who are invested in forwarding the cause of size acceptance as fat 'allies'. Are FAs fat 'allies' or does our aesthetic preclude us from being so?
> 
> This is the crux of what I want to get to with addressing this myth.... Do fat admirers help advance fat acceptance or does their association with it devalue the cause?



Yeah, the "fetish" thing is completely irrelevant to size acceptance. I'd agree with what Harding says. I'd say FAs who are interacting positively or romantically involved with fat people are "allies" of size acceptance, forwarding the cause with our support and/or living by example.


----------



## KFD (Nov 8, 2009)

Feel free to remove this post if it's not completely within the realm of this thread...
KFD

[mod edit... post removed]


----------



## BothGunsBlazing (Nov 8, 2009)

As an insanely attractive FA who never had to deal with the pitfalls that most.. average FAs fall into I can tell you right now .. 

HOLY SHIT I think I can see my reflection in the computer monitor.

this post. to be continued tomorrow.


----------



## James (Nov 8, 2009)

KFD - I don't want to delete your post out of hand just because I'm willing to entertain the idea that it has some content beyond self-aggrandizement. If you can explain why your post is in any way relevant to the topic at hand it would be useful to me...

[mod edit - post in question removed]


----------



## chicken legs (Nov 8, 2009)

KFD said:


> [mod edit - post deleted]



Looking at your profile .. this is a guess..but you are immersed in Navy culture. From what I observed of the Armed Forces culture is (dated army ranger) that conformity is really pushed. Its from having the perfect haircut, shoes, physical build, etc. So for you I would guess that it would be really hard to be a Fa. LOL its like being a FA in Sparta


----------



## Jon Blaze (Nov 8, 2009)

chicken legs said:


> Looking at your profile .. this is a guess..but you are immersed in Navy culture. From what I observed of the Armed Forces culture is (dated army ranger) that conformity is really pushed. Its from having the perfect haircut, shoes, physical build, etc. So for you I would guess that it would be really hard to be a Fa. LOL its like being a FA in Sparta



It's not always THAT bad. I'm in the military too. I don't get THAT much flack for it, but I'm also cool about it, so it's to be expected.


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy (Nov 8, 2009)

SocialbFly said:


> Can i just say, i love this statement?





swamptoad said:


> Me too! :bow:



Me three- I like that new guy Joh  :bow:


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy (Nov 8, 2009)

chicken legs said:


> It doesn't make sense to me that people who say they are fat or were fat dislike people who are Fa's. Its like a catch 22.
> 
> Reality is ...no one is forcing you to be fat (if they are..then thats a subject for discussion somewhere else). If you dont like being that way...change it and move on. Its like a rock star talking shit about his/her fans.:doh:



This isn't a good analogy though. A rock star OWES loyalty to their fans...why? Because the fans made the rock star famous....made them who they are.
No FA made me fat.......nor is any FA doing me some great favor/giving me a great gift to find me attractive.....any more than I would be doing him some wonderful favor to find him attractive in return.
Skinny people that find each other attractive....that's just a "normal" occurrence in most people's mind. Why does it have to be treated differently if the attraction is towards a larger person?
If an FA is sitting up on a high horse looking down and "granting favors" to fat people, it seems like a truly normal reaction to want to knock that fool off his perch, eh? .

Not everyone that claims FA status really is one.......not by my definition anyway.


----------



## superodalisque (Nov 8, 2009)

Webmaster said:


> Personally, I can't even imagine who'd come up with a statement like that as it shows an appalling degree of negativity and cynicism, let alone an utter lack of knowledge about the size acceptance movement and its history that is filled with FA contributions.
> 
> It also reeks a bit of the concentrated efforts of a few to paint and disqualify all male interest in fat partners as some mere fetish. Tell that to all the FAs who have fat partners they care for and adore.
> 
> The statement as is makes about as much sense as attempting to disqualify gays and lesbians with sexual interests from the gay rights movement. We're all human beings with our private sides and interests that can very well co-exist with our political and philosophical goals and leanings.



i don't think so. its a question thats right on the money. it needs to be discussed and its honest. pretending its not going through the minds of many people would be ignoring an important part of people integrating thier political and personal ideals when it comes to the community. so addressing the question is an important step to reconciling how they feel and interact personally with the over all goals of SA. its a question a lot of sensitive folks end up asking themselves anyway since they not only care about getting thier sexual needs met but they also care about the impact they have on the people they admire--and they should. thats only being responsible.

i'm not an FA but i personally feel that ones personal life can and should be kept seperate from ones public and political life. i don't see why anyone who isn't involved with an FA on a personal sexual level should be put in a position where they are able pass judgement on him for his intimate likes and disikes. some areas of his life should be his own. the only problem is when people with certain interests are very open with them in environments where its inappropriate. its also important if one is involved politically in SA that FAs not give the impression that they are only there to see what kind of sexual networking can be derived. they really need to be there or at least appear to be there just for SA and really feel it in their hearts. reasonable people have a right to assume that FAs aren't serious or even damaging if they are always acting out inappropriately strictly out of sexual need when other important issues are on the table. 

i don't feel fetishes are unhealthy or wrong. there are degrees. as long as a person isn't so obsessive with them that the fetish is first foremost and always in their mind and put before the respect of another person's humanity. the problem has been that sometimes people are obsessive. and, when they are it does damage SA. it diminishes what SA is about. it can make people who are fat look like desperate victims. SA is about the world and public space and fetish is about private space. the problem is when people are so involved in their private intimate world that they don't really care about what is really good for other people, particularly in this case fat ones who have to live in the public world. all they can see is "the fat" and get overwhelmed by that and seem to forget there are people behind it. even though its part of admiration for some people in one of its many facets there are times when its inappropriate to act as though fat people are freaks or taboo. the intimate language of sex in all of its individual and eccentric forms shouldn't always be accessable to everyone--especially people who don't understand and who have the power to decide how fat people get treated in the rest of world. if an FA has the appropriate balance there is nothing wrong at all with his admiration, but when it goes beyond admiraton to obsession its damaging to anyone -- even to him.


----------



## chicken legs (Nov 8, 2009)

Green Eyed Fairy said:


> This isn't a good analogy though. A rock star OWES loyalty to their fans...why? Because the fans made the rock star famous....made them who they are.
> No FA made me fat.......nor is any FA doing me some great favor/giving me a great gift to find me attractive.....any more than I would be doing him some wonderful favor to find him attractive in return.
> Skinny people that find each other attractive....that's just a "normal" occurrence in most people's mind. Why does it have to be treated differently if the attraction is towards a larger person?
> If an FA is sitting up on a high horse looking down and "granting favors" to fat people, it seems like a truly normal reaction to want to knock that fool off his perch, eh? .
> ...



Well you cant please everyone


----------



## SocialbFly (Nov 9, 2009)

pickleman357 said:


> I was actually thinking of the whole fetish thing recently and it dawned on me. I think almost everyone has a fetish. Let's take a look at it
> 
> Fetish
> _Psychology_. any object or nongenital part of the body that causes a habitual erotic response or fixation.
> ...



first of all, the difference is a preference which many FAs have, and not a fetish...my understanding of fetish is that it is something that MUST be present in order to illicit a sexual response...long legs are nice, but unless you have a true fetish, this would be preference...while fat can be both a preference and fetish...


----------



## katorade (Nov 9, 2009)

chicken legs said:


> It doesn't make sense to me that people who say they are fat or were fat dislike people who are Fa's. Its like a catch 22.
> 
> Reality is ...no one is forcing you to be fat (if they are..then thats a subject for discussion somewhere else). If you dont like being that way...change it and move on. Its like a rock star talking shit about his/her fans.:doh:



I think this touches on why there can be such a rocky relationship between FAs and fat people. It all depends on the person defining themselves as an FA. Clearly, not all of them have the same motives, and many are not interested in size acceptance, but focus more on the value of fat appreciation as their own sexuality. 

It might be a stretch to relate it to race, but I see it like someone who is attracted to men/women in a race minority group not necessarily being interested in their struggle for civil rights or acceptance outside of their community. On the flip side, though, there are people in committed relationships with someone of another race that are truly attentive to their concerns and want to work with them for advancement.

In sexuality terms and a to-the-point example, you could say it's akin to men that are aroused by watching lesbians have sex, but couldn't care one way or another whether or not they should have the right to marry.

There are a lot of fat people that have never had a positive experience with someone that refers to themselves as an FA, or worse, they've had multiple negative experiences with them, so they're more apt to dislike or distrust someone who defines themselves as such, even if their intentions are noble.

I don't necessarily think that the broad spectrum of the word "fetish" is as much a problem as the broad spectrum of the term "FA".

I personally believe that FAs that ARE concerned about size acceptance have a place in the movement, and have just as much footing and right to a voice as the fat people they love. Being a thin FA in terms of being a "Fat Ally" can extend far beyond the lines of just sexuality. There are thin people out there who want advancement for their mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, children, friends, co-workers, etc. I think it's truly beneficial that these people are included and key players to show that fat people are not the ONLY ones that care about fat acceptance.


----------



## James (Nov 9, 2009)

I see your point Dianna but I'm not sure if it really holds true for some FAs. The way I see it is that I'm heterosexual. I don't just have a preference for women. Its not on a graded scale. My heterosexuality is an orientation because I have no sexual interest in men. 

Similarly, I am an FA. I don't just have a preference for fat women. My aesthetic for fat women is an orientation because I have no sexual interest in thin women.

If a person must be female for me to be sexually interested in them... and a person must also be fat for me to be sexually interested in them... how is that different? Just because something is more fixed than a preference, does not make it a fetish... unless you hold with the idea that heterosexuality itself is a fetish?  

Its all on a continuum. For some FAs, its less fixed than it is in my case and thin women may still be attractive to some extent. Perhaps its more appropriate to think of the varying degrees of FA-ism across a scale ranging from preference to orientation. Feederism and weight change may or may not be refered to as fetish, depending on your point of view... but its a different thing from a basic aesthetic on the scale above.

Coming back onto the point of the thread. I agree with Santaclear (and others) who assert that Fat Admirers can absolutely be allies to Size Acceptance. There is nothing to stop anyone taking effective action in a cause that they believe in, regardless of the motivation for believing in it.

FAs can contribute simply by being out and in a relationship. Thats still a contribution to size acceptance if it helps to challenge bigoted preconceptions about the undesirability and unworthyness of fat people. 

There are elements of FA sexuality, including the emphasis on weight change via feederism, that have the potential to run contrary to the idea of size acceptance. However, such practices don't preclude the people who are involved in them to still be involved in effective advocacy on an individual and detached level even if the practice itself runs contrary.


----------



## SocialbFly (Nov 9, 2009)

So James maybe saying fat is an orientation for many FAs is more accurate than preference? i just dont think it is a true fetish unless you throw some of the other things previously mentioned in...


----------



## superodalisque (Nov 9, 2009)

i don't feel that being an FA in and of itself is a fetish. i think there can be fetishes closely associated with that though--but not for everyone.


----------



## James (Nov 9, 2009)

SocialbFly said:


> So James maybe saying fat is an orientation for many FAs is more accurate than preference? i just dont think it is a true fetish unless you throw some of the other things previously mentioned in...



Right  I think that this is the case. At one end of the scale, you have FAs with a preference for a fat partner that runs through to orientation for a fat partner at the other end of the scale.


----------



## chicken legs (Nov 9, 2009)

I cant speak for all FA's but during my search for Fa wank fodder I also came across sites (like this one) that also addressed the issue of Size Acceptance. When I had my fill of fun and games, I would check out sites like Naafa and Isaa. Skip ahead *TEN YEARS*, now I am in a intimate relationship with a Super Sized person who is suprised that I am not shocked by his needs or habits. 

But damn....*TEN YEARS*..or maybe more..lol..of hanging out on the fringes. However, my friends and family...hell even my ex of 10 years..know what really gets my gander. I never hid it, but thats just me. However, because of my laid back personality, lack of time, and lack of funds, I will never be a hardcore activist of anything.


----------



## KuroBara (Nov 9, 2009)

chicken legs said:


> wank fodder


 
You forgot to Grrr...


----------



## MrRabbit (Nov 11, 2009)

I do not agree with this.

These are in fact two statements: FAs are fetishists and fetishists tarnish the credibility.

The first is something I have been struggling with recently.

Since this is my first de-lurking post, Ill give you quickly some background on me to help you understand where I am coming from. Most FAs will recognize this probably. 
I have a preference for fat as long as I can remember. I remember being fascinated by the fat kid at school from when I was 8-9 years old, long time before it was anything sexual to me. I grew up in the pre-internet era and felt pretty isolated about my preference. I did not share the excitement that my friends had for skinny model-like women and for a very long time I felt really abnormal for it. As a teenager I even thought I must be gay or something for not getting excited by the girls that my friends got excited about. 

Only when I finally got connected to the internet in my late 20s, I found out that I was not alone with this preference. It really helped to come out of the closet. I came to accept my preference and had my first long relation with a BBW until we separated some years ago. 

I was pretty confident about my preference until something happened recently that made me feel very uncomfortable. The bottom line for feeling this uncomfortable is that it is a body size preference and I really and truly believe other characteristics such as personality matter much more than body size. Yet I cannot deny that I am attracted sexually only by big women, and I feel very conflicted by that because it does not feel like me. It conflicts with my values and believes that personality matters much more.

I started searching the net for more information on fat admiration and quickly you come across terms like fat fetish. I have always rejected the term fetish because it has this negative abnormal connotation. I thought of myself as a perfectly normal, very caring and gentle men who happens to be attracted by larger women. But reading more about it, I started to changing my mind. There are no clear-cut definitions, but the general idea seems to be that if you are sexually attracted specifically by the big belly, the big thighs or the soft rolls, then yes, it is called a fetish. 

I felt bad about it, but you know what? I am ok with it. I cannot deny it: I am sexually attracted by those abundant curves and I feel no sexual attraction for skinny or normal-sized women, and I think that applies to 90% (if not more) of men here. I know some people are bi-sizual, but I am not one of them. 

I would like to quote a beautiful post from Mergirl here:


mergirl said:


> snip
> I am attracted to my girlfriend for many more reasons than just her body, therefore i don't objectify her. Though i am a lesbian Fa- So if she became a skinny man my brain just would not be able to find her attractive. Sexuality isn't shallow, you can't help it.


 You can read the entire post here: http://www.dimensionsmagazine.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1305618&postcount=29 

If people want to label that sexuality as a fetish, so be it. That is who I am, but that does not make me shallow. It does not mean that all the rest does not matter, because it matters very much to me! I may be a hopelessly romantic fool, but I want a partner for life, and such relationships are not built on soft rolls alone. But my fat sexuality complicates this search because for it to be also an intimately satisfying relationship, I am looking for a big woman.

I have been reading many posts on this subject here on Dimensions before putting my own thoughts on screen and what strikes me is that most people see fat admiration as opposed to fat fetish. Like you are either one or the other. I completely disagree with that! In fact, I think they mostly overlap. Why cant you be both a fat admirer (or BBW admirer or whatever you want to call it) and have a fat fetish (as in: being sexually attracted to big women only) at the same time? 

It may just be a matter of semantics, but I think that the term fetishists has been highjacked to refer to fat admirers who lack the basic social, IQ and EQ skills to see that behind every post and picture, there is a real woman. They act and speak with their little brain, directly from their sexual impulses. And indeed these persons do the size acceptance movement no good.


----------



## LoveBHMS (Nov 11, 2009)

fffff said:


> This is the relevant definition of fetish:
> 
> Psychology. any object or nongenital part of the body that causes a habitual erotic response or fixation.
> 
> ...



This. This. This This This This!

To me this whole "Myth" really bugged because it bascially starts out by stipulating that a fetish is a negative thing and if you have a "fat fetish" that by necessity adds in all sorts of terrible qualities to you. I've said this a zillion times but lying, manipulation, using somebody for sex.....those things are not the exclusive province of fetishists. 

Like "accusing" anyone of "just being nothing but a fetishist" should not be an insult because there is nothing wrong with it.


----------



## chicken legs (Nov 11, 2009)

KuroBara said:


> You forgot to Grrr...



Oh yeah..thanks for reminding me..

GRRRRRR....Fisk Fisk

:happy:


----------



## mergirl (Nov 11, 2009)

LoveBHMS said:


> This. This. This This This This!
> 
> To me this whole "Myth" really bugged because it bascially starts out by stipulating that a fetish is a negative thing and if you have a "fat fetish" that by necessity adds in all sorts of terrible qualities to you. I've said this a zillion times but lying, manipulation, using somebody for sex.....those things are not the exclusive province of fetishists.
> 
> Like "accusing" anyone of "just being nothing but a fetishist" should not be an insult because there is nothing wrong with it.


I don't think anyone is saying there is anything wrong with having a fetish. "Being nothing but a fetishist" suggests you may not view your partner and basically other humans holistically. To view people as 'parts' seems slighty crazy to me. Maby thats what people mean when they say 'Nothing but a fetishist'... It implies someone who would persue a fetish without consideration. This is not the same as having a fetish and incorporating it into relationships where appropriate and more importantly not letting your fetish consume you.


----------



## Tad (Nov 18, 2009)

Maybe it comes with being an engineer, but for me a diagram or graph often expresses things ever so much more clearly than words. So, for what it is worth, the diagram below gives a rough idea of my take on the overlaps (and not) of size acceptance, fat admiration, and feedism.

What do you think? Would you move any of those circles to overlap more or less? 

View attachment circles.JPG


----------



## EtobicokeFA (Nov 18, 2009)

Fetishes are just a way to attach the immoral label to that which is abnormal, simply because a lot of people believe one leads to the other.

And I find that most people who blame FAs for hurting the credibility of the size acceptance movement, usually also accuse FAs of being shallow as well. However, those who do believe that FAs can have a deeper relationship than that are usually found welcoming FAs to the movement.


----------



## mergirl (Nov 18, 2009)

To be honest, if people say to me i am tarnishing the credibility of the size acceptance movement by meer association.. i pat them on their fat bottoms and tell them to go try on some too tight clothes for me!! goddam fat people with their thinking and rights and oppinions and whatnot!!!! 

Though, seriously..
James, the other 4 'Myths' were too quick and i never got to answer them..


----------



## James (Nov 18, 2009)

mergirl said:


> To be honest, if people say to me i am tarnishing the credibility of the size acceptance movement by meer association.. i pat them on their fat bottoms and tell them to go try on some too tight clothes for me!! goddam fat people with their thinking and rights and oppinions and whatnot!!!!
> 
> Though, seriously..
> James, the other 4 'Myths' were too quick and i never got to answer them..



The myth threads are staggered at the rate of one a week and each thread runs for 2 weeks before it gets closed. Sorry you didn't get a chance to contribute Mer. Perhaps you can think of some other myths for discussion and suggest them here?


----------



## kioewen (Nov 18, 2009)

Tad said:


> What do you think? Would you move any of those circles to overlap more or less?



Not necessarily. Their proper placement is anyone's guess, really. But I'd say that the admiration ring should be a lot larger, and the acceptance ring a lot smaller, if we're going by how many people subscribe to either ring. (This is taking in closeted admiration, of course.)


----------



## mergirl (Nov 18, 2009)

kioewen said:


> Not necessarily. Their proper placement is anyone's guess, really. But I'd say that the admiration ring should be a lot larger, and the acceptance ring a lot smaller, if we're going by how many people subscribe to either ring. (This is taking in closeted admiration, of course.)


I heart geeks!!


----------



## pickleman357 (Nov 19, 2009)

Here's a question;
Besides being or not being a private part... What is the real difference between a guy's breast 'fetish' and a guy's fat fetish?

I can't really think of any glaring differences...


----------



## mergirl (Nov 19, 2009)

pickleman357 said:


> Here's a question;
> Besides being or not being a private part... What is the real difference between a guy's breast 'fetish' and a guy's fat fetish?
> 
> I can't really think of any glaring differences...


Nipples?
..........


----------



## Jon Blaze (Nov 19, 2009)

kioewen said:


> Not necessarily. Their proper placement is anyone's guess, really. But I'd say that the admiration ring should be a lot larger, and the acceptance ring a lot smaller, if we're going by how many people subscribe to either ring. (This is taking in closeted admiration, of course.)



Agreed. I only have two of the three mentioned, and they don't quite overlap. I'd say it's relative.


----------



## pickleman357 (Nov 24, 2009)

mergirl said:


> Nipples?
> ..........


 
Depends if its innie or outtie


----------



## katherine22 (Dec 7, 2009)

Fascinita said:


> But let's not confuse the sexuality of fat people with the sexuality of "those who admire them." They don't always intersect.
> 
> As far as I'm concerned, where the interests of "those who admire" fat people do not actually further the interests of fat people, they should not be considered within SA's reach.
> 
> ...




Not to split hairs here, is it possible that a fat admirer could be sympathetic to size acceptance? Are you suggesting that a fat admirer has no place in a size acceptance movement? Size acceptance is a civil rights movement and fat admirations is ???????


----------



## James (Dec 8, 2009)

I think Fasc is spot on regarding of the sexuality of fat people not typically having much or anything to do with the sexuality of the people that are attracted to fat people. The two categories are, in the most part, quite distinct and uncorrelated in my opinion.

Fat admiration is quite simply an aesthetic for fat people that ranges across a continuum of intensity from preference all the way to orientation.

What fat admirer's do, regarding their aesthetic has the potential to be both positive or negative for size acceptance IMO. There's a good chance it can be positive if they conduct their relationships openly and respectfully. Thats my two pence on it all anyway.


----------



## EtobicokeFA (Dec 8, 2009)

katherine22 said:


> Not to split hairs here, is it possible that a fat admirer could be sympathetic to size acceptance? Are you suggesting that a fat admirer has no place in a size acceptance movement? Size acceptance is a civil rights movement and fat admirations is ???????



However, that is assuming that size acceptance and fat admiration can't go hand in hand. 

If a person's preference motivates them to support a civil rights movement group that supports the group of people that person prefers, isn't that a good thing?

Can a Fa be sympathetic to the SA? Of course.


----------



## kioewen (Dec 8, 2009)

I might actually go so far in the opposite direction of the myth as to say that so-called "fat admirers" (never will I accept that phrase, but I know, that's what we're using here), particularly those who are not themselves full-figured, could actually benefit the size-acceptance movement _just as much_ as individuals who _are_ full-figured. I was even going to write "more," but comparisons are difficult.

Society is so oppressive, and the media so vicious, against people of size that it's hard for that brainwashing not to seep in and destroy their self-esteem. Thus, when people of size attempt to fight for size-acceptance, they are sometimes, perhaps often, hobbled by lingering traces of self-doubt, possibly even deeply internalized self-loathing that societal pressures have drilled into them. How often does one see full-figured celebrities seemingly needed to "justify" or "excuse" their size, by saying, "Well, but I exercise constantly," or "But I'm healthy -- I run marathons." Things like that. Those are of course wonderful pursuits, of course, but the very fact that those things need to be said often seems like a defensive measure.

But FAs can be free of this (well, unless they've internalized a different kind of brainwashing -- the stigma of liking women of size). They can fight for the appreciation of women of size without any hesitations or self-doubts.

My impression is that many people of size, on some level, still feel that they would be "better" somehow if they were smaller, and fight to submerge that feeling. One sees this sentiment at more than a few "fat acceptance blogs".

But the FA has no such doubts about which figure type is (in their opinion) better, and so they can be completely resolute and unconflicted when they fight the imposition of an exclusively thin standard of appearance.


----------



## James (Dec 11, 2009)

(_The following has been posted to all current threads for informational purposes only. Please refrain from replying to this post in this thread. If you have questions please PM me. These rule changes have been brought about following significant deliberation between Dimensions moderators and are effective immediately in relation to all future posts._)




> The rules of this forum have been updated. I would encourage forum users to read the full text but in short, the main changes are the following
> 
> Threads or posts considered to be outside of the FA/FFA forum remit will be edited or deleted. Threads will not be moved to other forums. Please consider this before posting. Contact me via PM if you are unsure before posting.
> Discussion of sexual topics must not contain identities other than your own. Excessive objectification or crudeness will also be edited or removed. Keep things respectful.
> ...


----------

