# The Scourge that is FAs



## AnnMarie

It's well known 'round these parts that FAs will be the death of us all. They're freaks, social deviants, like things about our bodies that other men could not (bellies, hanging arm fat, soft/squishy bits protruding from every little nook and cranny of our inadequately-covered clothing??) and they must be stopped. 

After having a conversation with another FA-fearing friend, we started to try to come up with ideas on how we could possibly contain them and stop the spread of this outbreak. We can't have men going around liking all these things about us, speaking about it openly, and having other normies find out - it's just not right. You're with me, girls - right??

These social deviants MUST be stopped, but it's a problem that's growing (those freaks probably liked that pun!) and I think we need all the ideas we can get. So - what's your "build a better FA trap" to help contain this epidemic before it's too late?

And FAs, since you're probably reading this while fapfapfaping to those girls on the paysite board (don't get me started on them!) - if you read this and can reply (we all know you're dumb and will answer us if we talk about pie - I love pie, by the way... *wink, wink*) on what the best method would be to "lure" you in... you know, for freaky sex stuff... please enlighten us. I promise it won't be used against you *belly jiggle*.


----------



## Paquito

I _still _don't understand why those ungrateful fatties at the Jenny Craig meeting got all pissy and lawsuit-y when I kidnapped them and forcefed them to immobility at my patented Fat Farm.


----------



## AnnMarie

Paquito said:


> I _still _don't understand why those ungrateful fatties at the Jenny Craig meeting got all pissy and lawsuit-y when I kidnapped them and forcefed them to immobility at my patented Fat Farm.



(He's already moved on to fapping elsewhere, but this is exactly my point - these people MUST BE STOPPED. Please help.)


----------



## IrishBard

*puts on chris crocker wig*

LEAVE FA'S ALONE

THEY'RE ONLY HUMAN!!!!!!!!


----------



## LillyBBBW

I don't think ANYBODY should look at, admire, dispise, fixate, notice or care about my fat.  That goes for doctors, lawyers, parents, congressmen, socialites, etc. I propose to install lasers in my fat cells. That way anyone who looks will have their eyes burned completely off so that I may know them by their blindness.... that is if I can still see them myself. If we're all blind, then we can only judge each other by our personalities since touching will be illegal. You won't know who you've got till you're comitted, then you can feel 'em up and be properly surprised.


----------



## CrankySpice

It's fairly simple, really. You just have to follow the basic rules of baiting for unsavory creatures.

1. Use bait that attracts the vermin. (In this case, bait = BBWs and SSBBWs.)
2. Bait in places where vermin has been spotted. (This one is tough, because FAs can easily disguise themselves as normals. But do your best.)
3. To address those vermin that remain out of site, be sure to bait in hidden areas, such as along walls or behind fridges and cabinets. (see illustration)
View attachment fa-extermination.jpg


4. Once lured to the bait, catch! This can be done with a catch-and-release cage, for those who wish to humanely re-home the vermin to an empty field. Or, simply place glue strips or snap traps in close proximity to the bait. I personally recommend catch-and-release, since the corpses will get stinky if you forget and/or can't reach a previously placed trap.


----------



## AnnMarie

LillyBBBW said:


> I don't think ANYBODY should look at, admire, dispise, fixate, notice or care about my fat.  That goes for doctors, lawyers, parents, congressmen, socialites, etc. I propose to install lasers in my fat cells. That way anyone who looks will have their eyes burned completely off so that I may know them by their blindness.... that is if I can still see them myself. If we're all blind, then we can only judge each other by our personalities since touching will be illegal. You won't know who you've got till you're comitted, then you can feel 'em up and be properly surprised.



Okay... this is interesting. It seems expensive to implement, and seems a lot of time and research are going to need to be done - but I think you've got something here. I really like the idea that my fat can't be seen or observed by ANYONE without repercussions...


----------



## AnnMarie

CrankySpice said:


> It's fairly simple, really. You just have to follow the basic rules of baiting for unsavory creatures.
> 
> 1. Use bait that attracts the vermin. (In this case, bait = BBWs and SSBBWs.)
> 2. Bait in places where vermin has been spotted. (This one is tough, because FAs can easily disguise themselves as normals. But do your best.)
> 3. To address those vermin that remain out of site, be sure to bait in hidden areas, such as along walls or behind fridges and cabinets. (see illustration)
> View attachment 82897
> 
> 
> 4. Once lured to the bait, catch! This can be done with a catch-and-release cage, for those who wish to humanely re-home the vermin to an empty field. Or, simply place glue strips or snap traps in close proximity to the bait. I personally recommend catch-and-release, since the corpses will get stinky if you forget and/or can't reach a previously placed trap.




Oh yes... this one is a grass roots level extermination. I like this a lot... a plan, a simple means of executing both the plan and the vermin.... this has potential. 

I don't fit behind cabinets or fridges... but I think that's neither here nor there. Clearly they're fooled by pictures, we could probably just print out paysite pics and paste them to walls. 

Do you think that would still work? I'm not an experienced catcher.


----------



## blubberismanly

Hang a bhm or bbw in a cage (like a doughnut) and when the FA goes for it close the cage before they see you! 

Then release the BHM and BBW in front of the caged FA...

As for release...well, open fields are nice, but some remote mountain top would work too. It would be a big cage, like in Jurassic Park...good luck getting it up there.


----------



## CrankySpice

AnnMarie said:


> Oh yes... this one is a grass roots level extermination. I like this a lot... a plan, a simple means of executing both the plan and the vermin.... this has potential.
> 
> I don't fit behind cabinets or fridges... but I think that's neither here nor there. Clearly they're fooled by pictures, we could probably just print out paysite pics and paste them to walls.
> 
> Do you think that would still work? I'm not an experienced catcher.



Oh yes, pictures can do nicely, but if you really want it to work, you need a live BBW*. Preferably eating cupcakes. That really makes the FAremones burst and you'll attract any FA within a 3 mile radius.

*recently deceased can work, as long as the fat hasn't started to rot. Then all you'll attract are reporters who need new photos for the "obesity kills" campaign. So everyone can see how gross and stuff fat women are.


----------



## supersoup

i *knew* if i hung around here long enough, things would pay off.

DOWN WITH FA'S!!!!!!!!

i can't tell you how hard it's been to put on a happy face at the events i've been to, and pretend i'm okay with all these weirdos looking at me, and befriending me, and checking out my butt. i have personally hired 4 of the most fat hating scientists i can find to develop some traps...i'll let you know what these heroes come up with.

no one should like my disgusting hanging belly, or my big jiggly thighs. blech, foul. deviants i tell you, deviants!!


----------



## Paquito

Fat women leading revolutions is SO HOT

Also hot are:

fat women who can't climb stairs
fat women who have heart attacks
fat women who can't climb stairs without having heart attacks
clogged arteries
edema
bed sores
needing a fridge installed next to the reinforced bed for bottomless appetites

I'M ONLY HUMAN GOSH


----------



## Blackjack

I get the feeling that this thread might be even better than the Fat Women will Kill us All one.


----------



## Webmaster

That, or the FA-fearing contingent will have to be reminded to curb their annoying, insulting rhetoric, or take their act elsewhere.


----------



## superodalisque

YEAH! down with ALL FAs. NONE of them are any good! especially the ones who actually like us as people! how odd! 

View attachment f04ccon1a.jpg


----------



## AnnMarie

Webmaster said:


> That, or the FA-fearing contingent will have to be reminded to curb their annoying, insulting rhetoric, or take their act elsewhere.



Oh Conrad, you nut! hahahahaah


----------



## mango

** wanders innocently and curiously, and in a lemming-like fashion, towards the unassuming FAT TRAP!! * :blink:




  *


----------



## Carrie

I hate how they look at me and sometimes have sexually-charged thoughts about me. As a woman, I really would prefer that they look at me and think of Hallmark Channel movies or Precious Moments figurines.


----------



## AnnMarie

Carrie said:


> I hate how they look at me and sometimes have sexually-charged thoughts about me. As a woman, I really would prefer that they look at me and think of Hallmark Channel movies or Precious Moments figurines.



Yes, yes - agree ... we all know how misguided and disgusting they are. 

BUT HOW DO WE CATCH THEM AND MAKE IT STOP!!????


----------



## spiritangel

well we all know us fatties are great cooks

places an innocent looking plate of fresh baked cookies out and lets the smell waft around

*insert sinister giggle at what cookies are laced with that should get rid of a few fa's after all arnt they only after us cause we can cook??


contemplates while munching on a croissant and thinking about her next train trip


----------



## LovelyLiz

Yes, I also have grown so dismayed and angry over FAs who can dare to say they find me beautiful and enjoy my body, and like squeezing all the soft bits.

I am in the process of creating approximately 100 clones of Meme Roth to gather in a multi-layered human chain around me at all times. This will serve 2 purposes:

1) The Meme clones will remind me constantly how hideous my fat makes me, thereby blocking all of the positive looks or statements (or caresses...heyyyyyy) that may come from FAs. It will be like a protective shield from those damn, annoying words and glances of sexy approval.

2) The clones can also shame the FAs into hiding, by constantly yelling at them about how what they want is twisted, deviant, and unhealthy. 

Let me know if you want some clones of your own. The cost is $2 each (after all, it's just Meme Roth).


----------



## Carrie

AnnMarie said:


> Yes, yes - agree ... we all know how misguided and disgusting they are.
> 
> BUT HOW DO WE CATCH THEM AND MAKE IT STOP!!????


I like Lilly's laser-adipose idea. Or whenever we catch one of those filthy little buggers daring to admire our fat bodies, we could force them to wear a large scarlet "*F*" on their shirts, to help them get properly in touch with their shame.


----------



## superodalisque

yeah McBeth i hate men who love my body and treat me like i'm actually a real woman --especially the ones who don't use the designation like a jerk crutch. how dare they! this should easily contain them : *passes out rolls of duct tape* 

View attachment maurizio-A-perfect-day.-1999Maurizio-Cattelan-565x644.jpg


----------



## Lovelyone

LillyBBBW said:


> I don't think ANYBODY should look at, admire, dispise, fixate, notice or care about my fat.  That goes for doctors, lawyers, parents, congressmen, socialites, etc. I propose to install lasers in my fat cells. That way anyone who looks will have their eyes burned completely off so that I may know them by their blindness.... that is if I can still see them myself. If we're all blind, then we can only judge each other by our personalities since touching will be illegal. You won't know who you've got till you're comitted, then you can feel 'em up and be properly surprised.



OR better yet, a loud buzzer that will alert everyone else to their staring. I can just see it now...the candy and ice cream aisles at the Wal-Mart will be loud and obnoxious with beeping buzzers.


----------



## Ash

You're all missing the obvious way to get rid of these disgusting deviants while furthering our mission to take over the world.

EAT THEM.


----------



## Carrie

OMG WE SHOULD ALL GO ON A DIET AND BE THIN!!!!


That will show those pervoids.


----------



## AnnMarie

Carrie said:


> OMG WE SHOULD ALL GO ON A DIET AND BE THIN!!!!
> 
> 
> That will show those pervoids.




But.... I don't want to stop eating.


----------



## AnnMarie

Ashley said:


> You're all missing the obvious way to get rid of these disgusting deviants while furthering our mission to take over the world.
> 
> EAT THEM.



Do they taste like cookies? I might be able to get behind this idea.


----------



## supersoup

ok ok, i've got an idea.

it's like the board game mousetrap. we set up one of these "bashes", and when it's time for the big dance at night...we lead these dregs of humanity down the hotel halls...through the doorway...AND DROP A GIANT NET!!! all we have to do is advertise the barely clothed jiggling flesh that will be there for a "Bikini Party", and they will show up by the hundreds!!


----------



## superodalisque

Ashley said:


> You're all missing the obvious way to get rid of these disgusting deviants while furthering our mission to take over the world.
> 
> EAT THEM.



do you want fava beans wit dat? 

View attachment hannibal.jpg


----------



## Carrie

AnnMarie said:


> But.... I don't want to stop eating.


Listen, greedy-pants, you can't have your cake and eat it, too, and NOT have FAs think you're hot and stuff. Until someone invents magic glasses that make fatties look thin, in order to curb the mounting FA crisis, I mean. 








haha mounting FAs is nice.


----------



## Ash

Carrie said:


> haha mounting FAs is nice.



quoted for truth.....I MEAN: This is disgusting. FAs are gross.


----------



## superodalisque

Webmaster said:


> That, or the FA-fearing contingent will have to be reminded to curb their annoying, insulting rhetoric, or take their act elsewhere.



exactly! we agree!  

View attachment BHWLogo.jpg


----------



## AnnMarie

supersoup said:


> ok ok, i've got an idea.
> 
> it's like the board game mousetrap. we set up one of these "bashes", and when it's time for the big dance at night...we lead these dregs of humanity down the hotel halls...through the doorway...AND DROP A GIANT NET!!! all we have to do is advertise the barely clothed jiggling flesh that will be there for a "Bikini Party", and they will show up by the hundreds!!



OMG, we're so stupid. We let tons of these miscreants get away last night!! I should have asked about this sooner.


----------



## Ash

AnnMarie said:


> OMG, we're so stupid. We let tons of these miscreants get away last night!! I should have asked about this sooner.



You missed an especially obnoxious dancing FA after you left. Soup has video.


----------



## Carrie

Okay, so also? Because it is a well known scientific FACT that FAs brains and thought processes are weird and different from normal people and stuff, we could identify them by doing cat scans. Probably instead of brain waves we would see eclairs dancing around.


----------



## AnnMarie

Carrie said:


> Okay, so also? Because it is a well known scientific FACT that FAs brains and thought processes are weird and different from normal people and stuff, we could identify them by doing cat scans. Probably instead of brain waves we would see eclairs dancing around.



Are you sure that's not what you'd see on our cat scans?? 

Mmm, eclairs.


----------



## Carrie

French pasties: bringing FAs and fatties together since... I dunno, when was France invented.


----------



## Fuzzy

A bash is the penultimate lure. All the sights, sounds, smells, etc that a website can never ever accomplish. 

FREE, FREE, FREE always works wonders.


----------



## Seth Warren

Ashley said:


> You're all missing the obvious way to get rid of these disgusting deviants while furthering our mission to take over the world.
> 
> EAT THEM.



Vore? Really?

fapfapfapfapfapfapfapfap


----------



## exile in thighville

i'm actually _the_ evil FA

i have a basement full of force-fed immobiles ready to die as we speak

_yet despite my awful misanthropy i'm actually quite the dashing socialite and have already charmed a dozen more into my clutches_

_it makes so much sense_


----------



## Carrie

exile in thighville said:


> i'm actually _the_ evil FA
> 
> i have a basement full of force-fed immobiles ready to die as we speak
> 
> _yet despite my awful misanthropy i'm actually quite the dashing socialite and have already charmed a dozen more into my clutches_
> 
> _it makes so much sense_


I totally suspected all of this.


----------



## AnnMarie

Seth Warren said:


> Vore? Really?
> 
> fapfapfapfapfapfapfapfap




There's one now - get him!!!


----------



## CrankySpice

Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh....

View attachment mousetrap.jpg


----------



## supersoup

CrankySpice said:


> Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh....
> 
> View attachment 82909



i worship at your altar.


----------



## SuperMishe

supersoup said:


> ok ok, i've got an idea.
> 
> it's like the board game mousetrap. we set up one of these "bashes", and when it's time for the big dance at night...we lead these dregs of humanity down the hotel halls...through the doorway...AND DROP A GIANT NET!!! all we have to do is advertise the barely clothed jiggling flesh that will be there for a "Bikini Party", and they will show up by the hundreds!!




How about doing what the police do to catch criminals with warrants? We send out announcements telling these FAs that they have won their very own jiggly wiggly bouncy flouncy BBW/SSBBW and when they show up to collect their "prize" - we NAB 'em!

As an aside, because I am such a selfless person, I would like to volunteer to serve as jailor to all these FAs. I'll take care of them... yeah... I'll take them all...


----------



## Paquito

SuperMishe said:


> How about doing what the police do to catch criminals with warrants? We send out announcements telling these FAs that they have won their very own jiggly wiggly bouncy flouncy BBW/SSBBW and when they show up to collect their "prize" - we NAB 'em!
> 
> As an aside, because I am such a selfless person, I would like to volunteer to serve as jailor to all these FAs. I'll take care of them... yeah... I'll take them all...



So it's To Catch A Predator?


----------



## Carrie

Why'nt you have a seat?


----------



## Paquito

Carrie said:


> Why'nt you have a seat?



Come on in, I made some sweet tea!


----------



## wi-steve

whatever kind of trap you set, the bait is simple. Take any blank DVD, and write "nekkid kelligrrl videos" on it.


----------



## Britty

I could stand naked in a cage and lure them in by doing something jiggly like jumping jacks (but, only like 2 or 3, I don't want to pass out) and then when they come in the cage after me, I can run out and we can lock them in! 

Wait.

I can walk out and we can lock them in!

Hrm.

I can get one of those carts from Wal-Mart and wheel outta that mofo like lightning.


----------



## Wagimawr

DO YOUR WORST


----------



## Paquito

Oh no, please don't smother me into submission...
I LOVE THE OVERLARDS


----------



## Wild Zero

Ashley said:


> You missed an especially obnoxious dancing FA after you left. Soup has video.



Soup needs to get David Attenborough to narrate the footage for an Animal Planet series on the mating habits of the Southern New England Crested Skeezeball.


----------



## Ash

Wild Zero said:


> Soup needs to get David Attenborough to narrate the footage for an Animal Planet series on the mating habits of the Southern New England Crested Skeezeball.



Word. Also, I think I invaded your personal space in an effort to keep the Skeezeball's crotch away from my ass. My apologies.


----------



## Wild Zero

Ashley said:


> Word. Also, I think I invaded your personal space in an effort to keep the Skeezeball's crotch away from my ass. My apologies.



It was the worst experience of my life having my personal space violated by a fat lady, I only come to this site and the dances for the ambiance.


----------



## imfree

CrankySpice said:


> Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh....
> 
> View attachment 82909




Ouch!!!!....DAMNN!!!, you CAUGHT me!


----------



## NoWayOut

This is certainly an interesting plot.


----------



## Szombathy

Aren't we forgetting the obvious?

Occam's razor, people.

1) Announce in a crowd that you're looking for volunteers who want you to sit on them. This will automatically flush the vermin out of their hiding places.

2) Sit on them.

3) Wait until the screams of agony/joy stop.

4) Check to see if the vermin has been eliminated. If it says nothing, then your work is done. If it says "more!", continue sitting.


----------



## Ash

Szombathy said:


> Aren't we forgetting the obvious?
> 
> Occam's razor, people.
> 
> 1) Announce in a crowd that you're looking for volunteers who want you to sit on them. This will automatically flush the vermin out of their hiding places.
> 
> 2) Sit on them.
> 
> 3) Wait until the screams of agony/joy stop.
> 
> 4) Check to see if the vermin has been eliminated. If it says nothing, then your work is done. If it says "more!", continue sitting.



But that would be such a pleasurable way for them to go. I'd prefer to lure them out with the promise of squashing and then trap them in a room and make them watch Tony Little infomercials all day.


----------



## supersoup

ok, i've got it. we lure them in with one of these 'bashes' and the promise of ample fats...get them all into one room, and knock 'em out with some chloroform!! then, we get a bunch of GOOD men, the kind that hate the fatties, and have them load the FA's into vans to take to prison!! 

this will be one of those baaaaad prisons with no TV's, no radios, and no air conditioning. they'll have to wear wife beaters and jockey shorts...and bake piles of cookies and cakes...and bacon...and ship them to me...and they'll only have time to bake and lift weights, oh, and shower of course. maybe a steam room with tiny towels...an extensive surveillance system and cameras...ONLY to keep an eye on them of course!! no funny business!!

:blush:


----------



## Emma

wi-steve said:


> whatever kind of trap you set, the bait is simple. Take any blank DVD, and write "nekkid kelligrrl videos" on it.



WIN! 

more text.


----------



## LillyBBBW

I've been giving this some serious thought. I've discussed this issue extensively with scientific experts and notable researchers on the effect these FAs have on the community and the world. Afer a thorough examination of the facts I've concluded that FAs are the way they are because they just don't have any will power. They're lazy. They can change if they want to but they just won't put their minds to it and they're not getting the proper help they need. Don't give me any bogus crap about how it's ingrained or whatever. I've seen FAs make a complete lifestyle turnaround and lead perfectly happy successful lives making sound lifestyle changes. It's scientifically proven that FAs can control their drives if they have the proper motivation and exercises in place. For just $29.99 a month I can create a program that caters specifically to the needs of each FA and focuses on their problem areas. PM me for details.


----------



## Your Plump Princess

Might I suggest luring them under a circus tent with promises of large women wrestling in pools full of jello wearing nothing but white bikini's? 

Not that I have much more than that to attribute, however, it needed to be suggested.


----------



## Big Beautiful Dreamer

Lilly, I think you would do well to hook up with the folks who charge money for sessions promising to cure gayness. Anything can be repressed if sat on long enough.

Wait ... sitting ... hmmm ....

Oh. 

That's already been proposed.


----------



## boots

...fapfapfapfapfapfapfapfap...


----------



## CrankySpice

Your Plump Princess said:


> Might I suggest luring them under a circus tent with promises of large women wrestling in pools full of jello wearing nothing but white bikini's?
> 
> Not that I have much more than that to attribute, however, it needed to be suggested.



This idea will clearly not work. We fatties are much too large - most of us wear circus tents for clothing, after all! Why, some of us are so fat, they can only be used as hats. Evidence:

View attachment circus tents.jpg


----------



## superodalisque

wi-steve said:


> whatever kind of trap you set, the bait is simple. Take any blank DVD, and write "nekkid kelligrrl videos" on it.



um you can up that to: with previously unseen eating clips!


----------



## Redhotphatgirl

This is one cute silly thread....


----------



## imfree

Redhotphatgirl said:


> This is one cute silly thread....



Hahaha!!! Only cute and silly if you're not
the one who had to pry a SSFA Trap bar
off your back! 

View attachment FA Trap.jpg


----------



## Ash

CrankySpice said:


> This idea will clearly not work. We fatties are much too large - most of us wear circus tents for clothing, after all! Why, some of us are so fat, they can only be used as hats. Evidence:
> 
> View attachment 82931



Ladies and gentlemen, your overlards.

Wow, we fat.


----------



## supersoup

CrankySpice said:


> This idea will clearly not work. We fatties are much too large - most of us wear circus tents for clothing, after all! Why, some of us are so fat, they can only be used as hats. Evidence:
> 
> View attachment 82931



This is the proudest moment of my life.


----------



## supersoup

Ashley said:


> Wow, we fat.



Correct. 

/proud


----------



## Wild Zero

Overlards require additional Pie-lons


----------



## CastingPearls

As a veteran Overlard, I prefer my minions to refer to themselves as mignons, as in filet, bloody rare and wrapped in applewood smoked bacon.

That is all.


----------



## CrankySpice

The traps have worked fantastically well. 

In fact, I present to our overlard Queens, their thrones:

View attachment human-chairs.jpg


----------



## HappyFA75

AnnMarie said:


> It's well known 'round these parts that FAs will be the death of us all. They're freaks, social deviants, like things about our bodies that other men could not (bellies, hanging arm fat, soft/squishy bits protruding from every little nook and cranny of our inadequately-covered clothing??) and they must be stopped.
> 
> After having a conversation with another FA-fearing friend, we started to try to come up with ideas on how we could possibly contain them and stop the spread of this outbreak. We can't have men going around liking all these things about us, speaking about it openly, and having other normies find out - it's just not right. You're with me, girls - right??
> 
> These social deviants MUST be stopped, but it's a problem that's growing (those freaks probably liked that pun!) and I think we need all the ideas we can get. So - what's your "build a better FA trap" to help contain this epidemic before it's too late?
> 
> And FAs, since you're probably reading this while fapfapfaping to those girls on the paysite board (don't get me started on them!) - if you read this and can reply (we all know you're dumb and will answer us if we talk about pie - I love pie, by the way... *wink, wink*) on what the best method would be to "lure" you in... you know, for freaky sex stuff... please enlighten us. I promise it won't be used against you *belly jiggle*.



Oh, AM, I dont think being an FA is a Scourge!! Rather a BLESSING!  Ive already been sooo socially ostracized that ive come to a self-awareness of being a conservative, life-loving Super FA! And that means, all those that cant HANDLE a Fat woman need to hang their heads in SHAME!!!

My $0.02


----------



## mercy

Y'know, to someone who just stumbled in here after a few days away, slightly wearing from festival partying, this thread was hella confusing, until I realised something had gone on in my absence.

WHAT DID I MISS?!


----------



## superodalisque

here's the new trap i invented, electrified fatty. you touch it and zap!!! 

View attachment isaacs.jpg


----------



## lostjacket

CrankySpice said:


> The traps have worked fantastically well.
> 
> In fact, I present to our overlard Queens, their thrones:
> 
> View attachment 82952



Win. Can't top that.


----------



## superodalisque

or we could just zap them with... youuuu got it! fat man!!! 

View attachment Mk4_Fat_Man_bomb.jpg


----------



## boots

Raaaawwwwr Fatties Imma Eat You Om Nom Nom!


----------



## Ash

CrankySpice said:


> The traps have worked fantastically well.
> 
> In fact, I present to our overlard Queens, their thrones:
> 
> View attachment 82952



I call the one in the foreground. That background one doesn't look too sturdy.


----------



## superodalisque

Ashley said:


> I call the one in the foreground. That background one doesn't look too sturdy.



but what if the one in he background is using an erection to hold up that chair?


----------



## Ash

superodalisque said:


> but what if the one in he background is using an erection to hold up that chair?



Then who needs the chair?


----------



## MaxArden

I don't understand what all the fuss is about...I just want to be friends
Casper the Friendly FA


----------



## GTAFA

Carrie said:


> haha mounting FAs is nice.



Do you mean that in the sense of a sexual position? _*(intriguing!)*_

...or taxidermy? (_*...not)*_


----------



## bigsexy920

Wait !!!!!!! - there are people that ACTUALLY like a fat partner???? OMG who knew !!!


----------



## NoWayOut

bigsexy920 said:


> Wait !!!!!!! - there are people that ACTUALLY like a fat partner???? OMG who knew !!!



Shocking, isn't it?


----------



## Wagimawr

> *thread*


----------



## joswitch

supersoup said:


> i worship at your altar.



*snerk*

fapfapfappityfap


----------



## joswitch

Wild Zero said:


> Soup needs to get David Attenborough to narrate the footage for an Animal Planet series on the mating habits of the Southern New England Crested Skeezeball.



I can totally do a really good David Attenborough voice...
Send me video, I will record...
Heard him speak live at a lecture one time. He went to the same college at Cambridge as me. Tho' not at the same time... ob-viously...


----------



## joswitch

CrankySpice said:


> This idea will clearly not work. We fatties are much too large - most of us wear circus tents for clothing, after all! Why, some of us are so fat, they can only be used as hats. Evidence:
> 
> View attachment 82931



You know when people make cats wear clothes?
And the cat looks sooooooooo pissed off?
Soup totally has that expression in this pic!


----------



## mango




----------



## LillyBBBW

joswitch said:


> You know when people make cats wear clothes?
> And the cat looks sooooooooo pissed off?
> Soup totally has that expression in this pic!



It's always a hassle trying to get Soup to wear clothes.


----------



## CrankySpice

LillyBBBW said:


> It's always a hassle trying to get Soup to wear clothes.



Man, you ain't kidding. Just ask any police department in western Mass.


----------



## Wagimawr

I think we'd all feel better if photographic evidence was provided, so we know what to look for.

Y'know, the authorities and all that.


----------



## AnnMarie

Wagimawr said:


> I think we'd all feel better if photographic evidence was provided, so we know what to look for.
> 
> Y'know, the authorities and all that.



Keep it up, mister, and you just might be mistaken for one of those disgusting FAs who'd be all too glad to see some fat naked girl's wobbly bits. 

I just threw up in my mouth a little. YOU GUYS ARE FREAKY FREAKS WHO LIKE FREAKY THINGS AND IT'S FREAKING ME OUT SO YOU ARE THE PROBLEM!!!


----------



## Seth Warren

AnnMarie said:


> I just threw up in my mouth a little.



Really?

fapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfap


----------



## MaxArden

AnnMarie said:


> Keep it up, mister, and you just might be mistaken for one of those disgusting FAs who'd be all too glad to see some fat naked girl's wobbly bits.
> 
> I just threw up in my mouth a little. YOU GUYS ARE FREAKY FREAKS WHO LIKE FREAKY THINGS AND IT'S FREAKING ME OUT SO YOU ARE THE PROBLEM!!!



Why don't you like us? We like you....


----------



## Fish

Webmaster said:


> That, or the FA-fearing contingent will have to be reminded to curb their annoying, insulting rhetoric, or take their act elsewhere.



Yeah. You said it, your worsipfullness. Don't you just HATE it when people have opinions that are different then those mandated by the hive mind?! How dare they express their thoughts on a message board devoted to such issues. Asshats one and all!



exile in thighville said:


> i'm actually _the_ evil FA
> 
> i have a basement full of force-fed immobiles ready to die as we speak
> 
> _yet despite my awful misanthropy i'm actually quite the dashing socialite and have already charmed a dozen more into my clutches_
> 
> _it makes so much sense_



Why do I suspect that in a thread chock full of snark and sarcasm, that this post is actually quite sincere, disguised as snark? Hmm...


----------



## supersoup

LillyBBBW said:


> It's always a hassle trying to get Soup to wear clothes.





CrankySpice said:


> Man, you ain't kidding. Just ask any police department in western Mass.



INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY, JERKS.



i'm a free spirit, what can i say?


----------



## Ash

Fish said:


> Why do I suspect that in a thread chock full of snark and sarcasm, that this post is actually quite sincere, disguised as snark? Hmm...



It is absolutely sincere. I was once one of exile's victims. I narrowly escaped with my life. 

The twist is that now I secretly yearn to hear his terrifying voice yelling at me to shut up and eat or he'll give me something to cry about.


----------



## LillyBBBW

Ashley said:


> It is absolutely sincere. I was once one of exile's victims. I narrowly escaped with my life.
> 
> The twist is that now I secretly yearn to hear his terrifying voice yelling at me to shut up and eat or he'll give me something to cry about.



Hmmm, good times.


----------



## Wild Zero

if fas really are a scourge perhaps we can launch them at terran battlecruisers in a highly effective suicide attack. Of course that might require addtional pylons.


----------



## Ash

Wild Zero said:


> if fas really are a scourge perhaps we can launch them at terran battlecruisers in a highly effective suicide attack. Of course that might require addtional pylons.



Pie-lons....


----------



## supersoup

Ashley said:


> Pie-lons....



apple pie-lons.

and blueberry pie-lons.


----------



## Ash

supersoup said:


> apple pie-lons.
> 
> and blueberry pie-lons.



And cherry pie-lons. Do want.


----------



## Wagimawr

AnnMarie said:


> Keep it up, mister, and you just might be mistaken for one of those disgusting FAs who'd be all too glad to see some fat naked girl's wobbly bits.
> 
> I just threw up in my mouth a little. YOU GUYS ARE FREAKY FREAKS WHO LIKE FREAKY THINGS AND IT'S FREAKING ME OUT SO YOU ARE THE PROBLEM!!!


I don't HAVE a problem I AM a problem.

...does dis meen no nudez? D:


----------



## Webmaster

Fish said:


> Yeah. You said it, your worsipfullness. Don't you just HATE it when people have opinions that are different then those mandated by the hive mind?! How dare they express their thoughts on a message board devoted to such issues. Asshats one and all!



That's MR. Worshipfulness to you.  Anyway, Ann Marie's post obviously represents a good degree of frustration with the endless whining about how awful, demented and ill-behaved FAs supposedly are. If you're okay with constantly being portrayed as a useless deviant, fine with me, but I think the folks who view it as their mission to relentlessly diss FAs and their preferences suffer from the Groucho Marx "I wouldn't want to be a member of a club that'd have me as a member" syndrome. 

Rather than accepting that they are sexy and desirable, they paint those who find them sexy and desirable as demented, and thus unacceptable judges of their worth. Hence the endless "wanking" references as a means to criminalize and trivialize FA sexuality. After all, if FAs' desires are legitimate, then the doubting fat person would be a legitimate and legitimately desirable sexual partner, and, in the FA dissers' minds, that surely cannot be so. 

It's a truly weird and regrettable frame of mind, and I wish they wouldn't have to feel that way. Dissing the club that wants to welcome them with open arms makes no sense at all. And I really do not want for Dimensions to be a place where FAs have to feel guilty and unnatural for preferring fat partners.


----------



## AnnMarie

Webmaster said:


> That's MR. Worshipfulness to you.  Anyway, Ann Marie's post obviously represents a good degree of frustration with the endless whining about how awful, demented and ill-behaved FAs supposedly are. If you're okay with constantly being portrayed as a useless deviant, fine with me, but I think the folks who view it as their mission to relentlessly diss FAs and their preferences suffer from the Groucho Marx "I wouldn't want to be a member of a club that'd have me as a member" syndrome.
> 
> Rather than accepting that they are sexy and desirable, they paint those who find them sexy and desirable as demented, and thus unacceptable judges of their worth. Hence the endless "wanking" references as a means to criminalize and trivialize FA sexuality. After all, if FAs' desires are legitimate, then the doubting fat person would be a legitimate and legitimately desirable sexual partner, and, in the FA dissers' minds, that surely cannot be so.
> 
> It's a truly weird and regrettable frame of mind, and I wish they wouldn't have to feel that way. Dissing the club that wants to welcome them with open arms makes no sense at all. And I really do not want for Dimensions to be a place where FAs have to feel guilty and unnatural for preferring fat partners.




Oh, Conrad. By hitting that giant nail on the head you took some fun out of my FA trapping. I was hoping to catch one!


----------



## CrankySpice

Quiet down, people. There's still work to be done here. Shhhhhhhhhhhhhh....

View attachment trp.jpg


----------



## AnnMarie

CrankySpice said:


> Quiet down, people. There's still work to be done here. Shhhhhhhhhhhhhh....
> 
> View attachment 82994




Trust me, that bait doesn't work.


----------



## JoyJoy

I don't recall reading anywhere, on this site or any other, anyone dissing FAs as a whole. VERY SPECIFIC examples, yes, but not as a whole. I love how one group tries to call out another group for making sweeping generalizations by making.....sweeping generalizations. I call sour grapes.


----------



## superodalisque

Webmaster said:


> That's MR. Worshipfulness to you.  Anyway, Ann Marie's post obviously represents a good degree of frustration with the endless whining about how awful, demented and ill-behaved FAs supposedly are. If you're okay with constantly being portrayed as a useless deviant, fine with me, but I think the folks who view it as their mission to relentlessly diss FAs and their preferences suffer from the Groucho Marx "I wouldn't want to be a member of a club that'd have me as a member" syndrome.
> 
> Rather than accepting that they are sexy and desirable, they paint those who find them sexy and desirable as demented, and thus unacceptable judges of their worth. Hence the endless "wanking" references as a means to criminalize and trivialize FA sexuality. After all, if FAs' desires are legitimate, then the doubting fat person would be a legitimate and legitimately desirable sexual partner, and, in the FA dissers' minds, that surely cannot be so.
> 
> It's a truly weird and regrettable frame of mind, and I wish they wouldn't have to feel that way. Dissing the club that wants to welcome them with open arms makes no sense at all. And I really do not want for Dimensions to be a place where FAs have to feel guilty and unnatural for preferring fat partners.



maybe no one would feel they had to refute anything if the Pollyanna pill didn't appear to be shoved down their throat. its probably just the natural way of things. nature likes equilibrium. something swings far to one side, it has to swing back. why not meet in the middle? its great to be happy and positive but not positively naive just like it hurts people to be maudlin and repressed. no one really balanced trusts anyone veering too much to one side or the other because it looks contrived and dishonest even when its not meant to be. one sidedness could hurt somebody--both FAs and BBWs. when you're not watching whatever is swinging out of control could hit you in the head. people need something they can trust especially when the outside world is filling their ears with other kinds of bs. lets just be straight with each other.

PS: i've always found myself very sexy and desirable but it never comes out so much as when i'm treated well--as i deserve to be. and genuine caring and respect along with the sexual attraction underscores that even more. and, if i want to be treated well i have to be able to tell people how.

the only FAs who are demented are the ones who ARE demented lol.


----------



## superodalisque

JoyJoy said:


> I don't recall reading anywhere, on this site or any other, anyone dissing FAs as a whole. VERY SPECIFIC examples, yes, but not as a whole. I love how one group tries to call out another group for making sweeping generalizations by making.....sweeping generalizations. I call sour grapes.



it's so weird because the good guys think the kinds we've talked about negatively are yutzes too. they want them cleaned up and separated from them so that they don't get a bad name. it odd that not a lot of nice FAs are complaining. they already know its not about them. IMO think its weird to get defensive about the ones who do behave badly. it sounds like a defense of the wrong people.


----------



## mossystate

JoyJoy said:


> I don't recall reading anywhere, on this site or any other, anyone dissing FAs as a whole. VERY SPECIFIC examples, yes, but not as a whole. I love how one group tries to call out another group for making sweeping generalizations by making.....sweeping generalizations. I call sour grapes.




Oh, look - Joy has a bigger hammer.


----------



## CrankySpice

Good heavens, people! We'll never catch them all at this rate. Traveling in packs is a sure way to alert the prey.


----------



## imfree

~~~Sneaks in, looks around, sneaks
back out~~~


----------



## Fish

Webmaster said:


> That's MR. Worshipfulness to you.  Anyway, Ann Marie's post obviously represents a good degree of frustration with the endless whining about how awful, demented and ill-behaved FAs supposedly are. If you're okay with constantly being portrayed as a useless deviant, fine with me, but I think the folks who view it as their mission to relentlessly diss FAs and their preferences suffer from the Groucho Marx "I wouldn't want to be a member of a club that'd have me as a member" syndrome.
> 
> Rather than accepting that they are sexy and desirable, they paint those who find them sexy and desirable as demented, and thus unacceptable judges of their worth. Hence the endless "wanking" references as a means to criminalize and trivialize FA sexuality. After all, if FAs' desires are legitimate, then the doubting fat person would be a legitimate and legitimately desirable sexual partner, and, in the FA dissers' minds, that surely cannot be so.
> 
> It's a truly weird and regrettable frame of mind, and I wish they wouldn't have to feel that way. Dissing the club that wants to welcome them with open arms makes no sense at all. And I really do not want for Dimensions to be a place where FAs have to feel guilty and unnatural for preferring fat partners.



Interestingly enough, I've read the threads that this one is trying to lampoon, and they're never about painting ALL so-called "fa's" with the cartoonishly simplistic brush that this thread tries to make them seem like. 

Personally, I really don't like the term "FA" because of the folks that clearly only seem to care about jerking off to unidentified fat removed from any context of humanity. "FA" is simply FAT admirer and more often than not, that seems to be all that anyone requires of those that would claim that tag as their own. 

Why is it that these folks never seem to be held to a standard of actually admiring the PEOPLE? This is no different to me than listening to a bunch of "normal" guys describing woman as nothing more than a "great ass" or "nice tits". It's sexist, rude, dehumanizing and insulting and as a guy, I don't want to be painted with that brush. _(This is where you normally chime in to comment on my snug moralizing, Dan.)_ So what's so wrong about some of the women in here not wanting to be reduced to a pile of fat body parts just to collect meaningless praise from men that have no intention of actually having a relationship with ANY of the fat women they have no problem masturbating to?

I know that your official stance on this is that what I'm talking about doesn't exist, Conrad. In dimsland, ALL Fa's are perfect bastions of awesomeness that are above reproach or criticism. Simply identifying oneself AS an FA seems to give people a blanket of protection from having to act like an adult. But those of us that live in reality know just how common it is to hear the horror stories about "fa's" that go to bashes to stare at women and try and cop cheep feels. Assholes that walk up to women to touch on their fat and tell them how "warm" they are without actually saying "hello" first or even ask if that would be okay or appropriate.

This stuff happens. That's why there are entire facebook groups devoted to pointing out just how creepy some (but not all) of these "fa's" are. These are the Fa's that think that THIS is the ideal woman:





You know that it's true, "webmaster". Too many "fa's" have no problem with all women being seen as nothing more than inhuman blobs to jack off to. And unfortunately, too many of the women in here have had to become comfortable accepting it out of fear that saying how they really feel will get them ostracized from this group. 

Sorry if hearing it puts cracks in the perfect little world you've created for yourself.


----------



## JoyJoy

Webmaster said:


> That's MR. Worshipfulness to you.  Anyway, Ann Marie's post obviously represents a good degree of frustration with the endless whining about how awful, demented and ill-behaved FAs supposedly are. If you're okay with constantly being portrayed as a useless deviant, fine with me, but I think the folks who view it as their mission to relentlessly diss FAs and their preferences suffer from the Groucho Marx "I wouldn't want to be a member of a club that'd have me as a member" syndrome.
> 
> Rather than accepting that they are sexy and desirable, they paint those who find them sexy and desirable as demented, and thus unacceptable judges of their worth. Hence the endless "wanking" references as a means to criminalize and trivialize FA sexuality. After all, if FAs' desires are legitimate, then the doubting fat person would be a legitimate and legitimately desirable sexual partner, and, in the FA dissers' minds, that surely cannot be so.
> 
> It's a truly weird and regrettable frame of mind, and I wish they wouldn't have to feel that way. Dissing the club that wants to welcome them with open arms makes no sense at all. And I really do not want for Dimensions to be a place where FAs have to feel guilty and unnatural for preferring fat partners.



Conrad, 

The more I read this, the angrier I get. By your words, you insinuate that if fat women don't accept FAs at face value and every behavior that goes with it, that there's something wrong with them. NO woman, fat or thin, should accept "the club that wants to welcome them" without questioning certain behaviors. Those who DO question the unacceptable behavior should NOT be made to feel guilty for doing so. This isn't "criminalize(ing) and trivialize(ing) FA sexuality", it's calling men out for bad behavior, and if the men in question can't take the lesson and change, then they certainly don't deserve to have the women they desire in their lives. 

Basically, what it boils down to is that those FAs who know how to treat a woman have nothing to worry about. Those who are bothered by the "dissing" should probably pay attention because they might just learn something. 

Also...I don't need any man to "judge" whether or not I'm sexy and desirable -that's something I decide for myself.


----------



## mossystate

I think it is kind of sad that there are people who will listen more to a man who says these things than women who have repeated similar thoughts for a very long time. I know I can say that, and a man like Fish will very much understand. Clone this man. I also hear he likes fat women, which I would assume means he also likes touching fat bodies. Damn him!


----------



## Ash

mossystate said:


> I think it is kind of sad that there are people who will listen more to a man who says these things than women who have repeated similar thoughts for a very long time. I know I can say that, and a man like Fish will very much understand. Clone this man. I also hear he likes fat women, which I would assume means he also likes touching fat bodies. Damn him!



What about the woman who has had GOOD experiences with FAs? Who's listening to her?


----------



## superodalisque

mossystate said:


> I think it is kind of sad that there are people who will listen more to a man who says these things than women who have repeated similar thoughts for a very long time. I know I can say that, and a man like Fish will very much understand. Clone this man. I also hear he likes fat women, which I would assume means he also likes touching fat bodies. Damn him!



who knew you could do both without bursting into flames?


----------



## JoyJoy

Ashley said:


> What about the woman who has had GOOD experiences with FAs? Who's listening to her?


 They're being congratulated for having successful relationships - meet ups, weddings, etc. Look around...there are lots on this forum. If you think the good guys aren't recognized, you're choosing not to see it.


----------



## supersoup

i've got 3 of the beasts trapped in the garage. i just had to hold a "Fat Chick Carwash" sign and stand outside in my bikini.

i'm not sure what to do with them now though


----------



## Ash

supersoup said:


> i've got 3 of the beasts trapped in the garage. i just had to hold a "Fat Chick Carwash" sign and stand outside in my bikini.
> 
> i'm not sure what to do with them now though



Drown them. Duh.


----------



## mossystate

Ashley said:


> What about the woman who has had GOOD experiences with FAs? Who's listening to her?



Ashley, I am simply not seeing the hoards of people on Dims who are ripping apart fa's as a group. I think it is wonderful when anybody finds someone they mesh with...body/mind/soul/whatever. Those good experiences are more than likely about more than just " let me touch the fat ", unless it is like any brief encounter, no matter the labels on the players. I see a very certain mindset being ' on trial '...not individuals, and not every man who identifies as a fa. When I see that a woman has found a fa, and that's one of the things she loves about him - I see happiness for her, so that would mean people are listening and respecting her choice and desires.


----------



## superodalisque

Ashley said:


> What about the woman who has had GOOD experiences with FAs? Who's listening to her?



i do!!! i hear her. and she is even easier to listen to if she sounds real to me. lots of good things can be said about FAs without them (or BBWs) becoming a ride at disneyland. that perspective diminishes an FA and it gives BBWs who are new the wrong impression about who these guys are. it takes a lot of effort to be a good guy and that should be recognized. FAs are men like any other. they aren't psychologically and emotionally neutered. they have brains hearts and spirits as well. and their sexual designation alone doesn't define all of who they are. it doesn't make up his entire character or identity. i like to recognize them as a whole person too.

its very special when FAs come out and say they love fat women for everything that they are. its beautiful. and when i see it i always give them a rep because i love and respect that kind of guy. i hope an FA gets it that i think there is every reason i can and should admire him for things other than his wood. i respect him too much to put him in he same category as a poser. and won't allow a poser to get away with trying to associate himself with something better than him. so in my own way i'm protective of great FAs as well.


----------



## CrankySpice

supersoup said:


> i've got 3 of the beasts trapped in the garage. i just had to hold a "Fat Chick Carwash" sign and stand outside in my bikini.
> 
> i'm not sure what to do with them now though



Lies. 
You know EXACTLY what to do.

View attachment fargo-woodchipper.jpg


----------



## Ash

CrankySpice said:


> Lies.
> You know EXACTLY what to do.
> 
> View attachment 83001



Your photoshop skills are so good it hurts.


----------



## supersoup

CrankySpice said:


> Lies.
> You know EXACTLY what to do.
> 
> View attachment 83001



YOU SAID YOU DESTROYED THOSE FOTOZ!!!


----------



## CrankySpice

Ashley said:


> Your photoshop skills are so good it hurts.



I don't know what you are talking about.


----------



## CrankySpice

supersoup said:


> YOU SAID YOU DESTROYED THOSE FOTOZ!!!



Never said nothing about the negatives, yo.


----------



## JoyJoy




----------



## Ash

One of these deviants has tried to befriend me by suggesting "what about if you sold them (FAs) to food sweatshops as slave labour for extra twinkie money?"

I think it's a trap. A delicious, delicious trap.


----------



## JoyJoy

superodalisque said:


> i do!!! i hear her. and she is even easier to listen to if she sounds real to me. lots of good things can be said about FAs without them (or BBWs) becoming a ride at disneyland. that perspective diminishes an FA and it gives BBWs who are new the wrong impression about who these guys are. it takes a lot of effort to be a good guy and that should be recognized. FAs are men like any other. they aren't psychologically and emotionally neutered. they have brains hearts and spirits as well. and their sexual designation alone doesn't define all of who they are. it doesn't make up his entire character or identity. i like to recognize them as a whole person too.
> 
> its very special when FAs come out and say they love fat women for everything that they are. its beautiful. and when i see it i always give them a rep because i love and respect that kind of guy. i hope an FA gets it that i think there is every reason i can and should admire him for things other than his wood. i respect him too much to put him in he same category as a poser. and won't allow a poser to get away with trying to associate himself with something better than him. so in my own way i'm protective of great FAs as well.


Just want to highlight this post again for it's awesomeness, and because I couldn't give rep for it.


----------



## tonynyc

Paquito said:


> Come on in, I made some sweet tea!



Don't forget the Croissants :happy:


----------



## MizzSnakeBite

I think we should throw a parade for FAs, since they like fat bodies! <clap! clap!> Just like they throw parades for guys that like average size bodies! 

'cause, you know, we should be grateful that someone likes fat _bodies_! 

Big pats on the back for being sexually excited by fat bodies! I always pat my cousin's back since he likes average sized bodies.


----------



## CastingPearls

MizzSnakeBite said:


> I think we should throw a parade for FAs, since they like fat bodies! <clap! clap!> Just like they throw parades for guys that like average size bodies!
> 
> 'cause, you know, we should be grateful that someone likes fat _bodies_!
> 
> Big pats on the back for being sexually excited by fat bodies! I always pat my cousin's back since he likes average sized bodies.


I'm calling shenanigans.

You stoled my parade idea!!!!!


----------



## superodalisque

with respect Mizz, but its sad that someone has to feel "grateful" that someone loves her beautiful fat body. there are plenty who will and do. good to be happy about it but grateful--not so much after all why shouldn't he?


----------



## Ash

I think we're getting arguments and sides crossed here. 

Nobody here said anything about us being "grateful" to FAs for liking our bodies. That was someone else entirely, and I'm pretty sure I've made my opinions on the subject abundantly clear in other threads.

What I am saying, though, is that most of the FAs I know and have dated are respectful, funny, cool, and kind. So that's it.


----------



## boots

I'd respect you, Ashley. ALL. NIGHT. LONG.


----------



## Ash

boots said:


> I'd respect you, Ashley. ALL. NIGHT. LONG.



DEVIANT! Catch him!


----------



## supersoup

boots said:


> I'd respect you, Ashley. ALL. NIGHT. LONG.



this comment made me lol. and i never do that.

pre-vert!! GET THE NET!!


----------



## boots

You just want to snatch me up because you want my sweeeet respectins all to yourself.


----------



## imfree

supersoup said:


> this comment made me lol. and i never do that.
> 
> pre-vert!! GET THE NET!!



Hahaha!!!, We're already all on THE NET,
that's why everything in here is so
pre-verted!


----------



## boots

*Womp womp*


----------



## supersoup

boots said:


> *Womp womp*



i don't know what this is, but i would assume something terribly horrible since you like the fats.

OFF WITH HIS HEAD.


----------



## boots

supersoup said:


> i don't know what this is, but i would assume something terribly horrible since you like the fats.
> 
> OFF WITH HIS HEAD.



http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=womp+womp


----------



## Wild Zero

Ashley said:


> It is absolutely sincere. I was once one of exile's victims. I narrowly escaped with my life.



Like your fat ass could "narrowly escape" from anywhere. More subterfuge from this FA-devouring black widow.


----------



## kieran1394

I honestly don't get this thread. 

No, seriously, are you guys just joking around or ? No trollan.


----------



## joswitch

superodalisque said:


> maybe no one would feel they had to refute anything if the Pollyanna pill didn't appear to be shoved down their throat. its probably just the natural way of things. nature likes equilibrium. *something swings far to one side, it has to swing back.*


----------



## joswitch

Fish said:


> *snip*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *snip*.



Giant tumour on legs does not = bait for FA trap.

Do not want.


----------



## joswitch

mossystate said:


> I think it is kind of sad that there are people who will listen more to a man who says these things than women who have repeated similar thoughts for a very long time. I know I can say that, and a man like Fish will very much understand. Clone this man. * I also hear he likes fat women, which I would assume means he also likes touching fat bodies. Damn him!*



^But for that one flaw - a diamond...


----------



## joswitch

Fish said:


> *snip* But those of us that live in reality know just how common it is to hear the horror stories about "fa's" that go to bashes to *stare at women and try and cop cheep feels.* Assholes that walk up to women to touch on their fat and tell them how "warm" they are without actually saying "hello" first or even ask if that would be okay or appropriate.
> 
> This stuff happens. That's why there are entire facebook groups devoted to pointing out just how creepy some (but not all) of these "fa's" are *snip*



^all that is nothing to do with being FA... 
and EVERYTHING to do with being an ASSHOLE... 
I have friends who are female and thin... 
They get this same shit from creepy assholes all the time...
Just a different subset of assholes...


----------



## joswitch

Ashley said:


> What about the woman who has had GOOD experiences with FAs? Who's listening to her?



She's being held in a secure institution for her own safety.


----------



## joswitch

MizzSnakeBite said:


> I think we should throw a parade for FAs, since they like fat bodies! <clap! clap!> Just like they throw parades for guys that like average size bodies!



You mean like Mardi Gras and Spring Break? But with cute fat chicks? That'd be AWESOME!


----------



## joswitch

kieran1394 said:


> I honestly don't get this thread.
> 
> No, seriously, are you guys just joking around or ? No trollan.



^I remember when this thread was funny...


----------



## imfree

Yep, this thread certainly has me between
a laugh and a tear because I don't know
weather to laugh at it or to take some of
it seriously! I KNOW there's a balance
'cuz I see it when I swing past!!!

John Cougar Mellencamp-Between A Laugh
And A Tear****You Tube Video, Follow link
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEPJCL9AEdQ


----------



## superodalisque

superodalisque said:


> with respect Mizz, but its sad that someone has to feel "grateful" that someone loves her beautiful fat body. there are plenty who will and do. good to be happy about it but grateful--not so much after all why shouldn't he?



oops that "grateful" post was sarcasm. in the words of rosanna rosanna danna---"nevermind" i'm so goofy! thats what i get for posting when i'm tired.


----------



## TraciJo67

Webmaster said:


> That's MR. Worshipfulness to you.  Anyway, Ann Marie's post obviously represents a good degree of frustration with the endless whining about how awful, demented and ill-behaved FAs supposedly are. If you're okay with constantly being portrayed as a useless deviant, fine with me, but I think the folks who view it as their mission to relentlessly diss FAs and their preferences suffer from the Groucho Marx "I wouldn't want to be a member of a club that'd have me as a member" syndrome.


 
Conrad, if you really feel this way about women -- any women, even those whom you clearly do not understand -- then it is you with the problem. This categorization is as summarily dismissive as it is patronizing. Do you really believe that the "constant whiners" are nothing more than self-haterz who cannot accept that FA's find them beautiful and sexually desirable?



> Rather than accepting that they are sexy and desirable, they paint those who find them sexy and desirable as demented, and thus unacceptable judges of their worth. Hence the endless "wanking" references as a means to criminalize and trivialize FA sexuality. After all, if FAs' desires are legitimate, then the doubting fat person would be a legitimate and legitimately desirable sexual partner, and, in the FA dissers' minds, that surely cannot be so.


 
Apparently, you do.

Whether or not you (or anyone else) finds me sexy and attractive has no bearing whatsoever on my inherent self-esteem. I'm not currently man-shopping. If I was, though: I'd assume that anyone worthy of my time and attention is someone who appreciates me for who, as well as what, I am. I take it as a given that I'm desirable, to the right man. Many of the _whiners_ and _nega-haterz_ have already, long ago, established that they are just fine with the view from their own skin as well. This isn't about misplaced self-loathing. In fact, this couldn't be farther from the truth. Women with a healthy self-esteem have correspondingly high expectations from the men who would date them. 




> It's a truly weird and regrettable frame of mind, and I wish they wouldn't have to feel that way. Dissing the club that wants to welcome them with open arms makes no sense at all. And I really do not want for Dimensions to be a place where FAs have to feel guilty and unnatural for preferring fat partners.


 
I think we should just remove the terms "FA" and "BBW" from the equation altogether. Your _whiners_ are referring to men who behave badly, not particularly FA's (although some of their bad behaviors are FA-centric, but this is beside the point). You are confusing criticism of specific behaviors with categorical dismissal of all FA's. Closet FA, married to a thin woman, trolling for on-the-side dates with a fatty -- FA-specific behaviors, in no way applied to all men. If we weren't discussing FA's here, then it could be insecure middle-aged man, married to an aging beauty, secretly trolling for the next fountain of youth. Both are bad behaviors. The criticism of the behaviors isn't meant to broad-brush paint every man: _Just those who engage in said behaviors. _

You don't want Dimensions to be a place where FA's feel shame for their preference. I don't want Dimensions to be a place where fat women should feel grateful that men find them attractive. Surely, we can both get what we want without dismissing the valid concerns that are being expressed on all sides. I don't think that you should be celebrating for loving fat women, Conrad. You are just a man who happens to prefer and appreciate the beauty of fat women. You don't get a cookie for that, at least, not from me. My standard for judgment extends far beyond what you prefer, and into how you behave. I'd expect no less from you. And I'm going to assume that you'll overlook the obvious potshot that I've opened myself up to, since the issue that we're discussing is far more important than how many infraction points I've incurred to date  

We all have different standards for behavior, but most of us can agree that there are at least some overlapping values. I've never been to a bash, and it is highly unlikely that I will ever attend one. But I'm not going to discount (or outright dismiss) the concerns expressed by women who have attended, and have been upset or horrified by what they experienced. Nor would I discount that some women are there for a good time or to get laid. More freakin' power to them (and I mean that - I'm not being sarcastic). They are people, sharing their experiences. Their 'truths', as one of your notorious _whiners_ might say. I would suggest that people who have different motives may view the same series of events in completely different ways. I'm not going to care so much that JoeFA is drooling all over himself while stroking my ass if my ultimate goal is to fuck JoeFA. I'm going to care a whole helluva lot if I'm there for different reasons, and JoeFA can't stop stroking my ass and I've given him no reason to believe that it's OK to touch me. In that scenario, I'd be horrified (and JoeFA would probably be pulling back a mangled stump). I may discuss my horrible experience with JoeFA; my friends may empathize and tell their own stories. His behaviors are FA-centric, but what we're really saying is that JOE is an asshole. 

Anyone who is not an asshole is going to get that, intuitively.


----------



## Jes

Fuzzy said:


> A bash is the penultimate lure. All the sights, sounds, smells, etc that a website can never ever accomplish.
> 
> FREE, FREE, FREE always works wonders.



if a bash is the penultimate lure, what's the ultimate lure?


----------



## boots

Jes said:


> if a bash is the penultimate lure, what's the ultimate lure?



YOUR FACE IS THE PENULTIMATE LURE. D=


----------



## CrankySpice

I do believe that Conrad has a point - there ARE women who are so uncomfortable in their skin that they cannot accept the fact that another person would find them attractive, and therefore anyone who DOES find them attractive is somehow deviant.

It's a lot like the over-the-top homophobes who believe all gays are creepy and deviant - they may claim that their perspective comes from a "moral" place, but deep down, it's an insecurity with their own sexual identity that leads to their hate.

Likewise, I firmly believe that fat people who are F/FA-aphobic have their feelings coming from the same place - they may claim that their perspective is solely based on their "experience" but deep down, it's their personal hatred of the fat that makes them view the people who find it attractive as deviant.

A creep is a creep is a creep - male, female, gay, straight, prefers athletic builds, prefers fat builds - no one is denying that creepy FAs exist. Or creepy BBWs. And it's fine to call a creep a creep when he or she acts as such.

But when some people automatically dismiss the notion of dating a person based on the fact that they are open about their body type preference - well, that speaks volumes about how that person feels about themselves, really.

I think it becomes a stickier issue here because people (most often women) assume that if someone posts on a sexuality-based topic, then ZOMG HE'S A CREEPER HE LIKES TEH BELLIES!!! When in reality, the fellow in question could very well be and most likely is a friendly, decent guy. But he dared to express a portion of his sexuality, and he'll be strung up by his toes for it and dismissed as a "creep". 

A large portion of the forums on Dims are about sexuality. It's a place for people who don't have other outlets to discuss what turns them on, to admire what turns them on and in some cases to see what turns them on. These are people who likely don't have the luxury of standing around a grill with a bunch of the guys talking about the gal with the sexy belly down at the local bar the way guys who like T&A can talk about the fine rack on the waitress down the street.

What seems to happen, though, is that because the outlets available here are public, any F/FA who expresses their sexuality freely becomes branded by a small but vocal portion of the dims community. And it really is not fair. We are privy to thoughts and expressions of sexuality by men that most women are secluded from in their daily lives - because believe me, guys DO talk about awesome tits or fine pieces of ass or soft mouths as though they are independent of the women they are attached to, perfectly fine, upstanding guys who are gentlemen around women in every way but, well, like to talk about what gets their rocks off.

Expressing admiration for a specific feature of the opposite gender doesn't make someone a creep. Nor does it make that person incapable of loving another for all of their fine attributes. "But I wanna be loved for meeeeeeeee" IS a whine when it fails to acknowledge that another person can be turned on by xyz AND love a person for who they are. We are not bodiless floating entities of personality without any physical attributes. Nor should we expect others to treat us as such, although I seem to see many a woman around here who seems to believe that's how they should be treated, and anything else is "disrespectful".

Yes, being touched without permission is creepy. But when it becomes "ewwwww, all bashes/bbw parties are creepfests, NO THANKS" it dismisses the 99 other guys who didn't touch or even speak to that particular woman as being part of the creep club. When they aren't. And it's unfair to characterize them as such. At the BBW events I've attended, the moment someone displays unwanted behaviors and that behavior either catches the attention of or is brought to the attention of the event staff, the offending person is immediately told to knock it off or get the hell out. So if any woman experiences that kind of behavior, make it known at that time and the matter will be dealt with. Don't go on the internet and piss and moan about all the creepy fellas at the BBW Bash when you have done nothing to address the situation and protect others from that behavior at that event.


----------



## TraciJo67

CrankySpice said:


> I do believe that Conrad has a point - there ARE women who are so uncomfortable in their skin that they cannot accept the fact that another person would find them attractive, and therefore anyone who DOES find them attractive is somehow deviant.
> 
> It's a lot like the over-the-top homophobes who believe all gays are creepy and deviant - they may claim that their perspective comes from a "moral" place, but deep down, it's an insecurity with their own sexual identity that leads to their hate.
> 
> Likewise, I firmly believe that fat people who are F/FA-aphobic have their feelings coming from the same place - they may claim that their perspective is solely based on their "experience" but deep down, it's their personal hatred of the fat that makes them view the people who find it attractive as deviant.
> 
> A creep is a creep is a creep - male, female, gay, straight, prefers athletic builds, prefers fat builds - no one is denying that creepy FAs exist. Or creepy BBWs. And it's fine to call a creep a creep when he or she acts as such.
> 
> But when some people automatically dismiss the notion of dating a person based on the fact that they are open about their body type preference - well, that speaks volumes about how that person feels about themselves, really.
> 
> I think it becomes a stickier issue here because people (most often women) assume that if someone posts on a sexuality-based topic, then ZOMG HE'S A CREEPER HE LIKES TEH BELLIES!!! When in reality, the fellow in question could very well be and most likely is a friendly, decent guy. But he dared to express a portion of his sexuality, and he'll be strung up by his toes for it and dismissed as a "creep".
> 
> A large portion of the forums on Dims are about sexuality. It's a place for people who don't have other outlets to discuss what turns them on, to admire what turns them on and in some cases to see what turns them on. These are people who likely don't have the luxury of standing around a grill with a bunch of the guys talking about the gal with the sexy belly down at the local bar the way guys who like T&A can talk about the fine rack on the waitress down the street.
> 
> What seems to happen, though, is that because the outlets available here are public, any F/FA who expresses their sexuality freely becomes branded by a small but vocal portion of the dims community. And it really is not fair. We are privy to thoughts and expressions of sexuality by men that most women are secluded from in their daily lives - because believe me, guys DO talk about awesome tits or fine pieces of ass or soft mouths as though they are independent of the women they are attached to, perfectly fine, upstanding guys who are gentlemen around women in every way but, well, like to talk about what gets their rocks off.
> 
> Expressing admiration for a specific feature of the opposite gender doesn't make someone a creep. Nor does it make that person incapable of loving another for all of their fine attributes. "But I wanna be loved for meeeeeeeee" IS a whine when it fails to acknowledge that another person can be turned on by xyz AND love a person for who they are. We are not bodiless floating entities of personality without any physical attributes. Nor should we expect others to treat us as such, although I seem to see many a woman around here who seems to believe that's how they should be treated, and anything else is "disrespectful".
> 
> Yes, being touched without permission is creepy. But when it becomes "ewwwww, all bashes/bbw parties are creepfests, NO THANKS" it dismisses the 99 other guys who didn't touch or even speak to that particular woman as being part of the creep club. When they aren't. And it's unfair to characterize them as such. At the BBW events I've attended, the moment someone displays unwanted behaviors and that behavior either catches the attention of or is brought to the attention of the event staff, the offending person is immediately told to knock it off or get the hell out. So if any woman experiences that kind of behavior, make it known at that time and the matter will be dealt with. Don't go on the internet and piss and moan about all the creepy fellas at the BBW Bash when you have done nothing to address the situation and protect others from that behavior at that event.


 
So one thing that we can all agree on is that the percentage of FA "creeps" is very small (and I absolutely do agree with this and don't believe I've ever suggested otherwise). Hopefully, you can also agree that the percentage of BBW's who are secretly self-loathing and thus unable to accept an FA's attention is also very small. 

BTW, I don't whine that "I want to be loved for meeeeeeeeee" and I see very little of that here, too. I _am_ loved for me. The distinction is that I don't congratulate my husband for feeling as he does. That would imply that it's not my absolute right to be loved, just as I am, flaws and all. All is just as it should be, and nothing more.


----------



## thirtiesgirl

Ashley said:


> It is absolutely sincere. I was once one of exile's victims. I narrowly escaped with my life.
> 
> The twist is that now I secretly yearn to hear his terrifying voice yelling at me to shut up and eat or he'll give me something to cry about.



Stockholm Syndrome?  ...Although I must admit to having the same after consuming Swedish meatballs.


----------



## Jes

boots said:


> YOUR FACE IS THE PENULTIMATE LURE. D=



and, the question remains.


----------



## superodalisque

CrankySpice said:


> I do believe that Conrad has a point - there ARE women who are so uncomfortable in their skin that they cannot accept the fact that another person would find them attractive, and therefore anyone who DOES find them attractive is somehow deviant.
> 
> It's a lot like the over-the-top homophobes who believe all gays are creepy and deviant - they may claim that their perspective comes from a "moral" place, but deep down, it's an insecurity with their own sexual identity that leads to their hate.
> 
> Likewise, I firmly believe that fat people who are F/FA-aphobic have their feelings coming from the same place - they may claim that their perspective is solely based on their "experience" but deep down, it's their personal hatred of the fat that makes them view the people who find it attractive as deviant.
> 
> A creep is a creep is a creep - male, female, gay, straight, prefers athletic builds, prefers fat builds - no one is denying that creepy FAs exist. Or creepy BBWs. And it's fine to call a creep a creep when he or she acts as such.
> 
> But when some people automatically dismiss the notion of dating a person based on the fact that they are open about their body type preference - well, that speaks volumes about how that person feels about themselves, really.
> 
> I think it becomes a stickier issue here because people (most often women) assume that if someone posts on a sexuality-based topic, then ZOMG HE'S A CREEPER HE LIKES TEH BELLIES!!! When in reality, the fellow in question could very well be and most likely is a friendly, decent guy. But he dared to express a portion of his sexuality, and he'll be strung up by his toes for it and dismissed as a "creep".
> 
> A large portion of the forums on Dims are about sexuality. It's a place for people who don't have other outlets to discuss what turns them on, to admire what turns them on and in some cases to see what turns them on. These are people who likely don't have the luxury of standing around a grill with a bunch of the guys talking about the gal with the sexy belly down at the local bar the way guys who like T&A can talk about the fine rack on the waitress down the street.
> 
> What seems to happen, though, is that because the outlets available here are public, any F/FA who expresses their sexuality freely becomes branded by a small but vocal portion of the dims community. And it really is not fair. We are privy to thoughts and expressions of sexuality by men that most women are secluded from in their daily lives - because believe me, guys DO talk about awesome tits or fine pieces of ass or soft mouths as though they are independent of the women they are attached to, perfectly fine, upstanding guys who are gentlemen around women in every way but, well, like to talk about what gets their rocks off.
> 
> Expressing admiration for a specific feature of the opposite gender doesn't make someone a creep. Nor does it make that person incapable of loving another for all of their fine attributes. "But I wanna be loved for meeeeeeeee" IS a whine when it fails to acknowledge that another person can be turned on by xyz AND love a person for who they are. We are not bodiless floating entities of personality without any physical attributes. Nor should we expect others to treat us as such, although I seem to see many a woman around here who seems to believe that's how they should be treated, and anything else is "disrespectful".
> 
> Yes, being touched without permission is creepy. But when it becomes "ewwwww, all bashes/bbw parties are creepfests, NO THANKS" it dismisses the 99 other guys who didn't touch or even speak to that particular woman as being part of the creep club. When they aren't. And it's unfair to characterize them as such. At the BBW events I've attended, the moment someone displays unwanted behaviors and that behavior either catches the attention of or is brought to the attention of the event staff, the offending person is immediately told to knock it off or get the hell out. So if any woman experiences that kind of behavior, make it known at that time and the matter will be dealt with. Don't go on the internet and piss and moan about all the creepy fellas at the BBW Bash when you have done nothing to address the situation and protect others from that behavior at that event.





i get your points and where you are coming from but i think you are making a whole lot of incorrect assumptions.

i personally don't hate all FAs for admiring women. i don't think most of the women you are talking about do and i don't understand that insistence. maybe it just makes it more comfortable for you to believe what you do if you can just say we are all crazy self hating and FA hating women? 

i don't have a problem with my own sexuality at all. i doubt if you'll find that of the women spoken of in that group either. most of them have come to a point in their lives where they like themselves very much as a whole. they've developed real confidence which means they feel they are worthy of being treated well and with thought. we know you don't have to strip off or do porn to be able to show that you appreciate yourself. one thing has nothing to do with the other. what people often take exception to are the actual guys who use admiration as an excuse to be rude to or try to control, dominate or intimidate women. 

i'm all about appreciation. i used to post a lot of my own very revealing artsy photos until i realized that it was taken as a sign that i was stupid and easy pickings for quite a few guys instead of a woman who just actually likes her body fat. it was as though they couldn't believe that i liked myself but rather chose to believe i was weak and desperate. i resented that. i didn't like how instead of just saying how nice someone looked it became a way to compare, pit women against each other and expound on the short comings of one body type over another instead of appreciating each beautiful woman for what she was. if that didn't happen even a lot of the women you THINK are FA haters would be on here posting semi nudes all of the time. we actually took a stab at it again hoping things had improved but the way the thread went we quickly learned it hadn't. a lot of women posted beautiful pix who hadn't posted in a long time for that reason. but it quickly degenerated into a discussion about dislikes,short comings and one types so called preeminence over the other. sure its only a few people doing it. thats the point. they are enough of a spoiler that they put a monkey wrench in it for everyone else.

the bash situation isn't about public grabbing etc... its about personal disrespect among people who are supposed to be there to support each other. it happens on an individual level. it needs to be talked about in order to clean it up. there is no bash organizer who can do that. so thats why we talk about it here. thats our way of doing and saying something. i doubt that some of these guys even know what they look like from the outside because they also have people around them who enable bad behavior and pretend its okay. then they wonder why most other women will have little or nothing to do with them. they wonder why women who are not in the community run away when they pretty much begin a conversation with a discussion about bodies and what they find sexually attractive instead of just saying "Hi, What is your name?". granted this is a place to talk about sexuality but isn't it also a place to help FAs integrate that sexuality into the real world in a way where they don't have to feel freaky creepy or be in the closet? if we aren't being honest how can they possibly do that? maybe we actually like them more because we are willing to take a risk with their friendship to say things we know they really need to live in a real life. and also they need to think about the fact that most of us don't gain anything from them by saying it. i know i don't even date in the community. many of the women are married or in relationships we derive no monetary benefit from them either. if we hated them so much would we try and help? i'm not here trying to be co -dependent. i'm here trying t be a friend to myself other BBWs and FAs.

fetish is never a problem. the problem is how and when and where you present it. the problem is not knowing when you are making yourself into a creep at the wrong time and place. the problem is thinking you can use someone because you think she is fat and lacks confidence and self worth. the problem is seeking that out and trying to be in denial about using people at that stage when you have no good intentions toward them. thats not something a bash organizer can throw you out for unless he reads your mind and can anticipate your actions. its just something everybody has to talk about and hash out. being quiet about it won't make it stop or create any understanding.

even when we took it elsewhere to discuss it openly among ourselves so that it didn't make people feel victimized we were lambasted for that. so even when we are trying to hash out our own issues and decide whats wrong or right for ourselves there is always someone peering in telling us we should stop. there is always someone to tell us what we should think. its weird when someone feels the need to violate your privacy to tell you that. that had nothing to do with hurting FAs feelings since none were invited there. it had to do with trying to since people.

most of the FAs here don't know about all of that or care. because most of them aren't interested in controlling anybody because they know they haven't done anything wrong. thats as it should be. but for one i don't think i'm going to shut up because it makes people uncomfortable if they have to think sometimes. those kinds of things SHOULD make people uncomfortable occasionally. being messed up shouldn't be ok. sorry if speaking my truth throws a monkey wrench in your good time. maybe you understand how its throwing a monkey wrench in mine when i, or people i care about have to deal with things that throw a monkey wrench in ours.


----------



## Dmitra

Humor is a funny thing.  To me, at least, some of the best humor contains truth and a touch of bitterness. I've been enjoying this thread which is probably a tiny bit disheartened of me but it's been a bit cathartic, too. I've been with one FA, one active fat hater, and a handful of in between-ers so I can relate on some mediocre level.

I'm actually not sure why I felt the need to reply here. Maybe just to be the queen of the obvious and to reinforce what others have said that it's always the person themselves who's the asshole not the identity? And that it's always the person themselves it's best to love and FA-ness is only a massive bonus. To be probably TMI truthful, I find myself in the weird position of having encountered someone I think I could let myself love, who is an FA, and who seems like a really great guy. I'm trying to get over this long shot infatuation and that seems to involve its own small share of bitterness and, I'm hopeful, catharsis. Does a sardonic thread help? Sure, as long as we remember that bit of hurtful truth.


----------



## LovelyLiz

joswitch said:


> ^all that is nothing to do with being FA...
> and EVERYTHING to do with being an ASSHOLE...
> I have friends who are female and thin...
> They get this same shit from creepy assholes all the time...
> Just a different subset of assholes...





CrankySpice said:


> A creep is a creep is a creep - male, female, gay, straight, prefers athletic builds, prefers fat builds - no one is denying that creepy FAs exist. Or creepy BBWs. And it's fine to call a creep a creep when he or she acts as such.
> 
> But when some people automatically dismiss the notion of dating a person based on the fact that they are open about their body type preference - well, that speaks volumes about how that person feels about themselves, really.



I totally agree that we are talking about ASSHOLES (as a category) and not about FAs. Do some of the assholes happen to be FAs? Yeah. But there are lots of assholes who are not FAs, and lots of FAs who are not assholes. The behaviors being slammed (copping cheap feels, dating while secretly married, etc.) also happen to thin women all the time. Bashes are not different from most bars and nightclubs out there, other than the size of the people involved.

But I haven't seen a lot of this dismissal of an FA partner based solely on his preference. Maybe I'm not looking in the right place, or I missed it - but where are you seeing that?


----------



## Carrie

The thing is, it's not as simple as posters saying "All FAs suck!". The negative statements are more subtle and hidden than that, but they're undeniably here. If I had a dollar for every time I read something akin to "I would never date a FA because I want to be with someone who loves me for me, not for my fat!", around here, well.... I would have a lot of dollars. Every time I read it I cringe and become irritated. That broad, blanket statement does indeed paint FAs, as a group, as men who are only and all about teh fat, oblivious to women as living, breathing, thinking humans, and therefore is an affront to all of the decent FAs I know, who are nothing like that. It is also an affront to me and other women who date FAs because it is a pretty clear implication that we have somehow settled for men who view and treat us as nothing but piles of lard. WE ALL WANT TO BE LOVED FOR WHO WE ARE. Not just our bodies. All.of.us. 

For the record, I'm fine with women who don't date FAs. I don't draw conclusions about them, and figure they have their own reasons. I do, however, object to the weirdly passive-aggressive implications that FAs are, somehow, limited in their ability to love a woman simply because they find fat attractive. This is the anti-FA mindset around here that gets very tiresome.


----------



## superodalisque

i can see how you could think that Carrie but i think a lot of that is just about the narrowness of the meaning of the actual term FA. that term is pretty narrow when taken literally since all it is is a description of sexual interest. maybe its a frustration that there isn't something that actually describes guys who like fat women more fully. also it could be a frustration with how narrow language is actually shaping reality to an extent. and then too there is also an objection to labeling and maybe the discomfort with a need for those labels at all.


think about it. what does the term FA say. it says Fat Admirer. it doesn't say anything about a women or even other humans. just "the fat".


----------



## LovelyLiz

Yeah, you're right, Carrie. Those sentiments are definitely present. I think it's an incorrect jump some people make to make it an FA thing. Plenty of guys who only date very thin women date them exclusively for their bodies too. Women feeling objectified or only appreciated for their body is certainly not unique to fat women.

Because this is a forum for fat people and FAs, we turn a lot of these issues into generalizations about fat people and FAs...when really it's just a case of people are people are people, for all the glory and gory that entails.


----------



## TraciJo67

mcbeth said:


> I totally agree that we are talking about ASSHOLES (as a category) and not about FAs. Do some of the assholes happen to be FAs? Yeah. But there are lots of assholes who are not FAs, and lots of FAs who are not assholes. The behaviors being slammed (copping cheap feels, dating while secretly married, etc.) also happen to thin women all the time. Bashes are not different from most bars and nightclubs out there, other than the size of the people involved.
> 
> But I haven't seen a lot of this dismissal of an FA partner based solely on his preference. Maybe I'm not looking in the right place, or I missed it - but where are you seeing that?


 
I think that some of the confusion lies in how we are individually defining some terminology. I could be wrong, but every time I've been blind-sided by someone whom I felt completely misconstrued something I'd been trying to say, the hanging point usually revolved around a difference of opinion in how we're defining some concept. Or the weight being assigned to the term. 

I have seen posts from women who specifically express a reluctance to date an FA. I can see how that would be a very disconcerting thing for an FA to experience, while at the same time I completely understand the woman's frame of reference. What is often danced around here is that some FA's have a natural preference for the rotund. Some have a fetish. It is this latter group that is usually demonized, because it is from this group that many of the discussed problem behaviors originate. Disclaimer #1: I'm referring only to fetishists who cannot or will not separate their impulses from their expressed behaviors, not categorizing individuals. My concern, and some of the concern I've seen from others, lies in how I define a fetish: the inability to derive sexual pleasure in the absence of the object being fetishized. Yeah, I know this isn't Websters ... but it is how I define it, and I would have a big problem with dating someone who could not be with me if I wasn't fat - even if I was just the right kind of fat when we began dating, even if I had no plans to ever lose weight. I just wouldn't want to be fixated on in that manner, and there would also be a part of me that would feel concerned that I wouldn't always be able to satisfy him. Disclaimer #2: This is how I feel, and I accept that there is nothing wrong with anyone who feels differently. I would like the same courtesy extended to me. What is unfortunate is that many of us aren't always careful in how we express ourselves, sometimes believing that our truths are evident to others. I've seen posts that made me cringe, even when I absolutely understood what the intent was. Others cannot see beyond a carelessly worded phrase. It is difficult sometimes, here at Dims, to separate those who fetishize from those who admire. For people who have a problem with the former, they are going to have some reservations with the odds of scratching an FA and finding someone who wants to use her as a temporary means to an end. The odds exist everywhere, but less so within a group that doesn't self-identify as FA. God, I hope that makes sense and doesn't seem judgmental or alienating, because that isn't my intent at all. I'm just trying to explain what I see, from my perspective. 

And sometimes, what _I_ see is women who object to being reduced to nothing more than the housing for a fat body are told that they can't accept the lustful worship because they aren't comfortable with what they are. What _I_ see is that they are just fine with what they are. _I_ see that what is wrong is that some appalling behaviors are overlooked, minimized, and rationalized. I see that SuperO has written yet another brilliantly and thoughtfully expressed reflection of her viewpoint, and it will likely be overlooked, minimized, and rationalized in a different manner altogether by those who really, really need to understand it (and probably never will, assuming that they bother to read it at all). 

And what I think is that the "good" FA's (those already appeallingly packaged as imminently date-able) are those who handily separate themselves from the small, yet vocal, knuckle-dragging contingency. They don't feel categorized, because they know that they stand well aside from the behaviors that lump them into that category in the first place.


----------



## Carrie

mcbeth said:


> Yeah, you're right, Carrie. Those sentiments are definitely present. I think it's an incorrect jump some people make to make it an FA thing. Plenty of guys who only date very thin women date them exclusively for their bodies too. Women feeling objectified or only appreciated for their body is certainly not unique to fat women.
> 
> *Because this is a forum for fat people and FAs, we turn a lot of these issues into generalizations about fat people and FAs...when really it's just a case of people are people are people, for all the glory and gory that entails.*


My feelings _exactly_.


----------



## superodalisque

mcbeth said:


> Yeah, you're right, Carrie. Those sentiments are definitely present. I think it's an incorrect jump some people make to make it an FA thing. Plenty of guys who only date very thin women date them exclusively for their bodies too. Women feeling objectified or only appreciated for their body is certainly not unique to fat women.
> 
> Because this is a forum for fat people and FAs, we turn a lot of these issues into generalizations about fat people and FAs...when really it's just a case of people are people are people, for all the glory and gory that entails.



yes exactly, it is a people issue. and thats why when people say FAs here it creates a problem-- the reliance on terms again. so if FAs were considered just as men instead of just a sexual designation carrier a lot of things might not be so objectionable. i think the term makes guys who would describe themselves that way feel even more separated from the world of normal men with normal men problems and expectations to live up to. no one would feel as sorry for them or as maternalistic toward them if they were just considered to be men. the only thing that makes FAs different from other men in this forum is the special assumption that they are somehow more delicate and fragile than other men. i don't know if it does them any favors acting like they can't handle it. i mean, they are males over 18. maybe we need to give them more credit than to think a few women discussing a few bad guys will suddenly ruin their lives.

but in a lot of ways this is not the world. there is one difference with dims. for the most part unlike other guys FAs are seen to be and treated as fetishists first and foremost--even in the outside world. its kinda how this place is arranged too. he's so "different" because he likes fat women. there isn't much of the usual kinds of things you see in the rest of the world when it comes to men women and relationships on here. so in that way its not the same. and viewing people only as a sexual designation brings its own set of problems that might not appear in a more diverse situation.


----------



## mossystate

I know that using labels is sometimes just a quick and easy way to say what someone likes - but I think it can also become a Bedazzled couple of letters some wear on their chest. I would probably prefer to not date a man who calls himself a fa. Does that mean I hate myself- or him for liking fat women...errrrr...no. I just think that a fa simply means a man who is physically attracted to fat women, and means nothing more...nothing less. Anything else about him, good or bad, has zip to do with some label. I see some men who hide behind the label. They come across as those letters saying something about themselves that might simply not be there. When I see women out here saying, " oh, but that is not a real fa "..._I_ cringe, because good qualities are good qualities, no matter who the man is attracted to. So, I think there is sometimes such a frenzy to want to belong to a group, that you get misunderstandings...suspicions...outright disgust...hurt...confusion...etc.. Come out from behind that label and just BE...then you will have to risk being judged on your merits...like any of us mere mortals.


----------



## thirtiesgirl

superodalisque said:


> yes exactly, it is a people issue. and thats why when people say FAs here it creates a problem-- the reliance on terms again. so if FAs were considered just as men instead of just a sexual designation carrier a lot of things might not be so objectionable. i think the term makes guys who would describe themselves that way feel more even more separated from the world of normal men with normal men problems and expectations to live up to. no one would feel as sorry for them or as maternalistic toward them if they were just considered to be men. the only thing that makes FAs different from other men in this forum is the special assumption that they are somehow more delicate and fragile than other men.



I completely agree. This happening would also mean that fat women are seen as 'just' fat women, with no explanation needed, no discussion of the political nature of what it means to be a fat woman in public, no need to view the sexuality and desires of fat women as anything outside the norm (the 'norm,' by my definition, including all sexual kink and fetishes, from fat fetishism to S&M to cross dressing, since kink and fetishes are part of sexuality, too). ...But that happening, fat women being seen as 'just' fat women with no explanation needed, is predicated upon the idea that all women are seen, by men and women alike, as beings no different from men, not mysterious, unobtainable goddesses, unable to be understood by men, yet in need of their judgment and possession, or 'weaker beings' needing to be taught, raised up and given purpose and confidence by men or the ability to obtain and keep a relationship of any kind.


----------



## superodalisque

thirtiesgirl said:


> I completely agree. This happening would also mean that fat women are seen as 'just' fat women, with no explanation needed, no discussion of the political nature of what it means to be a fat woman in public, no need to view the sexuality and desires of fat women as anything outside the norm (the 'norm,' by my definition, including all sexual kink and fetishes, from fat fetishism to S&M to cross dressing, since kink and fetishes are part of sexuality, too). ...But that happening, fat women being seen as 'just' fat women with no explanation needed, is predicated upon the idea that all women are seen, by men and women alike, as beings no different from men, not mysterious, unobtainable goddesses, unable to be understood by men, yet in need of their judgment and possession, or 'weaker beings' needing to be taught, raised up and given purpose and confidence by men or the ability to obtain and keep a relationship of any kind.



they wouldn't let me rep you --but wow, just wow!


----------



## butch

I can't do these debates anymore. It saddens me, but the reality is, so much of the thinking behind these arguments, even the best ones, seem too beholden to binary thinking, and I don't think understanding happens when we affix our ideas to such dualities. Thus, I bow out, wondering if we'll ever look past our fixed ideas about all the different identity categories we use to define each other.

For example, the fat FA-where does their voice fit in to this discussion, and why don't we hear more from them?


----------



## LillyBBBW

I remember when Alanis Morrisette's song "Ironic" came out years ago people were writhing on the floor over how the definitione was being misused. I liked the song and found their rantings annoying but it's all true. None but one of the things mentioned in that song were actual irony. Even so, the merit of the song remained -- it was a fun song. There are terms everywhere here. BBW, FA, FFA, BHM, GLBT, CPA, etc. In a place designed to bring together people with a common interest, words and descriptions are necessary. As a society we would not survive without distinctions, we need them. The trick is not to generalize and attribute things in their meaning that don't belong. It would seem a rather simple thing but words still tend to take on meanings according to individual experiences. Who's to blame? Do we get rid of the terms? The terms serve their purpose but there needs to be a greater understanding and agreement on what that purpose is.


----------



## joswitch

CrankySpice said:


> I do believe that Conrad has a point - there ARE women who are so uncomfortable in their skin that they cannot accept the fact that another person would find them attractive, and therefore anyone who DOES find them attractive is somehow deviant.
> 
> It's a lot like the over-the-top homophobes who believe all gays are creepy and deviant - they may claim that their perspective comes from a "moral" place, but deep down, it's an insecurity with their own sexual identity that leads to their hate.
> 
> Likewise, I firmly believe that fat people who are F/FA-aphobic have their feelings coming from the same place - they may claim that their perspective is solely based on their "experience" but deep down, it's their personal hatred of the fat that makes them view the people who find it attractive as deviant.
> 
> A creep is a creep is a creep - male, female, gay, straight, prefers athletic builds, prefers fat builds - no one is denying that creepy FAs exist. Or creepy BBWs. And it's fine to call a creep a creep when he or she acts as such.
> 
> But when some people automatically dismiss the notion of dating a person based on the fact that they are open about their body type preference - well, that speaks volumes about how that person feels about themselves, really.
> 
> I think it becomes a stickier issue here because people (most often women) assume that if someone posts on a sexuality-based topic, then ZOMG HE'S A CREEPER HE LIKES TEH BELLIES!!! When in reality, the fellow in question could very well be and most likely is a friendly, decent guy. But he dared to express a portion of his sexuality, and he'll be strung up by his toes for it and dismissed as a "creep".
> 
> A large portion of the forums on Dims are about sexuality. It's a place for people who don't have other outlets to discuss what turns them on, to admire what turns them on and in some cases to see what turns them on. These are people who likely don't have the luxury of standing around a grill with a bunch of the guys talking about the gal with the sexy belly down at the local bar the way guys who like T&A can talk about the fine rack on the waitress down the street.
> 
> What seems to happen, though, is that because the outlets available here are public, any F/FA who expresses their sexuality freely becomes branded by a small but vocal portion of the dims community. And it really is not fair. We are privy to thoughts and expressions of sexuality by men that most women are secluded from in their daily lives - because believe me, guys DO talk about awesome tits or fine pieces of ass or soft mouths as though they are independent of the women they are attached to, perfectly fine, upstanding guys who are gentlemen around women in every way but, well, like to talk about what gets their rocks off.
> 
> Expressing admiration for a specific feature of the opposite gender doesn't make someone a creep. Nor does it make that person incapable of loving another for all of their fine attributes. "But I wanna be loved for meeeeeeeee" IS a whine when it fails to acknowledge that another person can be turned on by xyz AND love a person for who they are. We are not bodiless floating entities of personality without any physical attributes. Nor should we expect others to treat us as such, although I seem to see many a woman around here who seems to believe that's how they should be treated, and anything else is "disrespectful".
> 
> Yes, being touched without permission is creepy. But when it becomes "ewwwww, all bashes/bbw parties are creepfests, NO THANKS" it dismisses the 99 other guys who didn't touch or even speak to that particular woman as being part of the creep club. When they aren't. And it's unfair to characterize them as such. At the BBW events I've attended, the moment someone displays unwanted behaviors and that behavior either catches the attention of or is brought to the attention of the event staff, the offending person is immediately told to knock it off or get the hell out. So if any woman experiences that kind of behavior, make it known at that time and the matter will be dealt with. Don't go on the internet and piss and moan about all the creepy fellas at the BBW Bash when you have done nothing to address the situation and protect others from that behavior at that event.



I approve of this^...
So does Orson Wells






I know, I stole BJ's clapping orson wells! I are bad...


----------



## joswitch

TraciJo67 said:


> *snip*Hopefully, you can also agree that the percentage of BBW's who are secretly self-loathing and thus unable to accept an FA's attention is also very small.
> *snip*.



^I haven't run any stats, but I certainly know a number of otherwise cute, fat and/or chubby women who spend their whole lives CONSTANTLY gaining/losing and being loudly sad/happy depending very largely on which way that's going... Certainly some of these have expressed outright, head-exploding HORROR when they find out* in the course of normal conversation, that I happen to like cute fat chicks...

Yes, there are plenty of fatphobic fat people out there...
And often that fat-phobia sticks to FAs by default / externalization...

I'm not saying that's necesarily what's going on at DIMS boards btw... 

(*No, not even expressed towards them.... I never hit on girls like this... I'd rather be fuckin' celibate... yes, I know that's an oxymoron... Mmmmm... oxymoron....)


----------



## joswitch

Carrie said:


> The thing is, it's not as simple as posters saying "All FAs suck!". The negative statements are more subtle and hidden than that, but they're undeniably here. If I had a dollar for every time I read something akin to "I would never date a FA because I want to be with someone who loves me for me, not for my fat!", around here, well.... I would have a lot of dollars. Every time I read it I cringe and become irritated. That broad, blanket statement does indeed paint FAs, as a group, as men who are only and all about teh fat, oblivious to women as living, breathing, thinking humans, and therefore is an affront to all of the decent FAs I know, who are nothing like that. It is also an affront to me and other women who date FAs because it is a pretty clear implication that we have somehow settled for men who view and treat us as nothing but piles of lard. WE ALL WANT TO BE LOVED FOR WHO WE ARE. Not just our bodies. All.of.us.
> 
> For the record, I'm fine with women who don't date FAs. I don't draw conclusions about them, and figure they have their own reasons. I do, however, object to the weirdly passive-aggressive implications that FAs are, somehow, limited in their ability to love a woman simply because they find fat attractive. This is the anti-FA mindset around here that gets very tiresome.



Cannot. rep. you.
So:


----------



## joswitch

thirtiesgirl said:


> *snip*...But that happening, fat women being seen as 'just' fat women with no explanation needed,



^well, yeah, maybe..



> is predicated upon the idea that all women are seen, by men and women alike, as beings no different from men,



Ah, women and men ARE different from one another...



> not mysterious, unobtainable goddesses, unable to be understood by men, yet in need of their judgment and possession, or 'weaker beings' needing to be taught, raised up and given purpose and confidence by men or the ability to obtain and keep a relationship of any kind.



^Neither of these cracked ideas needs to be subscribed to in order to see that men and women are not the same.... (Also, Germaine Greer nailed all that hokey shiz, what 30 years ago?)
F'sure, equal rights before the law and equal opportunities and all that stuff = good...

Even with all that - biology = the bottom line.
e.g. me = man = I cannot bear children.


----------



## Tracyarts

" But when some people automatically dismiss the notion of dating a person based on the fact that they are open about their body type preference - well, that speaks volumes about how that person feels about themselves, really. "

I agree, but probably not in the way you'd like for me to.

For me it all depends on how narrow of a preference it might be as to whether it's an automatic relationship deal breaker or not. And when I was single, I greatly appreciated when people made their preferences known up front so I could decide whether to get to know them better or just take a pass and keep looking. 

For me, an exclusive preference for a narrow body type/weight range has always been a no questions asked dealbreaker when it comes to a relationship. For example if a man was only into women my size or larger, or only into women my size or smaller, he wasn't relationship material. If it was just for casual dates, then no problem. But not a relationship. 

Because bodies aren't made of stone, and many things can happen that make it so that the confines of that narrow body preference range becomes unhealthy, unrealistic, or just plain undesireable for me to maintain anymore. If the weight that works best for me winds up adjusting above or below their preference range, what then? In a best case scenario, love conquers all and my partner realizes that he loves me just the way I am, and we ride off into the sunset to live happily ever after. But more likely it causes a problem that will lead to either a breakup or a dysfunctional relationship. 

Which is why I chose to not invest myself in anybody who had a very narrow preference. To be blunt, my prospects weren't so limited that I had to settle for that and hope for the best. I'd rather just know up front that he wasn't an appropriate match for me because of his preference and not waste either of our time, energy, and emotions. 

What do I think that says about me? I think it says that I knew exactly what I wanted from a partner regarding the whole body attraction thing and I believed that I deserved somebody who was on the same page with me. 

I don't know why people get so butt-hurt over being rejected because of their preferences. People get rejected for all kinds of things. Just be happy that they were honest enough not to string you along and use you to entertain them until something better came along, and keep looking for somebody who's on the same page as you.

Tracy


----------



## thirtiesgirl

joswitch said:


> Ah, women and men ARE different from one another...



The sameness I'm referring to is emotionally and psychologically, but since you're so interested in preaching biology and gender essentialism, I can see how you'd miss that point. (Gender essentialism, for the uninitiated: the belief that there are uniquely feminine and uniquely masculine essences which exist independently of cultural conditioning.)



joswitch said:


> ^Neither of these cracked ideas needs to be subscribed to in order to see that men and women are not the same....
> 
> Even with all that - biology = the bottom line.
> e.g. me = man = I cannot bear children.



See, here's the thing, hon: you're so interested in dismissing my ideas as 'cracked,' (1) because they're mine; (2) because I'm a woman and therefore "biologically different" from you, that you're missing the point. Just because women can bear children and men can't, it's not an indicator of deeper essential differences, and nor are such indicators of sexual dimorphism relevant when discussing equity and sexual egalitarianism. (Sexual dimorphism, for the uninitiated: women have breasts, vaginas and ovaries; men have pecs, penises and testes.)

If you want to continue this argument with me, you'll have to set aside your tendencies to behave like a 'straw-feminist,' or you'll experience a verbal (well, _written_) ass kicking.


----------



## bigbob10000

AnnMarie said:


> Trust me, that bait doesn't work.


 

AnnMarie you just need to relax and remember how to work the bait and the FA's will follow you anywhere.


You will catch your elusive FA. 

Then you can do with him as you wish. 


I really like the rabbit trap idea, and the bait looks enticing. 



BigBob10000


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy

JoyJoy said:


> I don't recall reading anywhere, on this site or any other, anyone dissing FAs as a whole. VERY SPECIFIC examples, yes, but not as a whole. I love how one group tries to call out another group for making sweeping generalizations by making.....sweeping generalizations. I call sour grapes.



I wondered the same thing as soon as I read it....who? what? and where?  :blink:



JoyJoy said:


> Just want to highlight this post again for it's awesomeness, and because I couldn't give rep for it.



I got her.



MizzSnakeBite said:


> I think we should throw a parade for FAs, since they like fat bodies! <clap! clap!> Just like they throw parades for guys that like average size bodies!
> 
> 'cause, you know, we should be grateful that someone likes fat _bodies_!
> 
> Big pats on the back for being sexually excited by fat bodies! I always pat my cousin's back since he likes average sized bodies.



I date a chubby guy.....any special door prizes for me? Where's my ticket stub? 

I feel so cheated.....cuz I'm extra special.


----------



## joswitch

mossystate said:


> I know that using labels is sometimes just a quick and easy way to say what someone likes - but I think it can also become a Bedazzled couple of letters some wear on their chest. I would probably prefer to not date a man who calls himself a fa. Does that mean I hate myself- or him for liking fat women...errrrr...no. I just think that a fa simply means a man who is physically attracted to fat women, and means nothing more...nothing less.



so you prefer to date men who are not attracted to fat women? who prefer thin women? or have no preference at all? (good luck with that last one btw)
or is it just that you don't want to hear about his preference/orientation one way or another? You'd rather he just stay in the closet?


----------



## CPProp

Help....... can I give up now before I'm trapped, sqashed, eaten or all three


----------



## mossystate

joswitch said:


> so you prefer to date men who are not attracted to fat women? who prefer thin women? or have no preference at all? (good luck with that last one btw)
> or is it just that you don't want to hear about his preference/orientation one way or another? You'd rather he just stay in the closet?


 





Not every person on the planet is so set in stone ( and, no, that is not a bad thing, in and of itself, kids ) when it comes to what they like. It's true. There are people, Jos, who can, and do, like more than one type of body. They can, with great joy and sexual va-va-va-roooooom, run their hands over, and appreciate and lust over, leaner lines and bodies so soft that they think their fingers have been amputated. They honestly do not believe they are settling or looking past this or that...any more than any human being looks past whatever.

See, another possibility.

Yay!!


and, yeah, he knew what I meant, but, being captain fa, he was just concerned and all that I was not living my fat female life to the fullest potential....he is so helpful like that!...


----------



## superodalisque

joswitch said:


> so you prefer to date men who are not attracted to fat women? who prefer thin women? or have no preference at all? (good luck with that last one btw)
> or is it just that you don't want to hear about his preference/orientation one way or another? You'd rather he just stay in the closet?



you know thats not what she is saying.


----------



## joswitch

thirtiesgirl said:


> The sameness I'm referring to is emotionally and psychologically, but since you're so interested in preaching biology and gender essentialism, I can see how you'd miss that point. (Gender essentialism, for the uninitiated: the belief that there are uniquely feminine and uniquely masculine essences which exist independently of cultural conditioning.)


Show me a culture where men give birth and breast feed, and where women are routinely/averagely physically stronger, more agressive than and die earlier than men (given adaequate nutrition) and where one woman may have thousands of offspring if she can mate often enough, while less than half of women in her peer group ever reproduce... 




> See, here's the thing, hon: you're so interested in dismissing my ideas as 'cracked,' (1)


:sigh:
The ideas I referred to as 'cracked' were the two ideas of woman-as-goddess and woman-as-property, which you, yourself vilified. I was agreeing with you on those points! 
:doh:


> because they're mine; (2) because I'm a woman and therefore "biologically different" from you, that you're missing the point. Just because women can bear children and men can't, it's not an indicator of deeper essential differences, and nor are such indicators of sexual dimorphism relevant when discussing equity and sexual egalitarianism. (Sexual dimorphism, for the uninitiated: women have breasts, vaginas and ovaries; men have pecs, penises and testes.)


I have no problem with equity and egalitarianism - it is a good idea. It is unhelpful in quest to attain such to say that men and women are the same. Because they are not.
They do not have the same opportunities/burdens biologically. And pretty much everything about human societies reflects that.
Socially that can/could be moderated to an extent.
E.g. Women could be paid (more*) to bear and raise kids... But that physical opportunity, burden and risk of pregnancy, birth, breast feeding canNOT be done by a man... 

(*DSS here in uk effectively does this, but those baby mommas aren't coining it in, despite tabloid propaganda...) (N.B. - In hunter gatherer societies a pregnant and/or early nursing mother is physically unable to obtain enough calories without help of others. No healthy adult male in such a society goes through same.)


> If you want to continue this argument with me, you'll have to set aside your tendencies to behave like a 'straw-feminist,' or you'll experience a verbal (well, _written_) ass kicking.



Oh noes! Not an ass kicking! On teh internetz! :trembles: /sarcasm


----------



## joswitch

mossystate said:


> l
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not every person on the planet is so set in stone ( and, no, that is not a bad thing, in and of itself, kids ) when it comes to what they like. It's true. There are people, Jos, who can, and do, like more than one type of body. They can, with great joy and sexual va-va-va-roooooom, run their hands over, and appreciate and lust over, leaner lines and bodies so soft that they think their fingers have been amputated. They honestly do not believe they are settling or looking past this or that...any more than any human being looks past whatever.
> 
> See, another possibility.
> 
> Yay!!
> 
> 
> and, yeah, he knew what I meant, but, being captain fa, he was just concerned and all that I was not living my fat female life to the fullest potential....he is so helpful like that!...


 
So you like the "no preference" guys then... 
Just like Tracy (TracyArts). Got it.
Gosh those bisizuals are popular, eh? lucky fellas!

Heh. I'm not worried about you Mossy - f'sure you can look after yourself...


----------



## joswitch

CPProp said:


> Help....... can I give up now before I'm trapped, sqashed, eaten or all three



Bring it on I say... It'll be a mercy killing...


----------



## Blackjack

superodalisque said:


> think about it. what does the term FA say. it says Fat Admirer. it doesn't say anything about a women or even other humans. just "the fat".



Yeah, the term is pretty offensive and is very likely to alienate the person if you read way too much into it and take it far too literally.


----------



## joswitch

So, to sum up - the majority "thin admirer" men who are attracted to women probably in the 90 - 140lb range? are "normal" and they're seen as A-OK by everyone...
And all the girls love bisizuals!
And men who have bonerz for your inner soul...

But guys who might be attracted to e.g. pretty, smart girls who may or may not have long tumbling dark or red hair and who may or may not wear glasses, and who may or may not enjoy the work of Nina Simone, the Prodigy and Joss Whedon and who weigh anywhere in the 210 - 420lbs++ ish range .... We are "narrow" and we hide behind a "badge"... Got it.

And let's not forget that awesome Catch 22 -
Good FAs never call themselves FAs! (they are like Zorro or Spiderman!) and good FAs are, apparently, according to SuperO, (in many many posts) made so uncomfortable by the "creepy scene" that you will never find them at bashes/dances/posting on Dims.... 

So options for us FAs are:
-(get in the) closet
-celibacy
or
-sweet, sticky oblivion in the FA deathtrap of our glorious overlards...

I choose Door 3....


----------



## Ash

joswitch said:


> -sweet, sticky oblivion in the FA deathtrap of our glorious overlards...
> 
> I choose Door 3....



Come over this way. I'm totally not standing just beyond an 8 foot hole that I've crudely covered with sticks and leaves.


----------



## JMCGB

Ashley said:


> Come over this way. I'm totally not standing just beyond an 8 foot hole that I've crudely covered with sticks and leaves.



Might want to make the hole a little deeper. Too easy to escape out of one that shallow.


----------



## joswitch

Ashley said:


> Come over this way. I'm totally not standing just beyond an 8 foot hole that I've crudely covered with sticks and leaves.



:bounds towards you guilelessly:


----------



## thirtiesgirl

joswitch said:


> Show me a culture where men give birth and breast feed, and where women are routinely/averagely physically stronger, more agressive than and die earlier than men (given adaequate nutrition) and where one woman may have thousands of offspring if she can mate often enough, while less than half of women in her peer group ever reproduce...



You can argue biological differences all you want, but it still doesn't prove that we don't have emotional and psychological similarities. There is no convincing body of evidence that will prove your statement to be true.


----------



## Ash

JMCGB said:


> Might want to make the hole a little deeper. Too easy to escape out of one that shallow.



I greased the sides with butter. Duh.


----------



## JMCGB

Ashley said:


> I greased the sides with butter. Duh.



Well just go ahead and cook me then. If I must meet my maker, I might as well end up in the belly of a fatty!


----------



## dedhart

Ashley said:


> You're all missing the obvious way to get rid of these disgusting deviants while furthering our mission to take over the world.
> 
> EAT THEM.


I <3 you

EAT ME!


----------



## vardon_grip

Interesting article
http://articles.sfgate.com/2006-08-06/news/17307710_1_woman-s-brain-human-brains-private-planes

"There is no unisex brain," Brizendine writes. "Girls arrive already wired as girls, and boys arrive already wired as boys. Their brains are different by the time they're born, and their brains are what drive their impulses, values and their very reality."

Could be convincing info, if one was open to it.


----------



## joswitch

thirtiesgirl said:


> You can argue biological differences all you want, but it still doesn't prove that we don't have emotional and psychological similarities.
> 
> 
> 
> aha! Way to move the goalposts!
> You said there is "no difference" between men and women - I disagreed -
> now you make a huge shift to the carefully qualified - "cannot prove there are not some similarities"...
> Of course, I agree with THAT, who wouldn't?
> Your two assertions are not the same.
> 
> Your chop logic = EPIC FAIL!
> 
> 
> 
> There is no convincing body of evidence that will prove your statement to be true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> look who's straw manning now! Hah!
> 
> ....never match wits with a Sicilian!
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## dcoyote

Well, if we're going to eat them, does anyone have any good fa recipes?


----------



## MaxArden

If I'm being totally honest, and I'm usually just a lying sack of shit, I've always been a little uncomfortable with the term FA. You can't love fat, otherwise we wouldn't need rendering plants, just turn FAs loose in slaughterhouses. You can love a fat _person_, but they do not separate. For me it's the whole that I'm attracted to, or not. The Brains, the humour, the personality, the soul and yes, the body too. And I expect it to cut both ways. And if I have to be labeled at all I guess I would prefer Real Woman Lover or Big Woman Lover.
Not as Funny as I would have liked, but at least it was honest...

Flame On


----------



## imfree

dcoyote said:


> Well, if we're going to eat them, does anyone have any good fa recipes?



Seems like I saw one in a science-fiction show on TV
and it was titled To Serve Man. Just saying.......


----------



## thirtiesgirl

vardon_grip said:


> Interesting article
> http://articles.sfgate.com/2006-08-06/news/17307710_1_woman-s-brain-human-brains-private-planes
> 
> "There is no unisex brain," Brizendine writes. "Girls arrive already wired as girls, and boys arrive already wired as boys. Their brains are different by the time they're born, and their brains are what drive their impulses, values and their very reality."
> 
> Could be convincing info, if one was open to it.



Ah, so the issues of social constructivism and gender socialization are completely thrown out the window, then? If born with female genitalia, that means a child is automatically a girl, or if born with male genitalia, the child is automatically a boy? That's the argument you're seriously going to stick with here?



joswitch said:


> aha! Way to move the goalposts!
> You said there is "no difference" between men and women - I disagreed -
> now you make a huge shift to the carefully qualified - "cannot prove there are not some similarities"...
> Of course, I agree with THAT, who wouldn't?
> Your two assertions are not the same.



Hon, I'm not going to argue semantics and choice of words with you. You enjoy trying to poke holes in my statements because I disagree with you and your continued desperate need for approval from _every_ fat woman on this forum. When it comes to emotions and psychology, I don't believe there is a difference between men and women. Rather than addressing that issue, you've chosen to argue biological determinism, and I pointed out that your argument for biological determinism cannot prove that there are no similarities between men and women. Biological determinism is not the same as emotional and psychological similarities, which was my point in beginning this argument with you.

...And keep in mind, hon, you never know who might be associated with the Mothers And Fathers Intelligence Association, so you might just want to be careful about claiming Siciliano.


----------



## vardon_grip

thirtiesgirl said:


> Ah, so the issues of social constructivism and gender socialization are completely thrown out the window, then? If born with female genitalia, that means a child is automatically a girl, or if born with male genitalia, the child is automatically a boy? That's the argument you're seriously going to stick with here?



I'm not making an argument dear...that's your job. 

I just posted an article by someone more qualified than you or me, so take your rant up with the author.


----------



## Dolce

I have been very enlightened by this thread. No joke. Great use of humor to illustrate basic truths.


----------



## thirtiesgirl

vardon_grip said:


> I'm not making an argument dear...that's your job.
> 
> I just posted an article by someone more qualified than you or me, so take your rant up with the author.



_Riiiiight._ Why post it if you don't support it? Stop the passive aggressive behavior and the "dear" bullshit, Vardon. It's unattractive. Nor do you know my educational qualifications, so you might want to get your facts straight before you make that statement.


----------



## vardon_grip

thirtiesgirl said:


> _Riiiiight._ Vardon, stop the passive aggressive behavior and the "dear" bullshit. It's unattractive. Nor do you know my educational qualifications, so you might want to get your facts straight before you make that statement.



You could have qualified your post, but you didn't. So, whatever to your complaint. 

Not that it matters as the ACTUAL POINT OF THE MATTER is you said... 


thirtiesgirl said:


> You can argue biological differences all you want, but it still doesn't prove that we don't have emotional and psychological similarities.



I quoted an article I found that said...

"There is no unisex brain," Brizendine writes. "Girls arrive already wired as girls, and boys arrive already wired as boys. Their brains are different by the time they're born, and their brains are what drive their impulses, values and their very reality."

Hey lookee at that! Evidence that seems to contradict what YOU said!
Do you respond to that? Nope!
You don't seem to like to stick to the issues you raise when responding to people do you? You like to mix and match things that YOU said and things that NO ONE said and assemble them in one big Jumble puzzle.
You could TRY to stick to the argument that you presented. 

Don't lecture me on behavior that you are guilty of. That's not just bullshit, it's hypocritical too!


----------



## thirtiesgirl

vardon_grip said:


> Not that it matters as the ACTUAL POINT OF THE MATTER is you said...
> 
> I quoted an article I found that said...
> 
> "There is no unisex brain," Brizendine writes. "Girls arrive already wired as girls, and boys arrive already wired as boys. Their brains are different by the time they're born, and their brains are what drive their impulses, values and their very reality."
> 
> Hey lookee at that! Evidence that seems to contradict what YOU said!
> Do you respond to that? Nope!



I _did_ respond to it, if you'd paid attention, or used your critical thinking skills, which I'm increasingly beginning to doubt actually exist. The idea that "girls and boys arrive already hardwired as girls and boys" completely eliminates the whole idea of social constructivism and gender determinism and is dismissive and dehumanizing of transpeople everywhere. What your article says is that if a person is born with female genitalia, that means they're "hardwired" to be a girl, or if born with male genitalia, they're "hardwired" to be a boy. I can't imagine a bigger crock of sweeping generalizations anywhere. ...Well, actually, I _can_, but I prefer not to.


----------



## MissCrissi

vardon_grip said:


> Interesting article
> http://articles.sfgate.com/2006-08-06/news/17307710_1_woman-s-brain-human-brains-private-planes
> 
> "There is no unisex brain," Brizendine writes. "Girls arrive already wired as girls, and boys arrive already wired as boys. Their brains are different by the time they're born, and their brains are what drive their impulses, values and their very reality."
> 
> Could be convincing info, if one was open to it.



There was recent research posted in a Popular Science magazine back when I worked at a bookstore that actually states the exact opposite. That although certain things are "hard wired" for different genders (i.e. primal matters such as reproduction and what not), the majority of how a child develops his/her gender is based on conditioning from the environment that actually causes a biological change in the child's brain.

I apologize that I do not have a link to said article handy. I'll have to find it.


----------



## joswitch

thirtiesgirl said:


> Ah, so the issues of social constructivism and gender socialization are completely thrown out the window, then? If born with female genitalia, that means a child is automatically a girl, or if born with male genitalia, the child is automatically a boy? That's the argument you're seriously going to stick with here?
> 
> 
> 
> Hon, I'm not going to argue semantics and choice of words with you. You enjoy trying to poke holes in my statements because I disagree with you and your continued desperate need for approval from _every_ fat woman on this forum. When it comes to emotions and psychology, I don't believe there is a difference between men and women. Rather than addressing that issue, you've chosen to argue biological determinism, and I pointed out that your argument for biological determinism cannot prove that there are no similarities between men and women. Biological determinism is not the same as emotional and psychological similarities, which was my point in beginning this argument with you.
> 
> ...And keep in mind, hon, you never know who might be associated with the Mothers And Fathers Intelligence Association, so you might just want to be careful about claiming Siciliano.



You lost already, you can stop arguing now.
Also: pop culture reference fail.


----------



## vardon_grip

thirtiesgirl said:


> I _did_ respond to it, if you'd paid attention, or used your critical thinking skills, which I'm increasingly beginning to doubt actually exist. The idea that "girls and boys arrive already hardwired as girls and boys" completely eliminates the whole idea of social constructivism and gender determinism and is dismissive and dehumanizing of transpeople everywhere. What your article says is that if a person is born with female genitalia, that means they're "hardwired" to be a girl, or if born with male genitalia, they're "hardwired" to be a boy. I can't imagine a bigger crock of sweeping generalizations anywhere. ...Well, actually, I _can_, but I prefer not to.


Sorry, I lack critical thinking skills, so it is ridiculous for you to respond to me because I can't comprehend a thing that comes out of your blueberry pie hole.

*yawn*

Your earlier request for a body of evidence was provided. You get that don't you? You are constantly "responding" to things that don't exist except in your mind. Of course you will argue that you are not "convinced", but that isn't the point is it? (Hint: It isn't)
Call it a crock, hell call it Bo Peep and put a bow on it for all I care, but there is a scientist who actually conducted something called research on the subject of male/female emotional and psychological (non)similarities...YOU KNOW, THE SUBJECT THAT YOU BROUGHT UP, has a book out on the subject and at the very least is qualified as someone who is NOT full of shit and can walk the walk. 

You could have said that while you disagree with the points in a book that you didn't read (I assume that because you didn't say so in the first place) it does contradict what you were talking about earlier and that your own lack of research didn't yield the same conclusions.

You could have, but you didn't.
What you do is make arguments over things that don't exist.
It also seems you get really agro over this stuff (not just at me, but at a lot of different people over different subjects) I'd tell you to relax, but you'd just accuse me of making a sexist comment.

*yawn*

from the article...
_ "There is no unisex brain," Brizendine writes. "Girls arrive already wired as girls, and boys arrive already wired as boys. Their brains are different by the time they're born, and their brains are what drive their impulses, values and their very reality."

Brizendine's book offers a 2 1/2-page appendix on the female brain and sexual orientation, but she *doesn't mention transgender folks*. Sexual orientation, she writes, "does not appear to be a matter of conscious self-labeling but a matter of brain wiring."_

So.....no, the article doesn't say what you say it does. Not surprised.
*yawn*


Swan Dive!


----------



## LoveBHMS

MaxArden said:


> If I'm being totally honest, and I'm usually just a lying sack of shit, I've always been a little uncomfortable with the term FA. You can't love fat, otherwise we wouldn't need rendering plants, just turn FAs loose in slaughterhouses. You can love a fat _person_, but they do not separate. For me it's the whole that I'm attracted to, or not. The Brains, the humour, the personality, the soul and yes, the body too. And I expect it to cut both ways. And if I have to be labeled at all I guess I would prefer Real Woman Lover or Big Woman Lover.
> Not as Funny as I would have liked, but at least it was honest...
> 
> Flame On



But nobody has ever claimed that fat is the only thing they're attracted to, or that they'd be attracted to any fat man or woman. I'd say every single one of us, male and female FA have had the experience of somebody who knows we're FAs pointing to random fatties and saying "Is s/he hot? Do you like that? There's one for you." etc. It's not uncommon at all to *only* be attracted to somebody with a certain physical characteristic whether that is size or age or skin color, but that does not translate into getting hot for anyone and everyone with that particular trait.

Also the term "real woman" needs to go. One size is no more real than another. What if a non-FA said something like "I'm attracted to real women, not those who are too big to fit in booths". It would be really offensive to an FA, so by the same token saying only fat women are real women, it's insulting to those who like smaller bodies.


----------



## CrankySpice

MaxArden said:


> If I'm being totally honest, and I'm usually just a lying sack of shit, I've always been a little uncomfortable with the term FA. You can't love fat, otherwise we wouldn't need rendering plants, just turn FAs loose in slaughterhouses. You can love a fat _person_, but they do not separate. For me it's the whole that I'm attracted to, or not. The Brains, the humour, the personality, the soul and yes, the body too. And I expect it to cut both ways. And if I have to be labeled at all I guess I would prefer Real Woman Lover or Big Woman Lover.
> Not as Funny as I would have liked, but at least it was honest...
> 
> Flame On



Would it help to think of it in the same context as being a Leg Man or a Boob Man or an Ass Man? Those terms are part of our every day vernacular and most people understand them as they are intended: i.e., that's what those men find particularly attractive about women. I doubt very few people take it to mean "I'm a guy who only likes boobs. Just give me boobs. Boobs are all I need, the woman doesn't matter" unless they are choosing to challenge it from an extreme perspective. When taken at face value, sure, it sounds offensive. But most people understand what it actually _means _rather than what the individual words strung together appear to indicate.

So I guess if you are a fat guy who likes fat women, you could actually say "I'm a fat man" and cover all your bases. ha!


----------



## Jes

joswitch said:


> or have no preference at all? (good luck with that last one btw)
> ?



thanks for your good wishes but in my case, I didn't need them. My bf has dated equal numbers of thin women and fat women and he's liked, or disliked, all of those relationships (and women) for reasons other than clothing size or body shape. (And let me tell you, ladies--it's revelatory.) I don't know if lots of men are like him, but I don't need lots of men; I only need 1.


----------



## thirtiesgirl

vardon_grip said:


> Sorry, I lack critical thinking skills, so it is ridiculous for you to respond to me because I can't comprehend a thing that comes out of your blueberry pie hole.



I don't like blueberry pie. You might have known that had you asked, but I can see that asking is not in your repertoire when it comes to talking with women.



vardon_grip said:


> You could have said that while you disagree with the points in a book that you didn't read (I assume that because you didn't say so in the first place) it does contradict what you were talking about earlier and that your own lack of research didn't yield the same conclusions.
> 
> You could have, but you didn't.
> What you do is make arguments over things that don't exist.
> 
> from the article...
> _ "There is no unisex brain," Brizendine writes. "Girls arrive already wired as girls, and boys arrive already wired as boys. Their brains are different by the time they're born, and their brains are what drive their impulses, values and their very reality."
> 
> Brizendine's book offers a 2 1/2-page appendix on the female brain and sexual orientation, but she *doesn't mention transgender folks*. Sexual orientation, she writes, "does not appear to be a matter of conscious self-labeling but a matter of brain wiring."_



Of course the author doesn't mention transpeople because it's obvious she doesn't care that her argument is dehumanizing and oppressive to them. In addition, being transgendered is _not _a sexual orientation. It's not like being gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, asexual or straight. That's why the word is trans_gendered_. You might know this if you actually spent any time talking to any transpeople, but I'd guess that activity is a highly doubtful one for you.

To make it easier, here's a definition, of sorts: "Transgender is the state of one's 'gender identity' (self-identification as woman, man, neither or both) not matching one's 'assigned sex' (identification by others as male, female or intersex based on physical/genetic sex). 'Transgender' does not imply any specific form of sexual orientation; transgender people may identify as heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, pansexual, polysexual, or asexual; some may consider conventional sexual orientation labels inadequate or inapplicable to them." 

So, if you care to stretch your brain muscles just a little and use those critical thinking skills I know you were taught in school (although it does seem a while since you've used them), I'd hope you can understand how your favored author's argument that people are "hardwired" from birth to be one gender or the other simply based on their genitalia is dehumanizing and a fallacy.

Lets try an analogy you'll maybe understand, since you seem to need some extra help. Your author's argument that people are "hardwired" from birth to be boys and girls based on their genitalia is similar to the fat-hatred tenet that fat people are have socially unacceptable bodies. I'm sure you can understand how this tenet of fat hatred is dehumanizing and oppressive to fat people. Dehumanizing, for the record, in case you don't understand what it means (which is a very real possibility at this point), means treating people as less than human, seeing them as not deserving of human rights.

Which is what your favorite author is doing when she makes a sweeping generalization that all people are hardwired from birth to be one gender or the other, not taking into account the billions of transpeople who feel and believe otherwise, and treating them as if their feelings and experiences don't even exist. As if _they_ don't exist. And if you believe someone doesn't exist, isn't that the epitome of dehumanization?


----------



## LillyBBBW

thirtiesgirl said:


> I don't like blueberry pie. You might have known that had you asked, but I can see that asking is not in your repertoire when it comes to talking with women.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course the author doesn't mention transpeople because it's obvious she doesn't care that her argument is dehumanizing and oppressive to them. In addition, being transgendered is _not _a sexual orientation. It's not like being gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, asexual or straight. That's why the word is trans_gendered_. You might know this if you actually spent any time talking to any transpeople, but I'd guess that activity is a highly doubtful one for you.
> 
> To make it easier, here's a definition, of sorts: "Transgender is the state of one's 'gender identity' (self-identification as woman, man, neither or both) not matching one's 'assigned sex' (identification by others as male, female or intersex based on physical/genetic sex). 'Transgender' does not imply any specific form of sexual orientation; transgender people may identify as heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, pansexual, polysexual, or asexual; some may consider conventional sexual orientation labels inadequate or inapplicable to them."
> 
> So, if you care to stretch your brain muscles just a little and use those critical thinking skills I know you were taught in school (although it does seem a while since you've used them), I'd hope you can understand how your favored author's argument that people are "hardwired" from birth to be one gender or the other simply based on their genitalia is dehumanizing and a fallacy.
> 
> Lets try an analogy you'll maybe understand, since you seem to need some extra help. Your author's argument that people are "hardwired" from birth to be boys and girls based on their genitalia is similar to the fat-hatred tenet that fat people are have socially unacceptable bodies. I'm sure you can understand how this tenet of fat hatred is dehumanizing and oppressive to fat people. Dehumanizing, for the record, in case you don't understand what it means (which is a very real possibility at this point), means treating people as less than human, seeing them as not deserving of human rights.
> 
> Which is what your favorite author is doing when she makes a sweeping generalization that all people are hardwired from birth to be one gender or the other, not taking into account the billions of transpeople who feel and believe otherwise, and treating them as if their feelings and experiences don't even exist. As if _they_ don't exist. And if you believe someone doesn't exist, isn't that the epitome of dehumanization?



As much as its killing me to do so I'm afraid I'm going to have to agree with vardon here. The research appears to have had nothing to do with physical gender, only of the study of the brain. In my view the research actually supports transgendered people as being right in the head though the physical characteristics don't match. It suggests what transgendered people have insisted all along, that gender identity is not a choice. Vardon is a charmer though, is he not? And I love blueberry pie.


----------



## thirtiesgirl

LillyBBBW said:


> As much as its killing me to do so I'm afraid I'm going to have to agree with vardon here. The research appears to have had nothing to do with physical gender, only of the study of the brain. In my view the research actually supports transgendered people as being right in the head though the physical characteristics don't match. It suggests what transgendered people have insisted all along, that gender identity is not a choice.



I don't believe that's her argument at all. What she argues, as Vardon makes clear, is that "_sexual orientation_ does not appear to be a matter of conscious self-labeling but a matter of brain wiring." While I agree that sexual orientation is not a choice, being transgendered is _not_ a sexual orientation. It's a gender orientation. There's a big difference between the two.



LillyBBBW said:


> Vardon is a charmer though, is he not? And I love blueberry pie.



I'd go with _not_. Glad someone's willing to step up to his blueberry pie hole comment.


----------



## MaxArden

CrankySpice said:


> Would it help to think of it in the same context as being a Leg Man or a Boob Man or an Ass Man? Those terms are part of our every day vernacular and most people understand them as they are intended: i.e., that's what those men find particularly attractive about women. I doubt very few people take it to mean "I'm a guy who only likes boobs. Just give me boobs. Boobs are all I need, the woman doesn't matter" unless they are choosing to challenge it from an extreme perspective. When taken at face value, sure, it sounds offensive. But most people understand what it actually _means _rather than what the individual words strung together appear to indicate.
> 
> So I guess if you are a fat guy who likes fat women, you could actually say "I'm a fat man" and cover all your bases. ha!



Good Points. Thank you.


----------



## MaxArden

LoveBHMS said:


> But nobody has ever claimed that fat is the only thing they're attracted to, or that they'd be attracted to any fat man or woman. I'd say every single one of us, male and female FA have had the experience of somebody who knows we're FAs pointing to random fatties and saying "Is s/he hot? Do you like that? There's one for you." etc. It's not uncommon at all to *only* be attracted to somebody with a certain physical characteristic whether that is size or age or skin color, but that does not translate into getting hot for anyone and everyone with that particular trait.
> 
> Also the term "real woman" needs to go. One size is no more real than another. What if a non-FA said something like "I'm attracted to real women, not those who are too big to fit in booths". It would be really offensive to an FA, so by the same token saying only fat women are real women, it's insulting to those who like smaller bodies.



I was speaking for myself, and meant no offense to anyone. I was looking at "real woman" as an all inclusive term, but you're correct, it's a little too inclusive.


----------



## Redhotphatgirl

I personally like my FA raw with a side of ranch or whip cream and strawberries heheheheh:eat2:


Give me me that like big girls same as men who like skinny girls or give me death.

Some one for everyone.....I just want our share and I prefer them out of the closet.


----------



## vardon_grip

LillyBBBW said:


> As much as its killing me to do so I'm afraid I'm going to have to agree with vardon here. The research appears to have had nothing to do with physical gender, only of the study of the brain. In my view the research actually supports transgendered people as being right in the head though the physical characteristics don't match. It suggests what transgendered people have insisted all along, that gender identity is not a choice. Vardon is a charmer though, is he not? And I love blueberry pie.



Thank you for the support despite the reservations on my demeanor.
I like blueberry pie also.


----------



## Myn

> "Transgender is the state of one's 'gender identity' (self-identification as woman, man, neither or both) not matching one's 'assigned sex' (identification by others as male, female or intersex based on physical/genetic sex). 'Transgender' does not imply any specific form of sexual orientation; transgender people may identify as heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, pansexual, polysexual, or asexual; some may consider conventional sexual orientation labels inadequate or inapplicable to them."



I think that supports the point that a lot of gender is inherent in how a person is born. Little boys in the aggregate tend to like roughhousing and beating each other with sticks; little girls are more likely to play with dolls and fight with words. 

There are, of course, exceptions. My mom as a child used any doll she was given to build macabre displays - there's a picture of her room with about five dolls hanging from little twine nooses strung from the ceiling. I myself would much prefer to hit someone than deal with really cutting comments delivered with a poisonous smile. There exist boys who care about clothes. 

The thing is, though, that while every individual is an exception, averages _exist._ There are roles that men and women gravitate to naturally, even if societal pressure to fill them is nowhere near the level it once was. Does everyone fit into them perfectly? Does everyone have to live by them? No, of course not. Does society play a role? Obviously - none of us are currently living alone out in the wilderness.

The thing is, though, every transgendered person I've ever spoken to or read about has said a variation of the same thing - that they knew their body was wrong because inside they belong to the other gender, with all of the behavior and social standards and stereotypes that implies. A person born with male body parts might want to be a tomboy, but that still implies approaching life from a default female perspective. 

If we take away the right of men to say that men and women are different, then we take away our own right to say that there is something special and, yes, _different_ about being a woman. I don't want to give that up. There _is_ something mystical and special and powerful about being female, and I think that an mtf transexual knows that even more than those of us born with a body that matches our brains, because she's had to work and sacrifice to be allowed to show the world an outer shell that matches the brain she was born with.



... And, to go back to the thread, I think the bait should involve installing a trap door in front of a bench that sits between Weight Watchers and Coldstone Creamery. Don't set the bait somewhere random, get them in the places they already congregate!


----------



## LillyBBBW

thirtiesgirl said:


> I don't believe that's her argument at all. What she argues, as Vardon makes clear, is that "_sexual orientation_ does not appear to be a matter of conscious self-labeling but a matter of brain wiring." While I agree that sexual orientation is not a choice, being transgendered is _not_ a sexual orientation. It's a gender orientation. There's a big difference between the two.
> 
> 
> 
> I'd go with _not_. Glad someone's willing to step up to his blueberry pie hole comment.



I'm not interpreting anything negative about transgendered people at all from this article. Her research and conclusions from it sounds to me like merely fluff fodder for the Oprah circuit. She's regurgitating some of the same old stuff we already know: men have bigger brains, run faster, women/men are more in touch with such-and-such, etc. She tells us nothing new and in fact, she relies on a lot of old outdated research. She never mentions anything at all about transgender, doesn't even imply that she knows anything about it. One can choose to ignore the scientist as merely a hack but she does do a handy job of putting all the 'Men and Women' research on one shelf at eye level where we can see it. It was done in response to something you said earlier, I can't remember the exact wording, but it seemed along the lines of how men and women aren't different or something. There is plenty of stuff out there that says we are.


----------



## thirtiesgirl

LillyBBBW said:


> I'm not interpreting anything negative about transgendered people at all from this article. Her research and conclusions from it sounds to me like merely fluff fodder for the Oprah circuit. She's regurgitating some of the same old stuff we already know: men have bigger brains, run faster, women/men are more in touch with such-and-such, etc. She tells us nothing new and in fact, she relies on a lot of old outdated research. She never mentions anything at all about transgender, doesn't even imply that she knows anything about it. One can choose to ignore the scientist as merely a hack but she does do a handy job of putting all the 'Men and Women' research on one shelf at eye level where we can see it. It was done in response to something you said earlier, I can't remember the exact wording, but it seemed along the lines of how men and women aren't different or something. There is plenty of stuff out there that says we are.



Again, I haven't once disagreed that we aren't different biologically. But that wasn't my point, which Joswitch went miles out of his way to misinterpret, as he seems to like to do. My point was that there is no research to prove that we have emotional and psychological differences, and arguing biological determinism won't prove that.

Vardon then chose to bring up an article by this woman attempting to prove that point (which, as you've discovered, really doesn't prove much of anything), but in bringing up the article, he seemed to misunderstand (or not care) that the author's hypothesis is dehumanizing of transgendered people. Of _course_ the woman who wrote the article doesn't mention transgendered people and doesn't know anything about them. If she did, she might not have made such a dehumanizing hypothesis.


----------



## thirtiesgirl

Myn said:


> I think that supports the point that a lot of gender is inherent in how a person is born. Little boys in the aggregate tend to like roughhousing and beating each other with sticks; little girls are more likely to play with dolls and fight with words.



This is social constructivism, not a product of what genitalia a person is born with. 



Myn said:


> The thing is, though, that while every individual is an exception, averages _exist._ There are roles that men and women gravitate to naturally, even if societal pressure to fill them is nowhere near the level it once was. Does everyone fit into them perfectly? Does everyone have to live by them? No, of course not. Does society play a role? Obviously - none of us are currently living alone out in the wilderness.



I believe society and culture plays a MUCH bigger role in determining social behavior than you're attributing here.



Myn said:


> The thing is, though, every transgendered person I've ever spoken to or read about has said a variation of the same thing - that they knew their body was wrong because inside they belong to the other gender, with all of the behavior and social standards and stereotypes that implies. A person born with male body parts might want to be a tomboy, but that still implies approaching life from a default female perspective.



But that's my point. Vardon's favorite article simplistically makes the point that a person's gender is determined by what genitalia he or she is born with, completely leaving out social constructivism and gender determinism. A transperson would argue otherwise, knowing that just being born with the parts does not make them that gender. That comes with social constructivism and gender determinism - from society and culture, _not_ from them.



Myn said:


> If we take away the right of men to say that men and women are different, then we take away our own right to say that there is something special and, yes, _different_ about being a woman. I don't want to give that up. There _is_ something mystical and special and powerful about being female, and I think that an mtf transexual knows that even more than those of us born with a body that matches our brains, because she's had to work and sacrifice to be allowed to show the world an outer shell that matches the brain she was born with.



I know many women like to think there's something "mystical and special" about being a woman. I'm not one to subscribe to such beliefs. Emotionally and psychologically, I don't believe we're all that different from men, and I don't want my femininity to set me apart in that way. I believe there's more sameness than we'd like to think, and I believe most transpeople inherently, subconsciously know that.


----------



## LillyBBBW

thirtiesgirl said:


> Again, I haven't once disagreed that we aren't different biologically. But that wasn't my point, which Joswitch went miles out of his way to misinterpret, as he seems to like to do. My point was that there is no research to prove that we have emotional and psychological differences, and arguing biological determinism won't prove that.
> 
> Vardon then chose to bring up an article by this woman attempting to prove that point (which, as you've discovered, really doesn't prove much of anything), but in bringing up the article, he seemed to misunderstand (or not care) that the author's hypothesis is dehumanizing of transgendered people. Of _course_ the woman who wrote the article doesn't mention transgendered people and doesn't know anything about them. If she did, she might not have made such a dehumanizing hypothesis.



If this article is dehumanizing to transgendered people then this and all research like it is dehumanizing to everyone. It is not. It is merely an axamination of statistical averages and an attempt to explain why they exist the way they do. Phrases like "more likely" and "typically" appear throughout these articles to allow for variances from person to person but these average characteristics do exist. One would have to be work very hard not to see it even without the research. If there is no physiology behind human response then it would mean it is all behavioral, something that in my view is more damaging to transgendered people than anything. All they have to do is toughen/lighten up, put on those trousers and be satisfied with the body they were born into or understand that their desires and feelings are wrong and train themselves to be more one way or another. I think that is more demoralizing. There is physiology involved that effects us all differently but the averages are clearly present.


----------



## Myn

> I know many women like to think there's something "mystical and special" about being a woman. I'm not one to subscribe to such beliefs.



I think right here you've come to the crux of the disagreement. Everyone can say what they "think" and "believe," but ultimately you're going to keep right on believing that you're right and the people who disagree with you just "like to think" what they do - and vice versa. Given the jury's been out an awful long time on nature versus nurture, I doubt we're going to resolve it on a silly sarcastic thread about FAs, no matter how authoritatively we speak.


And, once again, to go back to the thread topic - what's the plan for when the FAs are caught, just put 'em in Chippendales costumes (or Hooters outfits, for the FFAs) and slap 'em into Ashley's minion harem?


----------



## Jes

Myn said:


> (or Hooters outfits, for the FFAs) ?



hey, don't leave Tinytoddy out of this!


----------



## butch

What do we do about cultures with a long tradition of third genders? Again, the reliance on binaries, thinking that even transpeople can only be one or the other gender. Many trans-identified people believe that there are AT LEAST three genders, and perhaps intersex people show us that there are many more than 3.


----------



## LovelyLiz

butch said:


> What do we do about cultures with a long tradition of third genders? Again, the reliance on binaries, thinking that even transpeople can only be one or the other gender. Many trans-identified people believe that there are AT LEAST three genders, and perhaps intersex people show us that there are many more than 3.



We are super reliant on binaries! It's so hard to escape. 

So, what about a BBW who is an FA? In the context of this thread she'd be looking to capture herself! The snake is eating its tail. 

Even all of our acronyms around here make someone fit into a binary. BBW? BHM? FA? FFA? We are beholden... Thanks for pointing out some of the times when we are operating that way (tho it's pretty much all the time...so thanks for the occasional reminder).


----------



## NoWayOut

Myn said:


> And, once again, to go back to the thread topic - what's the plan for when the FAs are caught, just put 'em in Chippendales costumes (or Hooters outfits, for the FFAs) and slap 'em into Ashley's minion harem?



Is that's what's happening to all of Ashley's minions, or just those who have to be forced? Also, a harem is for women only and forbidden to men, so if it's a harem now, wouldn't we all have to be feminized and wearing Hooters outfits?


----------



## thirtiesgirl

NoWayOut said:


> Is that's what's happening to all of Ashley's minions, or just those who have to be forced?



They're being turned into cinniminions.


----------



## Redhotphatgirl

It's a truly weird and regrettable frame of mind, and I wish they wouldn't have to feel that way. Dissing the club that wants to welcome them with open arms makes no sense at all. And I really do not want for Dimensions to be a place where FAs have to feel guilty and unnatural for preferring fat partners.

I have seen this happen here and this is why even if i call dims home I have stopped posting much on the boards. There should not be this much friction between adults. If you read your aware that some guys of all venues do not know how to relate or act or treat as woman. It is not just fa men but i do see alot of men bashing and i have experienced it first hand in chat ....just cause you do not want people to act or feel a certain way does not mean they won't.

Relation ships weigh good and bad in all of us. Dang sometimes i dont even like my own self or my own reasons for doing something.


----------



## mossystate

Oy.

........................


----------



## dcoyote

If we're going to eat them, I think chocolate covered would work. Think chocolate covered bacon. I have yet to have it, but people seem to rave about it.


----------



## superodalisque

thirtiesgirl said:


> This is social constructivism, not a product of what genitalia a person is born with.
> 
> 
> 
> I believe society and culture plays a MUCH bigger role in determining social behavior than you're attributing here.
> 
> 
> 
> But that's my point. Vardon's favorite article simplistically makes the point that a person's gender is determined by what genitalia he or she is born with, completely leaving out social constructivism and gender determinism. A transperson would argue otherwise, knowing that just being born with the parts does not make them that gender. That comes with social constructivism and gender determinism - from society and culture, _not_ from them.
> 
> 
> 
> I know many women like to think there's something "mystical and special" about being a woman. I'm not one to subscribe to such beliefs. Emotionally and psychologically, I don't believe we're all that different from men, and I don't want my femininity to set me apart in that way. I believe there's more sameness than we'd like to think, and I believe most transpeople inherently, subconsciously know that.



i believe its much more of a social construct myself. and, i personally can't stand the "hardwired" bs. it has no basis in fact since we still are very far away from mapping the brain let alone the myriad processes like hormones that influence it. i personally feel its an excuse for bad behavior and a totally lack of responsibility for things that can be helped, changed or controlled if we had the social will to.

i agree that we are all mostly the same. we are all made of blood bone and sinew. we all have feelings. its a pretense for us to ignore all of those commonalities and that is what really is responsible for setting us at one another's throats. we refuse to talk and listen. we want to focus on being a victim, different and an outsider. we end up thinking we are hated more often than not when the truth is people are off living their own lives and could really probably care less about what we like or look like unless we ourselves make such a flipping big deal out of it--which we do!


----------



## LillyBBBW

superodalisque said:


> i believe its much more of a social construct myself. and, i personally can't stand the "hardwired" bs. it has no basis in fact since we still are very far away from mapping the brain let alone the myriad processes like hormones that influence it. i personally feel its an excuse for bad behavior and a totally lack of responsibility for things that can be helped, changed or controlled if we had the social will to.
> 
> i agree that we are all mostly the same. we are all made of blood bone and sinew. we all have feelings. its a pretense for us to ignore all of those commonalities and that is what really is responsible for setting us at one another's throats. we refuse to talk and listen. we want to focus on being a victim, different and an outsider. we end up thinking we are hated more often than not when the truth is people are off living their own lives and could really probably care less about what we like or look like unless we ourselves make such a flipping big deal out of it--which we do!



Supero, what kind of bad behavior are you talking about?


----------



## Ash

thirtiesgirl said:


> They're being turned into cinniminions.



I support this.


----------



## CPProp

I've just been told on the QT that all FA should be in a Brenda...........or was it a blender......oh crikey.....I'm all mixed up now


----------



## Seth Warren

thirtiesgirl said:


> They're being turned into cinniminions.



They do look like Twinkies...


----------



## superodalisque

LillyBBBW said:


> Supero, what kind of bad behavior are you talking about?



mainly for sexism,pigeon holing and self limitation on the part of both women and men.


----------



## Webmaster

superodalisque said:


> i...and, i personally can't stand the "hardwired" bs. it has no basis in fact since we still are very far away from mapping the brain let alone the myriad processes like hormones that influence it. i personally feel its an excuse for bad behavior and a totally lack of responsibility for things that can be helped, changed or controlled if we had the social will to....



so if someone's gay that's not hardwired just bad behavior and a lack of responsibility for something that can be helped, changed or control if gay people just had the will to...


----------



## exile in thighville

sorry accidentally logged in as 'Webmaster'


----------



## thirtiesgirl

Webmaster said:


> so if someone's gay that's not hardwired just bad behavior and a lack of responsibility for something that can be helped, changed or control if gay people just had the will to...



I didn't read anything in Oda's post to suggest that she's saying being gay = bad behavior. I'm not sure where your assumption comes from.


----------



## superodalisque

Webmaster said:


> so if someone's gay that's not hardwired just bad behavior and a lack of responsibility for something that can be helped, changed or control if gay people just had the will to...



people who are gay still have male and female characteristics. i have no idea where it comes from and it doesn't matter to me. all i know is that they are people who love and have hearts and feelings just like i do. i don't need any biological pseudo science to know that. i don't need a lab coat and they don't need a scapegoat to explain why they love who they love r how. all they are responsible for is their own personal behavior. people loving each other is not bad behavior. victimizing each other is though. all i need to do is recognize their humanity and not judge them based on who and how they love that might be different from how i do. they get taken on their own merits as individual human beings.

bad behavior is something to be put on an individual person and what they do and the personal choices they make. if you are trying to hint that sexual preference isn't bad behavior , i agree with that already and have done many times. bad behavior or good behavior has nothing to do with an entire group or a sexual designation but the individual person. it has to do with particular individuals and what they do. the mistake you're making here is the same one thats been made before. its an all or none mentality. for me, an FA who engages in bad behavior is just that--an FA who engages in bad behavior. NOT every FA. he is only a person not a monolith. he isn't part of an indivisible body. 

i was also speaking to the tendency of people to use so called "hard wiring" as an excuse for why its okay for them to do things that are individually unacceptable. they'd like to be able to hide it in amongst a group. like when people say "every body does..." well everybody doesn't and everyone has choices about how they express whatever identity they have. its not about being an FA or being gay its about HOW you express that. are you positive or are you detrimental? i have very seldom heard gay people pull the "hard wired" card. they usually say its their sexual reference or more likely their sexual identity. i really like that because it doesn't sound like they are making excuses or apologizing for who they are or how they behave. but the "hard wired" thing is mainly associated with behaviors and not identity. besides, an FA is not an electrical engineering project. he is a man-- a human. he's not just something you can turn on and off like a switch.


personally i don't even feel the term helps people express the best aspects of the preference. i'm very interested in language. i've studied it and i know its impact. i feel a term like Fat Admirer inevitably leads to objectification over everything else because it does not have a person as the object of admiration, only "the fat". language has a creative property. its shapes thoughts and actions. thats why we use it. IMO there needs to be a term thats more personal. i think it would help people to feel more comfortable with themselves and each other. i think it would especially help those people who want others to understand that it is a preference for them and NOT a fetish.


----------



## Paquito

this is one of the worst thread derailments I've seen in a while...


----------



## Fish

Webmaster said:


> so if someone's gay that's not hardwired just bad behavior and a lack of responsibility for something that can be helped, changed or control if gay people just had the will to...



Holy poop. She didn't mention homosexuality, you did. You chose to make the leap from a comment about bad behavior not being hard-wired immediatly to a comparriosn with homosexuality? You *DO *realize that you pretty much just said that homosexuality is a "bad behavior"? Is this how you think?

This is painfully telling here, oh lord high muckity muck.


----------



## CastingPearls

Fish said:


> Holy poop. She didn't mention homosexuality, you did. You chose to make the leap from a comment about bad behavior not being hard-wired immediatly to a comparriosn with homosexuality? You *DO *realize that you pretty much just said that homosexuality is a "bad behavior"? Is this how you think?
> 
> This is painfully telling here, oh lord high muckity muck.


No, THAT is how he wanted to paint her as thinking in order to undermine her credibility.

Low, but not unexpected.


----------



## Ash

My eyes. They cannot roll hard enough.


----------



## superodalisque

CastingPearls said:


> No, THAT is how he wanted to paint her as thinking in order to undermine her credibility.
> 
> Low, but not unexpected.



yeah he basically wanted to indicate that i thought FA, which is also a sexual preference or sexual identity, is synonymous with bad behavior. but i don't. never have.


----------



## exile in thighville

fishhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh


----------



## superodalisque

exile in thighville said:


> he wasn't seeing things




only what he'd like to see


----------



## Fish

CastingPearls said:


> No, THAT is how he wanted to paint her as thinking in order to undermine her credibility.
> 
> Low, but not unexpected.



Well, he failed miserably in that attempt. He chose to take what Superodalisque posted and twist it to make it seem nonsensical but only served to show his own thinking. Superodalisque didn't mention homosexuality or even infer it and the comparrison he tried to shoehorn into her comments doesn't fit.


----------



## Fish

exile in thighville said:


> fishhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh



Fall asleep on the letter "h"?


----------



## superodalisque

exile in thighville said:


> sorry accidentally logged in as 'Webmaster'



that was no accident


----------



## exile in thighville

you guyskkkkkkkkkk


----------



## liz (di-va)

What is this fight about? 

I've seen it 999999999 times around here, but I want to know, because I don't: what's at stake? What are the winnings here? If you win, what do you get? What are people trying to prove?


----------



## CastingPearls

superodalisque said:


> that was no accident


The enemy of my enemy is my friend.


----------



## superodalisque

liz (di-va) said:


> What is this fight about?
> 
> I've seen it 999999999 times around here, but I want to know, because I don't: what's at stake? What are the winnings here? If you win, what do you get? What are people trying to prove?



sorry mommie . we'll behave from now on


----------



## frankman

So would this be a bad time to ask for nekkid pics?


----------



## Fish

exile in thighville said:


> you guyskkkkkkkkkk



I'm DESPERATELY trying to think of something to say about the hillarious use of the letter "k" in here that the mods won't delete. *Sigh*



liz (di-va) said:


> What is this fight about?
> 
> I've seen it 999999999 times around here, but I want to know, because I don't: what's at stake? What are the winnings here? If you win, what do you get? What are people trying to prove?



This thread was created to sarcastically mock legit threads questioning the behavior and actions of some people who refer to themselves as "fa's" and are given carte blanche to behave rudely because of that. The argument that has grown out of many posts, my own included, is that the flippiant attitude in the early posts here devalues a serious discussion that is often disregarded and parodied disproportionally.

There's nothing to win, really, but some think it's an argument worth having.


----------



## supersoup

frankman said:


> So would this be a bad time to ask for nekkid pics?



of course not.

my people will contact your people for the trade.


----------



## Ash

Fish said:


> This thread was created to sarcastically mock legit threads questioning the behavior and actions of *some people who refer to themselves as "fa's" and are given carte blanche to behave rudely because of that. * The argument that has grown out of many posts, my own included, is that the flippiant attitude in the early posts here devalues a serious discussion that is often disregarded and parodied disproportionally.
> 
> There's nothing to win, really, but some think it's an argument worth having.



Um. Where? Where are they given carte blanche? 

I'd really like to know. For realsies.

Also, sorry to devalue your serious discussion here by, you know, joking. Didn't mean to be flippiant (sic).


----------



## indy500tchr

I've been reading this thread from the beginning and still don't get the point or is that what I'm supposed to be thinking?


----------



## Carrie

Fish said:


> This thread was created to sarcastically mock legit threads questioning the behavior and actions of some people who refer to themselves as "fa's" and are given carte blanche to behave rudely because of that. The argument that has grown out of many posts, my own included, is that the flippiant attitude in the early posts here devalues a serious discussion that is often disregarded and parodied disproportionally.


If that's all you truly think this is about, you're missing the boat.


----------



## frankman

This thread is weird. I prefer the conversations on the paysite board.
Much less creepy. (sarcasm...............?)


----------



## exile in thighville

fish thinking i'm racist is so great

time to watch huge


----------



## Ash

exile in thighville said:


> fish thinking i'm racist is so great
> 
> time to watch huge



He also thinks you for real feed people to death. You're a legend.


----------



## superodalisque

frankman said:


> This thread is weird. I prefer the conversations on the paysite board.
> Much less creepy. (sarcasm...............?)



at least we're getting some action in here for a change. the boards were getting kind of dull. lets play!


----------



## mossystate

joswitch said:


> So you like the "no preference" guys then...
> Just like Tracy (TracyArts). Got it.
> Gosh those bisizuals are popular, eh? lucky fellas!
> 
> Heh. I'm not worried about you Mossy - f'sure you can look after yourself...



No, jos...you don't " got it ". Instead of telling some women what we want or don't want...read what we are actually saying.

heh

Now we got it.


----------



## Seth Warren

exile in thighville said:


> fish thinking i'm racist is so great



He thought I was a racist first. You know, because I voted for Hillary in the primary...I must be the biggest racist ever!


----------



## frankman

superodalisque said:


> at least we're getting some action in here for a change. the boards were getting kind of dull. lets play!



True, true. I'll be there in a moment. Snide remarks will follow as soon as I'm finished jerking off to people's avatars.

I really need to get me one of those carte blanches. Anyone know who hands them out?


----------



## Ash

frankman said:


> True, true. I'll be there in a moment. Snide remarks will follow as soon as I'm finished jerking off to people's avatars.
> 
> I really need to get me one of those carte blanches. Anyone know who hands them out?



I'm the new keeper of carte blanches. You like fat women, so you get one.


----------



## frankman

Ashley said:


> I'm the new keeper of carte blanches. You like fat women, so you get one.



Sweet! Easy as pie. 
Hmmm pie...

Fedding! 

Hm, I think I'll be another moment. 
And the best thing is that it's all legit!


----------



## swordchick

I thought this thread was created because some people think that Superodalisque hates FAs and no one has the balls to say that.


----------



## exile in thighville

nah she just hates me


----------



## frankman

exile in thighville said:


> nah she just hates me



Did you unfriend her or something?


----------



## swordchick

I wouldn't be surprise if she really does hate you. But who doesn't hate you?



exile in thighville said:


> nah she just hates me


----------



## superodalisque

exile in thighville said:


> nah she just hates me



nah i don't hate you. you'd KNOW if i hated you. just pissed off for a minute.


----------



## superodalisque

frankman said:


> Did you unfriend her or something?



lol he friended me unknowingly without my permission


----------



## exile in thighville

supero's a nice lady

some of her friends are duh-umb but she's fine


----------



## superodalisque

exile in thighville said:


> supero's a nice lady
> 
> some of her friends are duh-umb but she's fine



watch it buster!


----------



## exile in thighville

she also says i felt her up or something which would've been worth it and she has a lovely physique but was unfortunately not quite as steamy as she tells it

are there any more elephants in the room to poach or can i go watch nikki blonsky overact herself into a k-hole


----------



## swordchick

He doesn't know how your friends roll.



superodalisque said:


> watch it buster!


----------



## superodalisque

exile in thighville said:


> she also says i felt her up or something which would've been worth it and she has a lovely physique but was unfortunately not quite as steamy as she tells it
> 
> are there any more elephants in the room to poach or can i go watch nikki blonsky overact herself into a k-hole



nah actually i'm pissed because you invaded our group without our knowledge and spread everything you could that people who were talking privately. i have a problem with guys who lack honor.


----------



## Paquito

exile in thighville said:


> she also says i felt her up or something which would've been worth it and she has a lovely physique but was unfortunately not quite as steamy as she tells it
> 
> are there any more elephants in the room to poach or can i go watch nikki blonsky overact herself into a k-hole



Last episode she rummaged through the trash for a doughnut. I can't help but think that if you were there, you would have jumped out of the trashcan with a dozen doughnuts and force fed them to her.

I would definitely like the show more in that case.


----------



## LovelyLiz

Paquito said:


> Last episode she rummaged through the trash for a doughnut. I can't help but think that if you were there, you would have jumped out of the trashcan with a dozen doughnuts and force fed them to her.
> 
> I would definitely like the show more in that case.



But to be fair, who hasn't rummaged through the trash for a donut?


j/k...but donuts still f-ing rock.


----------



## superodalisque

swordchick said:


> He doesn't know how your friends roll.



lol. he hasn't met you yet has he?


----------



## CastingPearls

mcbeth said:


> But to be fair, who hasn't rummaged through the trash for a donut?
> 
> 
> j/k...but donuts still f-ing rock.


Donuts no. Danishes, French or Italian pastry---hells yeah. (Cos I has standards)


----------



## thirtiesgirl




----------



## Wagimawr

Carrie said:


> If that's all you truly think this is about, you're missing the boat.


Well right now this boat is shaped like a fucking Escher painting - I'm going up a downward staircase sitting on top of my head!

Anybody who masterminded this thing mind clearing it up a bit for the peanut gallery down here?

I mean, my guess is no, cause people can't keep their fighting fists in their pockets, so a thread lock is inevitable...but before that? Anybody? Bueller?


----------



## superodalisque

mcbeth said:


> But to be fair, who hasn't rummaged through the trash for a donut?
> 
> 
> j/k...but donuts still f-ing rock.



dammit i dropped my krispy kreme! 

View attachment krispy kreme 054.JPG


View attachment Hot_Krispy_Kremes.jpg


----------



## thirtiesgirl

Paquito said:


> Last episode she rummaged through the trash for a doughnut. I can't help but think that if you were there, you would have jumped out of the trashcan with a dozen doughnuts and force fed them to her.
> 
> I would definitely like the show more in that case.



A different perspective from Lesley over at Fatshionista!

"At the diner, Will turns over a milk crate and stands on it to look inside the dumpster. She surveys the garbage anxiously, searching for the donuts, and finds them, grabbing one with what looks like coffee grounds stuck to it. Will holds the donut, conflicted, desperate. ...Will clutches her dumpster donut and begs no one in particular for help.

"At Wills age, Id spent so much of my life in forced denial. I could not remember how it was, as it must have been at some point, to eat a meal without a constant running tally of calories and fat grams thrumming in my head. I have to this day no memories prior to my early twenties, of eating anything, ever, and truly enjoying it. Eating was a chore to be gotten through; food could not be choked down quickly enough, and the faster I ate the less I had to think about it. I have often observed that I never craved sugar in my life prior to dieting, and I only learned to eat cellophane-wrapped snack cakes and waxen candy bars as a rebellion, a revolt against the tyranny of the cupboard at home filled with blue and white Jenny Craig boxes, a mutiny upon the Weight Watchers lists. Denial breeds craving  deprivation makes us desire whatever were missing more and more. Will holds her coffee-ground-sprinkled forbidden donut like a trophy or a hard-won prize; she ought to be able to eat a donut, right? She ought to be trusted to take care of her own body, to manage her desires, to take pleasure in food."


----------



## mossystate

* fondles supero's donut - with not much finesse *


----------



## imfree

Removed song


----------



## thirtiesgirl

imfree said:


> This song works pretty well.
> Don Henley/The Eagles-
> Dirty Laundry
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hu_egdxKTMk



Don't like the Eagles.


----------



## superodalisque

thirtiesgirl said:


> Don't like the Eagles.



freakin rep limits!


----------



## exile in thighville

superodalisque said:


> nah actually i'm pissed because you invaded our group without our knowledge and spread everything you could that people who were talking privately. i have a problem with guys who lack honor.



i didn't spread everything that i could haha


----------



## MizzSnakeBite

joswitch said:


> You mean like Mardi Gras and Spring Break? But with cute fat chicks? That'd be AWESOME!



Yeah, I'm sure you'd love it.



joswitch said:


> ^I remember when this thread was funny...



I know, I just hate it when a snark-filled post turns into real discussion about the original issue.

Back to the gifs. 



Green Eyed Fairy said:


> I date a chubby guy.....any special door prizes for me? Where's my ticket stub?
> 
> I feel so cheated.....cuz I'm extra special.



Greenie, you deserve your own parade! 

I'll have to give you an extra ticket to the FA parade since your own isn't doable right now.  My cousin will be getting married very soon to an average sized woman, so I'm giving him is own parade! He needs props for his preference of a certain percentage of fat on a partner!




liz (di-va) said:


> What is this fight about?
> 
> I've seen it 999999999 times around here, but I want to know, because I don't: what's at stake? What are the winnings here? If you win, what do you get? What are people trying to prove?



Possibly ask the OP?


----------



## mossystate

MizzSnakeBite said:


> Possibly ask the OP?




* insert Orson Welles' clapping gif here *


----------



## MaxArden

...Aaaaand scene!


----------



## Ash

I wonder why my "Fat women will cause the world to end" thread didn't turn out like this.

Must be because no fat women act rudely. Or because we don't throw parades for fat women around here. Hmm.


----------



## exile in thighville




----------



## The Orange Mage

It's trying to communicate!


----------



## superodalisque

exile in thighville said:


> i didn't spread everything that i could haha



hmmm... the tattler  

View attachment 635711vs5.jpg


View attachment the riddler.jpg


----------



## swordchick

You know better than that. I don't eat "weiss" meat.



superodalisque said:


> lol. he hasn't met you yet has he?


----------



## LillyBBBW

superodalisque said:


> mainly for sexism,pigeon holing and self limitation on the part of both women and men.



Sometimes the things you say leave an eerie reminder of the old old days when women were allowed to be beaten by their husbands, given hysterectomies and told that their issues were all in their heads and just an excuse. It was all okay because their wasn't enough science to support bla bla bla but there's plenty of Viagra in the candy dish for everyone. What's the difference? Is it really this bad?


----------



## LillyBBBW

indy500tchr said:


> I've been reading this thread from the beginning and still don't get the point or is that what I'm supposed to be thinking?



Me either indy. It seems at times like people here are talking about two separate things. Like an idiot once again, I've been trying to understand it all. Now it looks like things might be fueled by some personal gripes that many of us are unaware of. Waste of time.


----------



## joswitch

thirtiesgirl said:


> I completely agree. This happening would also mean that fat women are seen as 'just' fat women, with no explanation needed, no discussion of the political nature of what it means to be a fat woman in public, no need to view the sexuality and desires of fat women as anything outside the norm (the 'norm,' by my definition, including all sexual kink and fetishes, from fat fetishism to S&M to cross dressing, since kink and fetishes are part of sexuality, too). ...But that happening, fat women being seen as 'just' fat women with no explanation needed, is predicated upon the idea that *all women are seen, by men and women alike, as beings no different from men,* not mysterious, unobtainable goddesses, unable to be understood by men, yet in need of their judgment and possession, or 'weaker beings' needing to be taught, raised up and given purpose and confidence by men or the ability to obtain and keep a relationship of any kind.



^that was your entire post. "No different" is not qualified in any way.



thirtiesgirl said:


> Again, I haven't once disagreed that we aren't different biologically. But that wasn't my point, which Joswitch went miles out of his way to misinterpret, as he seems to like to do. My point was that there is no research to prove that we have emotional and psychological differences, and arguing biological determinism won't prove that. *snip*



^the problem with your repeated attempts at historical revisionism - they don't work anywhere there's an indelible record of what you ACTUALLY wrote. Fail. Again.



thirtiesgirl said:


> *snip* not taking into account the *billions* of transpeople *snip*



How many billions exactly? Two billion? Or is it more?

At first I thought you keep doing this stuff (wild hyperbole/generalizations, unfounded rhetoric, chop logic) just cos you're in such a rush to deliver all the pre-programmed lectures you carry around in your head, that you just miswrite a lot, cos you keep tripping over your brain.

Having watched you run through this routine a few times now, I can see it's deliberate. 

This is *thirtiesgirl's "bait and switch" method for arguing*:
1) Opening assertion "the bait" - must contain absurd, unqualified, no evidence generalization. Claim this as an epic revelation.
2) Wait for someone to oppose 1)
3) "The switch" - Retreat from position 1) by qualifying it to the point it is merely ordinary commonsense, while simultaneously: 
a) claiming to never have altered from position 1) 
and 
b) strawman / smear whoever dared call you on your absurdity. 
4) repeat endlessly until "opponent" gets bored and leaves. Lots of newspeak verbiage, especially words with extra, useless syllables like constructivism (instead of construction) are of great help in achieving 4)
5) present a revisionist conclusion of the argument to a 3rd party, presenting yourself as hero / genius.
6) have a party in your pants.

Gotcha.


----------



## exile in thighville

superodalisque said:


> hmmm... the tattler








have you thought about joining g-unit


----------



## supersoup

exile in thighville said:


> have you thought about joining g-unit



is there any free literature with this proposal?


----------



## exile in thighville

there's a pamphlet about twisting the definition of honor to meet your needs


----------



## supersoup

exile in thighville said:


> there's a pamphlet about twisting the definition of honor to meet your needs



i'll take 1,000. i'd like to start distributing.


----------



## joswitch

MizzSnakeBite said:


> Yeah, I'm sure you'd love it.
> 
> 
> I know, I just hate it when a snark-filled post turns into real discussion about the original issue.



You mean the issue that some people, who happen to be FAs, are assholes?
Which has been aired in what? every other thread on Dims since forever?
Ad nauseum?



> *snip*
> Possibly ask the OP?



The snark is, of course, making this serious point:

If every time you were talking about someone who happened to be
white/black/jewish/gay/straight/male/female/trans/inter/othersex, 
one of your acquaintances without fail always brought up that they knew/have seen some people who are 
white/black/jewish/gay/straight/male/female/trans/inter/othersex
say or do something bad - "butofcoursethey'renotalllikethat"...
How long before you would begin to suspect they just protested too much?

How often could you sit through that story of that one time when that
white/black/jewish/gay/straight/male/female/trans/inter/othersex person 
was rude/stole/touched their bum, before you started to suspect that they were in fact predjudiced against that group?

*That*^. Is WTFthis is all about.
(with a 6 page detour for thirtiesgirl to steal everyone else's legos and be sick in the sandpit)


To sum it up:
The folks who are down on FAs are not going to stop making their voices heard about it.
Fine.

For everyone who has read it all before a thousand times, and is bored crapless with hearing the obvious, and the negative, endlessly and futilely* rehearsed....
We have the ignore button,
Snark threads,
and lolcat gifs.
Woo!  



*You didn't imagine for an instant that ANY of those asshole gropers EVER read these threads did you?


----------



## mercy

joswitch said:


> This is *thirtiesgirl's "bait and switch" method for arguing*:
> 1) Opening assertion "the bait" - must contain absurd, unqualified, no evidence generalization. Claim this as an epic revelation.
> 2) Wait for someone to oppose 1)
> 3) "The switch" - Retreat from position 1) by qualifying it to the point it is merely ordinary commonsense, while simultaneously:
> a) claiming to never have altered from position 1)
> and
> b) strawman / smear whoever dared call you on your absurdity.
> 4) repeat endlessly until "opponent" gets bored and leaves. Lots of newspeak verbiage, especially words with extra, useless syllables like constructivism (instead of construction) are of great help in achieving 4)
> 5) present a revisionist conclusion of the argument to a 3rd party, presenting yourself as hero / genius.
> 6) have a party in your pants.
> 
> Gotcha.



How fascinating. Perhaps you'd like an outside view of YOUR tactics in argument, given that they're so repetitive and predictable:

1) Pick up on a tiny, insignificant detail in the post you're criticising, wherein you know perfectly well what point the poster is making, but you've chosen to deliberately misinterpret so you can exploit any bad choice of words or an instance where someone has forgotten to add 10 million caveats to a statement. 

2) Exploit said detail with lots of text from an outside source, typically Wikipedia, in the full knowledge that nobody will ever bother to read the entire passage and argue any point within. 

3) Position yourself as intellectual superior by claiming understanding of thought processes/argumentative tactics of opponent and accusing the opponent of logical fallacies such as ad hominem and strawman, thereby dismissing any validity in the argument and avoiding the necessity to actually address relevant points raised therein. 

4) Finally position self as renegade/free thinker by accusing opponent of "pre-packaged"/"brainwashed"/indoctrinated thinking, ignoring the patronising/borderline misogynist implications of doing so. 

This is fun, isn't it?


----------



## joswitch

mercy said:


> How fascinating. Perhaps you'd like an outside view of YOUR tactics in argument, given that they're so repetitive and predictable:
> 
> 1) Pick up on a tiny, insignificant detail in the post you're criticising, wherein you know perfectly well what point the poster is making, but you've chosen to deliberately misinterpret so you can exploit any bad choice of words or an instance where someone has forgotten to add 10 million caveats to a statement.
> 
> 2) Exploit said detail with lots of text from an outside source, typically Wikipedia, in the full knowledge that *nobody will ever bother to read the entire passage and argue any point within*.
> 
> 3) Position yourself as intellectual superior by claiming understanding of thought processes/argumentative tactics of opponent and accusing the opponent of logical fallacies such as ad hominem and strawman, thereby dismissing any validity in the argument and avoiding the necessity to actually address relevant points raised therein.
> 
> 4) Finally position self as renegade/free thinker by accusing opponent of "pre-packaged"/"brainwashed"/indoctrinated thinking, ignoring the patronising/borderline misogynist implications of doing so.
> 
> This is fun, isn't it?



Hysterical! 

Especially the bolded bit where you admit to being hard-of-reading... That was awesome!

Also, underlined bit: you've missed all the arguments I've had on here with men then.

And you forgot to mock me for my love of formatting my posts...


----------



## Blackjack

joswitch and Supero have made the average post length at Dimensions Forums at least 40% longer than it would be if they weren't posting.

I've done the math.


----------



## joswitch

supersoup said:


> is there any free literature with this proposal?



Oh noes! Are the overlards gonna be turning all gangsta and rollin' mob deep and shizzle?? I are scurred!


----------



## joswitch

Blackjack said:


> joswitch and Supero have made the average post length at Dimensions Forums at least 40% longer than it would be if they weren't posting.
> 
> I've done the math.



I get paid by the pixel.


----------



## exile in thighville

if you actually got paid to write your posts would be as long as mine


----------



## joswitch

exile in thighville said:


> if you actually got paid to write your posts would be as long as mine



Oh snap! It burrrrrns...


----------



## JoyJoy

joswitch said:


> You mean the issue that some people, who happen to be FAs, are assholes?
> Which has been aired in what? every other thread on Dims since forever?
> Ad nauseum?
> 
> 
> 
> The snark is, of course, making this serious point:
> 
> If every time you were talking about someone who happened to be
> white/black/jewish/gay/straight/male/female/trans/inter/othersex,
> one of your acquaintances without fail always brought up that they knew/have seen some people who are
> white/black/jewish/gay/straight/male/female/trans/inter/othersex
> say or do something bad - "butofcoursethey'renotalllikethat"...
> How long before you would begin to suspect they just protested too much?
> 
> How often could you sit through that story of that one time when that
> white/black/jewish/gay/straight/male/female/trans/inter/othersex person
> was rude/stole/touched their bum, before you started to suspect that they were in fact predjudiced against that group?
> 
> *That*^. Is WTFthis is all about.
> (with a 6 page detour for thirtiesgirl to steal everyone else's legos and be sick in the sandpit)
> 
> 
> To sum it up:
> The folks who are down on FAs are not going to stop making their voices heard about it.
> Fine.
> 
> For everyone who has read it all before a thousand times, and is bored crapless with hearing the obvious, and the negative, endlessly and futilely* rehearsed....
> We have the ignore button,
> Snark threads,
> and lolcat gifs.
> Woo!
> 
> 
> 
> *You didn't imagine for an instant that ANY of those asshole gropers EVER read these threads did you?



Goddamn. No. Here's the summary: 

If don't already get it, you're likely not going to.


----------



## exile in thighville

we psuedogropers give the real ones a bad name


----------



## mercy

joswitch said:


> Especially the bolded bit where you admit to being hard-of-reading... That was awesome!



Hey I read 80% of the copy and pasted text you post, that's more than most people do. Even the completely irrelevant stuff, only I don't feel the need to make myself feel superior by shouting "strawman!" every time I do it. 

Or to put it in a manner you'd understand: _I don't feel the need to make myself feel superior by shouting *"strawman!"* every time I do it. _


----------



## joswitch

mercy said:


> Hey I read 80% of the copy and pasted text you post, that's more than most people do. Even the completely irrelevant stuff, only I don't feel the need to make myself feel superior by shouting "strawman!" every time I do it.
> 
> Or to put it in a manner you'd understand: _I don't feel the need to make myself feel superior by shouting *"strawman!"* every time I do it. _


----------



## mercy

Yawn. I see what you did there.


----------



## joswitch

exile in thighville said:


> we psuedogropers give the real ones a bad name







I love me a fish pun!


----------



## joswitch

mercy said:


> Yawn. I see what you did there.



Stop watching me! Stalker!


----------



## NoWayOut

This thread was supposed to be fun, not a debate. Let's go back to that.

Ash, if you turn us all into cinniminions, you'll have no minions left to do your bidding once you eat all of us. I'd suggest you eat some of us and keep the rest around to do whatever you ask.


----------



## exile in thighville

it's still fun!


----------



## thirtiesgirl

joswitch said:


> ...








Are you looking for this?


----------



## joswitch

thirtiesgirl said:


> Are you looking for this?



^I approve of this post.


----------



## thirtiesgirl

joswitch said:


> ^I approve of this post.



I'm so glad, hon. How would I _ever_ know if I was acceptable as feminine and womanly without your approval?


----------



## Lovelyone

When I first started reading this thread, I thought it was a funny but innocent tongue-in-cheek sarcasm. Did I misinterpret the thread? I laughed at a lot of the pics and some of the things that were said because I took it all with a grain of salt. OF course, *I* am not an FA--but having dealt with a certain handful of FA's who are EXACTLY like they are depicted here--I thought I understood the intent of the thread. Maybe I missed the message that said that we can't have a little fun at our own expense. Its sad to see threads like this deteriorate into arguments one side against the other.

ETA: As a big woman I deal with "having fun at my own expense" on a daily level, so I get that it takes a sense of humor to be able to do such a thing.


----------



## ryder

I am not saying anything outside of what i'm saying now on this topic.


----------



## D_A_Bunny

exile in thighville said:


> she also says i felt her up or something which would've been worth it and she has a lovely physique but was unfortunately not quite as steamy as she tells it
> 
> are there any more elephants in the room to poach or can i go watch nikki blonsky overact herself into a k-hole





superodalisque said:


> nah actually i'm pissed because you invaded our group without our knowledge and spread everything you could that people who were talking privately. i have a problem with guys who lack honor.





exile in thighville said:


> i didn't spread everything that i could haha



Someday in the future, I certainly don't know when, but someday, you exile in thighville, will realize the complete disrespectfulness that you have shown by doing what you have done. Hopefully you will be in a position in your life to accept the regret with grace and maturity and learn a positive and powerful life lesson.


----------



## Dromond

Good God, what a thread. Whoever said it's like an Escher painting is dead on.

I want to reply, but I'm confused as to what I should reply to. So here's a completely unrelated image.


----------



## mossystate

D_A_Bunny said:


> Someday in the future, I certainly don't know when, but someday, you exile in thighville, will realize the complete disrespectfulness that you have shown by doing what you have done. Hopefully you will be in a position in your life to accept the regret with grace and maturity and learn a positive and powerful life lesson.



* insert gif of Orson Welles clapping, unless it takes up too much bandwidth, since I know nothing about that kind of thing *


----------



## exile in thighville

D_A_Bunny said:


> Someday in the future, I certainly don't know when, but someday, you exile in thighville, will realize the complete disrespectfulness that you have shown by doing what you have done. Hopefully you will be in a position in your life to accept the regret with grace and maturity and learn a positive and powerful life lesson.



are you saying bad things will happen to me because i stumbled upon some not-very-private not-very-interesting insights such as "i think most of the young men on dims are gay and feel comfortable around big girls for some reason" and _dishonored_ them by pointing out they're stupid? or are you going to play some kind of gender card?

newsflash: threatening to gossip about me won't teach me (or you) any positive or powerful life lessons.


----------



## JoyJoy

exile in thighville said:


> are you saying bad things will happen to me because i stumbled upon some not-very-private not-very-interesting insights such as "i think most of the young men on dims are gay and feel comfortable around big girls for some reason" and _dishonored_ them by pointing out they're stupid? or are you going to play some kind of gender card?
> 
> newsflash: threatening to gossip about me won't teach me (or you) any positive or powerful life lessons.



No, she's saying your pants are so big you have a hard time walking in them, and that maybe some day you'll actually grow up. Maybe.


----------



## TraciJo67

Dan, you had your girlfriend register for a group that is invitation-only, for women only. And then you used her account to sign in, read what was written there, and then share said content with others. 

In what universe do you think anyone else but you would assume this is ok?


----------



## LillyBBBW

Holy freakin' rollerderby! So many layers.... so many layers.... I don't even know how to feel about all this. lol Which private forum did you infiltrate, exile, there're so many of them? On the one hand, all these super top secret forums for women only serve as a sobering example of the point many people have been trying to make in here about men and women, how they differ, how they're the same, how they communicate, etc. Differences. Similarities. Heh.

As amusing yet uninteresting as all of this is, I still feel I must point out that you seem a bit old for the little brother sifting through big sisters bloomer drawer and reading her diary thing. Though I'm not surprised. Your past exploits already made it clear that you'd throw a dead cat out in front of you to derail an argument. Wasn't even necessary. Why do you even care what goes on in the ladies room? What's your drive for all this?


----------



## exile in thighville

............................................................


----------



## thirtiesgirl

Are you on your period?


----------



## exile in thighville

i like to keep em guessing.


----------



## thirtiesgirl

exile in thighville said:


> i like to keep em guessing.



About what? Your intentions?


----------



## exile in thighville

my commitment to other people's miserablism


----------



## vardon_grip

D_A_Bunny said:


> Someday in the future, I certainly don't know when, but someday, you exile in thighville, will realize the complete disrespectfulness that you have shown by doing what you have done. Hopefully you will be in a position in your life to accept the regret with grace and maturity and learn a positive and powerful life lesson.





TraciJo67 said:


> Dan, you had your girlfriend register for a group that is invitation-only, for women only. And then you used her account to sign in, read what was written there, and then share said content with others.
> 
> In what universe do you think anyone else but you would assume this is ok?



Is this the scourge that was referred to in the original post?


----------



## LillyBBBW

exile in thighville said:


> my commitment to other people's miserablism



LOL!! The title of this thread has now taken on a whole new dimension of meaning thanks to you exile. Conflatulations.


----------



## exile in thighville

thread imitates life


----------



## Paquito

If all this serious discussion is just a plow to make us stop fapping, you clearly underestimate me.

Still fapfapfapfapfaping.


----------



## TraciJo67

vardon_grip said:


> Is this the scourge that was referred to in the original post?


 
For my part, absolutely not. 

I agree with Lilly's assessment above, actually. And over the course of the last few months, have found myself surprised to actually warming towards Dan. I've been known to toss a cat or two in my day, so in that, I think we understand each other. He's also wicked hilarious. My opinion, FWIW (that, and $5 gets a Triple Venti Vanilla Latte @ Starbucks), is that he's a young man who is exactly where he needs to be at this stage in his life. 

That isn't to say that he doesn't annoy the hell out of me at times, but no, I don't view him as a 'scourge' at all.


----------



## joswitch

thirtiesgirl said:


> I'm so glad, hon. How would I _ever_ know if I was acceptable as feminine and womanly without your approval?



Just keep the simulated oral sex and surrealist pics coming and you're golden...


----------



## Fish

JoyJoy said:


> No, she's saying your pants are so big you have a hard time walking in them, and that maybe some day you'll actually grow up. Maybe.



Cursed forum won't let me rep you!


----------



## joswitch

Dromond said:


> Good God, what a thread. Whoever said it's like an Escher painting is dead on.
> 
> I want to reply, but I'm confused as to what I should reply to. So here's a completely unrelated image.



bunny is carrying pancakes to the overlards...
He is tiny bunny minion... 
pancake bunny for the win!


----------



## thirtiesgirl

joswitch said:


> Just keep the simulated oral sex and surrealist pics coming and you're golden...



Ah, yes, because of course my intent in posting a pic of a woman yawning was to sexually excite you. Any open mouth, whether in protest, yawn or speech, apparently will work.


----------



## joswitch

thirtiesgirl said:


> Are you on your period?



Irony:

that thirtiesgirl - who claims to be all for redefinition of gender and the champion of transpeeps everaywhere! - persistently employs feminization as though it were some kind of slur* against men...

I'd walk y'all through the implications of that, but I'm sure you can see it all for yourselves...

(*not that I take it as a slur - lol)


----------



## Carrie

Reading this thread now is like watching a bunch of toy poodles trying to mount each other. 

It's hot.


----------



## LillyBBBW

TraciJo67 said:


> For my part, absolutely not.
> 
> I agree with Lilly's assessment above, actually. And over the course of the last few months, have found myself surprised to actually warming towards Dan. I've been known to toss a cat or two in my day, so in that, I think we understand each other. He's also wicked hilarious. My opinion, FWIW (that, and $5 gets a Triple Venti Vanilla Latte @ Starbucks), is that he's a young man who is exactly where he needs to be at this stage in his life.
> 
> That isn't to say that he doesn't annoy the hell out of me at times, but no, I don't view him as a 'scourge' at all.



I don't know. At first I found it all amusing but I do feel badly for the people who were possibly a part of that private forum who weren't even involved in any of this kerfluffel. The sanctity of whatever privacy they tried to enjoy for themselves was deliberately and maliciously defiled. There was no intent for him to see any of that crap and he's no dummy, he knew this. Poor.


----------



## joswitch

vardon_grip said:


> Is this the scourge that was referred to in the original post?



The Scourge is here! 

(this is more funny if you read Clive Barker horrorbooks)


----------



## joswitch

Paquito said:


> If all this serious discussion is just a plow to make us stop fapping, you clearly underestimate me.
> 
> Still fapfapfapfapfaping.



fap on dude!
*high five*
Ewww... Sticky...  

where have the overlards got to anyway?
I was looking forward to my impending doom at their chubby hands...


----------



## TraciJo67

LillyBBBW said:


> I don't know. At first I found it all amusing but I do feel badly for the people who were possibly a part of that private forum who weren't even involved in any of this kerfluffel. The sanctity of whatever privacy they tried to enjoy for themselves was deliberately and maliciously defiled. There was no intent for him to see any of that crap and he's no dummy, he knew this. Poor.


 
It wasn't a good thing to do, no. But then, we have other women who've been 'run tell dat' also, and this is something that should be anticipated on the front end whenever a 'private' group is formed. And, there's this thing about there really never being any true privacy on the internet. Not excusing his actions, nor minimizing them in any way. Just saying that from my end, it was a loathsome thing to do but when framing it in my perspective, it's not exactly violating HIPAA or the attorney/client privilege. It's the internet. 

And all that aside, Vardon asked a pointed question about the so-called FA 'scourge' which is (again, in my opinion) a completely separate issue. I wouldn't be at all comfortable with pinning that label to Dan's narrow lapel ;o)


----------



## joswitch

thirtiesgirl said:


> Ah, yes, because of course my intent in posting a pic of a woman yawning was to sexually excite you. Any open mouth, whether in protest, yawn or speech, apparently will work.



You really are type IV-rated* sarcasm proof aren't you?... Did you do special training for that?

(*see ballistic armour ratings, type IV = plate)


----------



## joswitch

Carrie said:


> Reading this thread now is like watching a bunch of toy poodles trying to mount each other.
> 
> It's hot.



Throw some whipped cream on it and roll VT! 

(VT = videotape - me so 80s!)


----------



## exile in thighville

TraciJo67 said:


> For my part, absolutely not.
> 
> I agree with Lilly's assessment above, actually. And over the course of the last few months, have found myself surprised to actually warming towards Dan. I've been known to toss a cat or two in my day, so in that, I think we understand each other. He's also wicked hilarious. My opinion, FWIW (that, and $5 gets a Triple Venti Vanilla Latte @ Starbucks), is that he's a young man who is exactly where he needs to be at this stage in his life.
> 
> That isn't to say that he doesn't annoy the hell out of me at times, but no, I don't view him as a 'scourge' at all.



sincere and honest thank you! that was a surprise. and you're more in the rival than nemesis column these days yourself.


----------



## mossystate

lol

.............................................................


----------



## CastingPearls

Carrie said:


> Reading this thread now is like watching a bunch of toy poodles trying to mount each other.
> 
> It's hot.


Throw in a couple of weiner dogs for contrast and color.

And cos I like weiners.


----------



## LillyBBBW

CastingPearls said:


> Throw in a couple of weiner dogs for contrast and color.
> 
> And cos I like weiners.



lol! Just what this thread needs. Someone to toss in some raw meat.


----------



## vardon_grip

TraciJo67 said:


> It wasn't a good thing to do, no. But then, we have other women who've been 'run tell dat' also, and this is something that should be anticipated on the front end whenever a 'private' group is formed. And, there's this thing about there really never being any true privacy on the internet. Not excusing his actions, nor minimizing them in any way. Just saying that from my end, it was a loathsome thing to do but when framing it in my perspective, it's not exactly violating HIPAA or the attorney/client privilege. It's the internet.
> 
> And all that aside, Vardon asked a pointed question about the so-called FA 'scourge' which is (again, in my opinion) a completely separate issue. I wouldn't be at all comfortable with pinning that label to Dan's narrow lapel ;o)



I feel that it is related. I think bad or creepy behavior gets lumped together with the rest. If you have douchebags that call themselves FA's it gets really hard to separate the douchebag behavior from the body size/sexual preference. It may not be right to lump it together, but when you have an FA who is a creep, it doesn't help to dispel other FA "myth's".


----------



## mossystate

Get rid of the obsessive need to wrap yourself in a label, to hide in it, sometimes because you find it benefits you ( general you ), and sometimes because others might be casting aspersions and lump everybody into a pile.. and you won't have to fret about so many things.

A fa is someone who like fat bodies. Does not make them a nice person...a mean person...a good, or a bad person. There is a reason so many need that label, and wrap themselves in it...need it for more than ease of identifying on a messageboard.


----------



## thirtiesgirl

joswitch said:


> You really are type IV-rated* sarcasm proof aren't you?... Did you do special training for that?
> 
> (*see ballistic armour ratings, type IV = plate)



No, I just tire of boys who seem to need approval from every fat woman on this website and then behave like a frat boy who got turned down by the hottie at the Phi Kappa Delta party when one of them doesn't.


----------



## exile in thighville

i mean really if any of us were above it we wouldn't be here in this thread engaging in it


----------



## AnnMarie

Blackjack said:


> Yeah, the term is pretty offensive and is very likely to alienate the person if you read way too much into it and take it far too literally.



BUT WHO WOULD DO THAT????


----------



## LillyBBBW

mossystate said:


> Get rid of the obsessive need to wrap yourself in a label, to hide in it, sometimes because you find it benefits you ( general you ), and sometimes because others might be casting aspersions and lump everybody into a pile.. and you won't have to fret about so many things.
> 
> A fa is someone who like fat bodies. Does not make them a nice person...a mean person...a good, or a bad person. There is a reason so many need that label, and wrap themselves in it...need it for more than ease of identifying on a messageboard.



.... or two, or three. Private ones even. Come on Mossy, you're on this board rolling around in this blanket too. How is that different?


----------



## wrench13

Just a quick anecdote:


while hanging around outside a venue that was to hold a regular BBW dance, 
a guy was just spouting the most reprehensible things about women and big girls in particular, every cliche' in the book, the likes of which would inflame this board, rabidly. Honestly, I had never really heard someone mouth these things in person. 

Now I am a pretty hardened character, but wow, this stuff made me ashamed of my gender. I can well understand the hesitation in a lot of ladies in even letting a self proposed FA chat let alone meet them. 

nuff said


----------



## mossystate

LillyBBBW said:


> .... or two, or three. Private ones even. Come on Mossy, you're on this board rolling around in this blanket too. How is that different?



?

I didn't understand this...explain? I was talking about the label ' fa '. I wasn't talking about this thread, if that is what you are talking about? Or something about labels?

?


----------



## LillyBBBW

mossystate said:


> ?
> 
> I didn't understand this...explain? I was talking about the label ' fa '. I wasn't talking about this thread, if that is what you are talking about? Or something about labels?
> 
> ?



No, I was talking about your reference to the need to wrap one's self in a lebel. It just seems to me that being here, on this forum, includes everyone in this assessment including yourself - unless I'm misunderstanding your meaning?


----------



## MizzSnakeBite

joswitch said:


> You mean the issue that some people, who happen to be FAs, are assholes?
> Which has been aired in what? every other thread on Dims since forever?
> Ad nauseum?
> 
> 
> 
> The snark is, of course, making this serious point:
> 
> If every time you were talking about someone who happened to be
> white/black/jewish/gay/straight/male/female/trans/inter/othersex,
> one of your acquaintances without fail always brought up that they knew/have seen some people who are
> white/black/jewish/gay/straight/male/female/trans/inter/othersex
> say or do something bad - "butofcoursethey'renotalllikethat"...
> How long before you would begin to suspect they just protested too much?
> 
> How often could you sit through that story of that one time when that
> white/black/jewish/gay/straight/male/female/trans/inter/othersex person
> was rude/stole/touched their bum, before you started to suspect that they were in fact predjudiced against that group?
> 
> *That*^. Is WTFthis is all about.
> (with a 6 page detour for thirtiesgirl to steal everyone else's legos and be sick in the sandpit)
> 
> 
> To sum it up:
> The folks who are down on FAs are not going to stop making their voices heard about it.
> Fine.
> 
> For everyone who has read it all before a thousand times, and is bored crapless with hearing the obvious, and the negative, endlessly and futilely* rehearsed....
> We have the ignore button,
> Snark threads,
> and lolcat gifs.
> Woo!
> 
> 
> 
> *You didn't imagine for an instant that ANY of those asshole gropers EVER read these threads did you?






JoyJoy said:


> Goddamn. No. Here's the summary:
> 
> If don't already get it, you're likely not going to.



Thank you, Joy, thank you.



NoWayOut said:


> This thread was supposed to be fun, not a debate. Let's go back to that.



LOL No it wasn't.

It was to get everyone riled up and create divides.



LillyBBBW said:


> Holy freakin' rollerderby! So many layers.... so many layers.... I don't even know how to feel about all this. lol Which private forum did you infiltrate, exile, there're so many of them? On the one hand, all these super top secret forums for women only serve as a sobering example of the point many people have been trying to make in here about men and women, how they differ, how they're the same, how they communicate, etc. Differences. Similarities. Heh.
> 
> As amusing yet uninteresting as all of this is, I still feel I must point out that you seem a bit old for the little brother sifting through big sisters bloomer drawer and reading her diary thing. Though I'm not surprised. Your past exploits already made it clear that you'd throw a dead cat out in front of you to derail an argument. Wasn't even necessary. Why do you even care what goes on in the ladies room? What's your drive for all this?



Don't Date Him Fat Girl. That's the group. People having problems with it started this "fun."

Dan has said he doesn't believe in private forums and wants to know everything since he loves gossip. Guess the private SS forum should beware, huh?


----------



## mossystate

LillyBBBW said:


> No, I was talking about your reference to the need to wrap one's self in a lebel. It just seems to me that being here, on this forum, includes everyone in this assessment including yourself - unless I'm misunderstanding your meaning?



I don't think that being on this forum ( I assume you mean Dims as a whole ) automatically means someone is wrapping themselves in labels. I mean, I don't do it. As I have said, I am not talking about using a label as a quick way of identifying.


----------



## exile in thighville

i can speak with my own mouth, thanks. i don't believe in _moderated_ forums. private ones just inevitably cease to be private. gossip makes undeniable conversation. the personal tribulations of the supersized not so much.


----------



## ashmamma84

I am indulging in the most delicious Oreo cupcakes my partner brought home last night. (cause she's a horrible feeder  

Totally willing to share. 

Takers?


----------



## exile in thighville

now cupcakes _are_ a scourge


----------



## CastingPearls

ashmamma84 said:


> I am indulging in the most delicious Oreo cupcakes my partner brought home last night. (cause she's a horrible feeder
> 
> Totally willing to share.
> 
> Takers?


ME ME MEeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!! <halfsies?>


----------



## ashmamma84

It's a tough job, but somebody has to do it, exile.


----------



## Paquito

Something has been serious bugging me with this thread.

The Scourge that is FAs. It just sounds like...incorrect grammar to me? But I don't know, I just can't place my finger on it.

The Scourge that are FAs doesn't work, because "are" isn't correct with "scourge."

The Scourge that is FA? The Scourge that is the FA population? Those batshit crazy fat humpers? 

I guess I better sleep on it.


----------



## ashmamma84

CastingPearls said:


> ME ME MEeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!! <halfsies?>



*hands CP a GIANT oreo cupcake w/buttercream, whip cream, extra fattening, omg! frosting on top*


----------



## superodalisque

MizzSnakeBite said:


> Thank you, Joy, thank you.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL No it wasn't.
> 
> It was to get everyone riled up and create divides.
> 
> 
> 
> Don't Date Him Fat Girl. That's the group. People having problems with it started this "fun."
> 
> Dan has said he doesn't believe in private forums and wants to know everything since he loves gossip. Guess the private SS forum should beware, huh?



i'll never get why Dan doesn't support private forums. DWR is a private forum and he started that. its also by invitation only. there is also a guys version of DDHFG which is also private. so why can he have privacy and other people can't? i don't get that. the way this is being approached is so small minded, hypocritical and punitive.

basically DDHFG was started so that we could vent without people taking it personally. especially since there are people here who just don't want to hear it. we tried taking it somewhere else but we still have people who don't belong poking their heads in and trying to control how we think or feel. actually a lot of things are discussed there including good guys. its great for FAs who are great guys because if there are rumors and they don't really apply to the person lots of people jump in to say so. a whole lot of misconceptions about people have been cleared up.


----------



## CastingPearls

ashmamma84 said:


> *hands CP a GIANT oreo cupcake w/buttercream, whip cream, extra fattening, omg! frosting on top*


The bigger the better.  Thanks. NOM NOM NOM


----------



## ashmamma84

Oooooohhhh so many private forums. Stuff of rainbows and unicorns.


----------



## mercy

This thread needs cliff notes. I swear it just took me like an hour to disentangle it all.


----------



## Dolce

Oh someone please invite me to DDHFG! I want to see if any of my guys are on the list! Oh please this would be so great! Someone... anyone... please! And is there a Don't Date Her Skinny Guy? Or do men even care?


----------



## MizzSnakeBite

exile in thighville said:


> i can speak with my own mouth, thanks. i don't believe in _moderated_ forums. private ones just inevitably cease to be private. gossip makes undeniable conversation. the personal tribulations of the supersized not so much.



Ooooooooh, somebody's getting snippy. Guess I hit a nerve. 

Oh, and Dan, DDHFG isn't moderated, but you already know that since you're in there snooping. 



superodalisque said:


> i'll never get why Dan doesn't support private forums. DWR is a private forum and he started that. its also by invitation only. there is also a guys version of DDHFG which is also private. so why can he have privacy and other people can't? i don't get that. the way this is being approached is so small minded, hypocritical and punitive.
> 
> basically DDHFG was started so that we could vent without people taking it personally. especially since there are people here who just don't want to hear it. we tried taking it somewhere else but we still have people who don't belong poking their heads in and trying to control how we think or feel. actually a lot of things are discussed there including good guys. its great for FAs who are great guys because if there are rumors and they don't really apply to the person lots of people jump in to say so. a whole lot of misconceptions about people have been cleared up.



Because he's not in the thick of things, telling everyone how to act, say, feel. Funny, how he says he thinks everything should be in the open, but he suddenly becomes mute when asked about who gave him access.


----------



## exile in thighville

superodalisque said:


> i'll never get why Dan doesn't support private forums. DWR is a private forum and he started that. its also by invitation only. there is also a guys version of DDHFG which is also private.



1. DWR is not private or exclusive and i already said this upthread

2. there is no guys version of DDHFG


----------



## superodalisque

Dolce said:


> Oh someone please invite me to DDHFG! I want to see if any of my guys are on the list! Oh please this would be so great! Someone... anyone... please! And is there a Don't Date Her Skinny Guy? Or do men even care?



i thought i had invited you already! send me your e-mail address and i'll send you an invitation


----------



## D_A_Bunny

exile in thighville said:


> 1. DWR is not private or exclusive and i already said this upthread
> 
> 2. there is no guys version of DDHFG



DWR which is an acronym for DIMENSIONS WITHOUT RULES is indeed private.


----------



## exile in thighville

if it's ok with conrad i'll put this out there:

if anyone wants to join an unofficial extension of dimensions i created on facebook to converse with the same people unmoderated, send me a message and have a facebook page. sometimes it operates just like this place. sometimes people talk shit about people. either way, it's taken my stress away from posting here. it's set as private per request so it won't show up on members' profiles, but anyone who asks is allowed in.


----------



## superodalisque

exile in thighville said:


> 1. DWR is not private or exclusive and i already said this upthread
> 
> 2. there is no guys version of DDHFG





if DWR isn't private why do you need an invite to join?

thats not what i heard about the male version

even if that was true it doesn't mean no one else should be allowed privacy . i shouldn't have to live my life in a way that you approve of and neither should anyone else. there are things that occur in your group do that i don't approve of but it doesn't mean you can't do them. ever heard of live and let live? it was just low the way you reposted and caused intimate stuff about people to be tweeted all over in public. it was totally un FA related. i'm really surprised that you really can't get how messed up that is.


----------



## exile in thighville

if it's ok with conrad i'll put this out there:

if anyone wants to join an unofficial extension of dimensions i created on facebook to converse with the same people unmoderated, send me a message and have a facebook page. sometimes it operates just like this place. sometimes people talk shit about people. either way, it's taken my stress away from posting here.

it's set as "private" on facebook per request so it won't show up on members' profiles, but anyone who asks is allowed in.


----------



## exile in thighville

superodalisque said:


> if DWR isn't private why do you need an invite to join?



ask the members, who requested it against my wishes initially.



superodalisque said:


> even if that was true it doesn't mean no one else should be allowed privacy.



it's not that i don't believe in privacy. it's that you suck at it. another thing is that i couldn't have been the cause because i heard about it through other guys' "tweeting." it's impossible that you're so in denial about how juicy information travels in a small community on the internet or think that i'm the only person who sees it just because i'm the only one so rudely posting things from it. and finally, i didn't repost anything "intimate", unless homophobia counts.


----------



## Dolce

superodalisque said:


> i thought i had invited you already! send me your e-mail address and i'll send you an invitation



Actually, on second thought, I don't want to know! I'm getting a tummy ache just thinking about it!


----------



## supersoup

R.I.P. thread, you were so young.


----------



## ashmamma84

exile in thighville said:


> ask the members, who requested it against my wishes initially.
> 
> 
> 
> it's not that i don't believe in privacy. it's that you suck at it. another thing is that i couldn't have been the cause because i heard about it through other guys' "tweeting." it's impossible that you're so in denial about how juicy information travels in a small community on the internet or think that i'm the only person who sees it just because i'm the only one so rudely posting things from it. and finally, i didn't repost anything "intimate", *unless homophobia counts*.



Bigotry abounds. Sad.


----------



## thirtiesgirl

Paquito said:


> Something has been serious bugging me with this thread.
> 
> The Scourge that is FAs. It just sounds like...incorrect grammar to me? But I don't know, I just can't place my finger on it.
> 
> The Scourge that are FAs doesn't work, because "are" isn't correct with "scourge."
> 
> The Scourge that is FA? The Scourge that is the FA population? Those batshit crazy fat humpers?
> 
> I guess I better sleep on it.



The FA Scourge. Sounds like a hipster band.


----------



## Dolce

supersoup said:


> R.I.P. thread, you were so young.



I've got to get out of here for a few days! I think I am overdosing on Dims! Yes it got exciting but my adrenal glands are getting exausted!


----------



## swordchick

Damn, Dolce, I miss you. But I don't want you to have a tummy ache. 



Dolce said:


> Actually, on second thought, I don't want to know! I'm getting a tummy ache just thinking about it!


----------



## superodalisque

exile in thighville said:


> if it's ok with conrad i'll put this out there:
> 
> if anyone wants to join an unofficial extension of dimensions i created on facebook to converse with the same people unmoderated, send me a message and have a facebook page. sometimes it operates just like this place. sometimes people talk shit about people. either way, it's taken my stress away from posting here.
> 
> it's set as "private" on facebook per request so it won't show up on members' profiles, but anyone who asks is allowed in.



same with my group. except its a girls group. the only reason guys are not there is because of their tendency to take exception to what we have t o say and feel hurt. just for once we wanted things to focus n women without thier experiences being invalidated and looked down on. when a lot of women have anything to say about bad behavior a lot of people take it so very personally and say that its being applied to all FAs. a lot of women also disagree too but they have a way of doing that without out trying to totally invalidate or belittle anyone. we have our moments but we can always come back together and agree to disagree. 

it would just be nice for women to have a place to talk it out on their own unmediated unmoderated and unsilenced, work it out and not get shushed. its just some freedom thats been found lacking. some of the things are just things they don't want to talk about in front of guys. sometimes things do get said there because they don't want to hurt anyone's feelings in public but they think it should be talked about. they often ask other people what they think of their take and whether they've had similar experiences. you should know that because you read it. its odd that anything there should bother you because our group is nowhere near as nasty and demeaning as yours is.

instead of understanding and being supportive you went on and on about how lame and boring it was. but that was because it was not meant for you, or to entertain you. see, this is why some women get a bad attitude about FAs and why some BBWs get so paranoid. you infiltrated a group where you weren't invited and had reasons to be private and tried to intimidate everyone there by saying you'd tell what you knew and making sure to indicate you'd do it any time you could. the way you've acted has been very immature. you're like the irritating little brother who always wants to invade the sleep over and then bribes people later on by saying he'll tell what he heard or saw if he doesn't get what he wants. its just bad form altogether--pretty slimy. it doesn't bother me if you say stuff about me but it really upsets me how you were able to try and debase other people who've never done anything to you. just bad form all around.


----------



## swordchick

Who are the homophobes? Did I miss it?


----------



## mercy

superodalisque said:


> same with my group. except its a girls group.



Is it a general group for fat women, or does it specifically address specific individuals that I (as a Brit) am not likely to come into contact with?


----------



## superodalisque

exile in thighville said:


> ask the members, who requested it against my wishes initially.
> 
> 
> 
> it's not that i don't believe in privacy. it's that you suck at it. another thing is that i couldn't have been the cause because i heard about it through other guys' "tweeting." it's impossible that you're so in denial about how juicy information travels in a small community on the internet or think that i'm the only person who sees it just because i'm the only one so rudely posting things from it. and finally, i didn't repost anything "intimate", unless homophobia counts.



why should i have to be an expert at espionage to have my privacy respected by a peeping Tom? sure i'm positive other guys knew some things. we were all well aware that was probably going to happen. the difference was how you used the info you had. everyone there knew things would slip out at times. but you were the only one who tried to threaten or demean people with what you did know. thats what was so low about it.


----------



## mossystate

jebus...it's not always about seeing information, cuz few things _are_ truly private...it's what one does with the information...saying that, " well, so-and-so started it "...that is what can be so lame, at the very least


----------



## superodalisque

mercy said:


> Is it a general group for fat women, or does it specifically address specific individuals that I (as a Brit) am not likely to come into contact with?[/QUOTE
> 
> message me and i'll tell you


----------



## exile in thighville

ashmamma84 said:


> Bigotry abounds. Sad.



this is really all i was trying to comment on when i posted private stuff from the ddhfg group - i was literally shocked by how hateful and small-minded the stuff i read was, by people in a community that's supposed to survive on tolerance.

i don't parrot my feminism anymore around here because i'd be laughed out of the park and i've taken to just going with the all-dumb-all-dark-jokes-all-the-time persona because it's the easiest. but i really do talk shit just to talk shit; like, i have a running thing about hating Fish. he's got the smuggest look in his avatar and his opinions are self-righteous bunk. but we're all on the same side and i'd give him a drink of water (or at least my pee) in the desert, etc.

deep-seated fear, hatred and bullying really do throw me into a tizzy where i feel the need to level the playing field. i don't just go attacking girl-power coalitions for being; i'm really glad for the unity and safety people can feel from this site and doing anything they can do protect themselves from evil in the world. *but that doesn't make everything that they say correct, true or right*, and some people are there for revenge, lies and petty stuff. they have the right to privacy _if they can keep it private_ and if i hear someone's opinion i'm going to give it my own opinion. some girls even want us to hear the ugly stuff it seems. supero should know that people tend to honor their friends first.


----------



## JoyJoy

dan, the whole issue is kind of like your mama's panty drawer. You know it's there and that she doesn't keep a lock on it, but it's her space, you know it's not for you, so you just stay out of it no matter how tempting it is for you to fondle the silky bits. 

It matters not how you feel about private forums or moderated forums. You crossed a line, now be a man (?) and admit you were wrong, AND that your meddling cronies were wrong for helping you.

Of course, this analogy is all contingent on the fact that you do, indeed stay out of your mama's panty drawer.


----------



## exile in thighville

i feel truly bad for your twisted logic joy.


----------



## JoyJoy

exile in thighville said:


> i feel truly bad for your twisted logic joy.



My twisted logic is relieved. How's your fucked-up reasoning these days?


----------



## exile in thighville

i think we're on the same page


----------



## superodalisque

JoyJoy said:


> dan, the whole issue is kind of like your mama's panty drawer. You know it's there and that she doesn't keep a lock on it, but it's her space, you know it's not for you, so you just stay out of it no matter how tempting it is for you to fondle the silky bits.
> 
> It matters not how you feel about private forums or moderated forums. You crossed a line, now be a man (?) and admit you were wrong, AND that your meddling cronies were wrong for helping you.
> 
> Of course, this analogy is all contingent on the fact that you do, indeed stay out of your mama's panty drawer.



doesn't his logic sound like what they used to say about rape way back in the 70s? "She wore a short skirt so she got what she deserved." tg his mamma doesn't wear short skirts--poor thing if she does.


----------



## swordchick

Fish hate you, too. One of the reasons that he hates your ass is your bullshit excuse for the use of the "n"-word. It's not okay to be a homophobe nor a racist. I love his "smug" avatar because it proves that he is talented. He shows every day what a good man he is. He doesn't need your water or your pee because he has true friends who would give more than you have to offer. He doesn't have an online persona to keep up with.


----------



## exile in thighville

well how can anyone disagree with an argument that compares me to rape


----------



## exile in thighville

swordchick said:


> Fish hate you, too. One of the reasons that he hates your ass is your bullshit excuse for the use of the "n"-word. It's not okay to be a homophobe nor a racist. I love his "smug" avatar because it proves that he is talented. He shows every day what a good man he is. He doesn't need your water or your pee because he has true friends who would give more than you have to offer. He doesn't have an online persona to keep up with.



all righttttttttttttttttt


----------



## swordchick

I am glad that you recognize that I am right.



exile in thighville said:


> all righttttttttttttttttt


----------



## exile in thighville

right about what? your boyfriend hating me?


----------



## superodalisque

thirtiesgirl said:


> The FA Scourge. Sounds like a hipster band.



maybe it can return by christmas time as "The FA Scrooge" and hten we can all go caroling together. at least that movies has a happy ending.


----------



## JoyJoy

exile in thighville said:


> well how can anyone disagree with an argument that compares me to rape



Well, rape is a bit extreme, but you know...you went in where you knew you weren't supposed to be, took information that wasn't meant for you. Now you try to justify it as something the people who put it there did wrong. Your logic doesn't fly and you're just not big enough to admit you were wrong.


----------



## swordchick

LOL! I am right. You do not need to question me. He is so cool that he would never ask me what's going in a private group.


exile in thighville said:


> right about what? your boyfriend hating me?


----------



## exile in thighville

and if you tell yourself that over and over, someday it'll really happen


----------



## exile in thighville

JoyJoy said:


> Well, rape is a bit extreme, but you know...you went in where you knew you weren't supposed to be, took information that wasn't meant for you. Now you try to justify it as something the people who put it there did wrong. Your logic doesn't fly and you're just not big enough to admit you were wrong.



yes, rape is a bit extreme.


----------



## Carrie

superodalisque said:


> *see, this is why some women get a bad attitude about FAs and why some BBWs get so paranoid. * you infiltrated a group where you weren't invited and had reasons to be private and tried to intimidate everyone there by saying you'd tell what you knew and making sure to indicate you'd do it any time you could. the way you've acted has been very immature. you're like the irritating little brother who always wants to invade the sleep over and then bribes people later on by saying he'll tell what he heard or saw if he doesn't get what he wants. its just bad form altogether--pretty slimy. it doesn't bother me if you say stuff about me but it really upsets me how you were able to try and debase other people who've never done anything to you. just bad form all around.


Here's the thing, though: that logic is flawed. Dan didn't peep on the don't date him group because he's a FA, he did it because he's a nosy parker. I will never understand why so much regular human dipshit behavior is attributed to FA-ness in this "community". I'm pretty frequently a dipshit, and I'm pretty sure it has nothing to do with what gets my sexual crank going. If someone wants to use this experience to dislike Dan, fine, dislike Dan, but to think that his behavior in this instance somehow represents all FAs is just wacky.


----------



## swordchick

What do you mean? Is is okay to use the "n"-word because it is a sense of brotherhood?



exile in thighville said:


> and if you tell yourself that over and over, someday it'll really happen


----------



## superodalisque

exile in thighville said:


> yes, rape is a bit extreme.



i thought i needed an extreme example so the mentality would be starkly out there and maybe you could see it.


----------



## exile in thighville

superodalisque said:


> i thought i needed an extreme example so the mentality would be starkly out there and maybe you could see it.



yes, more people agree with you when you attach fear to your shitty argument.


----------



## exile in thighville

swordchick said:


> What do you mean? Is is okay to use the "n"-word because it is a sense of brotherhood?



is it okay for _who_ to use it?


----------



## superodalisque

Carrie said:


> Here's the thing, though: that logic is flawed. Dan didn't peep on the don't date him group because he's a FA, he did it because he's a nosy parker. I will never understand why so much regular human dipshit behavior is attributed to FA-ness in this "community". I'm pretty frequently a dipshit, and I'm pretty sure it has nothing to do with what gets my sexual crank going. If someone wants to use this experience to dislike Dan, fine, dislike Dan, but to think that his behavior in this instance somehow represents all FAs is just wacky.



i agree with that. but if people are seeing other things they CAN get a bad stereotype. thats why i called Dan on it. i didn't say all of the other FAs were in where they didn't belong --just Dan. i don't have an FA conspiracy theory. but if a BBW gets a compilation of different types of bad behaviors from a lot of guys identifying she COULD develop a badatude. its only natural. thats why you can't let guys go with stuff. if you don't maybe they'll stop and not add to the bad stereotype thats muddying up other FAs. what he did personally was messed up. it has nothing to do with other FAs except that it makes things harder for them. i don't think the guys who aren't doing that kind of stuff need that.


----------



## swordchick

I didn't know that you changed your name to who. You think it is okay to be a racist but not to be a homophobe.



exile in thighville said:


> is it okay for _who_ to use it?


----------



## LillyBBBW

MizzSnakeBite said:


> Don't Date Him Fat Girl. That's the group. People having problems with it started this "fun."
> 
> Dan has said he doesn't believe in private forums and wants to know everything since he loves gossip. Guess the private SS forum should beware, huh?



Ohhhhhhh, I forgot that forum. Maybe this is somewhat flip-floppy of me but my fist is somewhat unfurled now that I realize it was this forum. That one *BEGGED* to be infiltrated. It seems almost obvious that nosey-assed exile would be the mole who would blow the whole thing. That script wrote itself. I didn't think it would happen this quick though.


----------



## superodalisque

exile in thighville said:


> yes, more people agree with you when you attach fear to your shitty argument.



hey, sometimes a shitty argument often illuminates another shitty argument very well, especially when the shit runs parallel.


----------



## exile in thighville

let's really cut the bullshit about my sentencing though, it doesn't matter if i'm "wrong" or "right". i was able to do it, and we've all learned a lot from that.


----------



## ashmamma84

swordchick said:


> I didn't know that you changed your name to who. You think it is okay to be a racist but not to be a homophobe.



Well I personally think both are horrible. And, I'd hope (maybe a bit naive of me) that DDHFG group doesn't harbor homophobes because that would be all kinds of f'd up, considering that specific demographic, you know.


----------



## swordchick

I think it is funny that people think that Superodalisque hates FAs but FAs love her and she is friends with so many FAs.


----------



## superodalisque

LillyBBBW said:


> Ohhhhhhh, I forgot that forum. Maybe this is somewhat flip-floppy of me but my fist is somewhat unfurled now that I realize it was this forum. That one *BEGGED* to be infiltrated. It seems almost obvious that nosey-assed exile would be the mole who would blow the whole thing. That script wrote itself. I didn't think it would happen this quick though.



nope it didn't take long at all. i think what really pissed him off though was that he wasn't mentioned in it until after he did all of that stuff. he probably feels better now that he has his own thread lol. lil bro got his attention.


----------



## superodalisque

ashmamma84 said:


> Well I personally think both are horrible. And, I'd hope (maybe a bit naive of me) that DDHFG group doesn't harbor homophobes because that would be all kinds of f'd up, considering that specific demographic, you know.



you should join. we need ALL of our sister's wisdom to sort things out. you won't be alone there.


----------



## swordchick

That is my point. DDHFG is very diverse.



ashmamma84 said:


> Well I personally think both are horrible. And, I'd hope (maybe a bit naive of me) that DDHFG group doesn't harbor homophobes because that would be all kinds of f'd up, considering that specific demographic, you know.


----------



## superodalisque

swordchick said:


> That is my point. DDHFG is very diverse.



maybe not very yet, but we sure are trying. that him could very easily be a her.


----------



## exile in thighville

swordchick said:


> I didn't know that you changed your name to who. You think it is okay to be a racist but not to be a homophobe.



uh what pppppppppppppppppp


----------



## Carrie

superodalisque said:


> i agree with that. but if people are seeing other things they CAN get a bad stereotype. thats why i called Dan on it. i didn't say all of the other FAs were in where they didn't belong --just Dan. i don't have an FA conspiracy theory. but if a BBW gets a compilation of different types of bad behaviors from a lot of guys identifying she COULD develop a badatude. its only natural. thats why you can't let guys go with stuff. if you don't maybe they'll stop and not add to the bad stereotype thats muddying up other FAs. what he did personally was messed up. it has nothing to do with other FAs except that it makes things harder for them. i don't think the guys who aren't doing that kind of stuff need that.


Honestly, I think you're not giving women the credit for critical thinking that they deserve here. I think you're raw with Dan, understandably so, and instead of just sticking to "you're a dick, Dan", you're turning this into a big grand morality play, with the future of FAdom riding on the shoulders of one.


----------



## joswitch

MizzSnakeBite said:


> Thank you, Joy, thank you.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL No it wasn't.
> 
> It was to get everyone riled up and create divides.
> 
> 
> 
> *Don't Date Him Fat Girl*. That's the group. People having problems with it started this "fun."
> 
> Dan has said he doesn't believe in private forums and wants to know everything since he loves gossip. Guess the private SS forum should beware, huh?



There's really a group devoted just to that??
Holy shit.
And I thought I was kidding about FAphobia...
Guess again....


----------



## Fish

exile in thighville said:


> 1. DWR is not private or exclusive and i already said this upthread





exile in thighville said:


> it's set as private per request so it won't show up on members' profiles, but anyone who asks is allowed in.



Wow. You revealed how full of shit your one post was in your very next post. Nice. It's like your doing everyone else's job of pointing out your lies FOR us. Thanks.



exile in thighville said:


> i was literally shocked by how hateful and small-minded the stuff i read was, by people in a community that's supposed to survive on tolerance.



Concedering how you pride yourself on editing your own posts in DWR, reading hateful, small-minded stuff should hardly be shocking to you.



exile in thighville said:


> i don't parrot my feminism anymore around here because i'd be laughed out of the park and i've taken to just going with the all-dumb-all-dark-jokes-all-the-time persona because it's the easiest.



Soooo, you have valid, well thought out opinions but keep them to yourself because your too lazy to be a real person AND out of fear of being mocked for them? Mature and classy. 



exile in thighville said:


> but i really do talk shit just to talk shit; like, i have a running thing about hating Fish. he's got the smuggest look in his avatar and his opinions are self-righteous bunk.



As usual, you confuse opinions that are outside your realm of understanding as "self-righteous". But they're simply my HONEST, persona-free opinions and I'm not too much of a coward to express them regardless of what people might think of me. And I'm certainly not afraid of being "laughed out of the park" for it. 

Ya' know, I don't think I can hate you anymore. After reading the above... I think I just pity you. By your own admission, you're nothing more than a frightened child that would rather hide behind a wanna-be "bad boy" persona then risk ridicule for expressing your true feelings. 

I can't hate you outright anymore since you've never bothered showing your true face in here and I'm not going to waste my anger on a *"persona"* so you can get off on it.



exile in thighville said:


> but we're all on the same side



No, we're not. Not until you grow up.


----------



## superodalisque

joswitch said:


> There's really a group devoted just to that??
> Holy shit.
> And I thought I was kidding about FAphobia...
> Guess again....



respectfully, this is exactly why its all female. its just too much whining self pity.


----------



## Wild Zero

I wasn't aware of this private male version of DDHFG.


----------



## exile in thighville

Fish said:


> Wow. You revealed how full of shit your one post was in your very next post. Nice. It's like your doing everyone else's job of pointing out your lies FOR us. Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> Concedering how you pride yourself on editing your own posts in DWR, reading hateful, small-minded stuff should hardly be shocking to you.
> 
> 
> 
> Soooo, you have valid, well thought out opinions but keep them to yourself because your too lazy to be a real person AND out of fear of being mocked for them? Mature and classy.
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, you confuse opinions that are outside your realm of understanding as "self-righteous". But they're simply my HONEST, persona-free opinions and I'm not too much of a coward to express them regardless of what people might think of me. And I'm certainly not afraid of being "laughed out of the park" for it.
> 
> Ya' know, I don't think I can hate you anymore. After reading the above... I think I just pity you. By your own admission, you're nothing more than a frightened child that would rather hide behind a wanna-be "bad boy" persona then risk ridicule for expressing your true feelings.
> 
> I can't hate you outright anymore since you've never bothered showing your true face in here and I'm not going to waste my anger on a *"persona"* so you can get off on it.
> 
> 
> 
> No, we're not. Not until you grow up.



it's good that you found your girl because i've never seen two people thrive so knowingly on willful self-misinterpretation. relax.


----------



## The Orange Mage

Wild Zero said:


> I wasn't aware of this private male version of DDHFG.



Plenty of females in DWR, too, bro.


----------



## mossystate

_" I wasn't aware of this private male version of DDHFG. "_


It's real...and I have already seen some of the posts.


----------



## Carrie

Wild Zero said:


> I wasn't aware of this private male version of DDHFG.


I support this group only if there is a great deal of marveling at my sexual prowess there.


----------



## swordchick

Stop being a hater! We thrive on sex and chocolate.



exile in thighville said:


> it's good that you found your girl because i've never seen two people thrive so knowingly on willful self-misinterpretation. relax.


----------



## joswitch

JoyJoy said:


> dan, the whole issue is kind of like your mama's panty drawer. You know it's there and that she doesn't keep a lock on it, but it's her space, you know it's not for you, so you just stay out of it no matter how tempting it is for you to fondle the silky bits.
> 
> It matters not how you feel about private forums or moderated forums. You crossed a line, now be a man (?) and admit you were wrong, AND that your meddling cronies were wrong for helping you.
> 
> Of course, this analogy is all contingent on the fact that you do, indeed stay out of your mama's panty drawer.



Hey, Dan - where'd you get them meddling cronies? I should get me some of them!


----------



## exile in thighville

i'm not a hater, but i _am_ racist


----------



## Wild Zero

Carrie said:


> I support this group only if there is a great deal of marveling at my sexual prowess there.



I'd support the group if it wasn't an imaginary product of rage and paranoia.


----------



## mossystate

I'm just glad this thread served its purpose. lol


----------



## JoyJoy

Yeah, I think this whole thing has devolved and gotten twisted. Because really, I don't believe any one of us posting in this thread dislike FAs as a whole. We just dislike men who behave badly...which is how it got on the subject of dan, the little boy who can't keep his hands off of other people's things.


----------



## JoyJoy

joswitch said:


> Hey, Dan - where'd you get them meddling cronies? I should get me some of them!



Ooh burn! I think it's a three-pointer.


----------



## superodalisque

joswitch said:


> Hey, Dan - where'd you get them meddling cronies? I should get me some of them!



from his mamma's pantie drawer


----------



## swordchick

You also enjoy sneaking into DDHFG. Sad.



exile in thighville said:


> i'm not a hater, but i _am_ racist


----------



## mossystate

It was twisted from the beginning, but some decided to not remain silent. I don't dislike men who are attracted to fat women...unless they give me reason to dislike them...and that could be a thousand different things. But I also won't swoon over the mere letters ...fa...that would be dumb as dumb can be. They are just men, as my fat does not define me past the physical. Plop.


----------



## mossystate

superodalisque said:


> from his mamma's pant drawer



Some gals have separate pants for that certain time of the month.


----------



## cinnamitch

swordchick said:


> Stop being a hater! We thrive on sex and chocolate.



mmm Chocolate. (It is sad that chocolate excited me more than sex isn't it?)


----------



## joswitch

superodalisque said:


> respectfully,


 but not really, eh?


> this is exactly why its *all female*. its just too much whining self pity.


 
lol! I was expressing surprise* - not "self-pity"...

But I see it's not really about FAphobia (for you), but just plain old dull as ditchwater misandry.... If men say anything at all that isn't just head nodding agreement they are "looking down/controlling/invalidating/whining/self-pitying/hurt".... Whatthefuckever.

*Surprise that there would be an entire forum thriving on an entirely negative premise... I hope there isn't a dude equivalent out there, and if there is I sure as hell won't be joining it....


----------



## Seth Warren

exile in thighville said:


> it's good that you found your girl because i've never seen two people thrive so knowingly on willful self-misinterpretation. relax.



Your quoting him reminded me as to why I put Fishy-wishy on my ignore list so many moons ago. Thank you.


----------



## joswitch

superodalisque said:


> i agree with that. but if people are seeing other things they CAN get a bad stereotype. thats why i called Dan on it. i didn't say all of the other FAs were in where they didn't belong --just Dan. i don't have an FA conspiracy theory. but if a BBW gets a compilation of different types of bad behaviors from a lot of guys identifying she COULD develop a badatude. its only natural. thats why you can't let guys go with stuff. if you don't maybe they'll stop and not add to the bad stereotype thats muddying up other FAs. what he did personally was messed up. it has nothing to do with other FAs except that it makes things harder for them. i don't think the guys who aren't doing that kind of stuff need that.


Maybe you're right, about "muddying". Even so -

I don't want to date/socialise or have anything to do with anyone who judges me on the grounds of what someone else does/did.


----------



## wrestlingguy

Wild Zero said:


> I wasn't aware of this private male version of DDHFG.



I don't know if there really is. I started a thread in the DWR group a few weeks ago putting some feelers out there, to see if guys felt there was value in a group like that, but there weren't enough positive responses to motivate me to move forward with it.

Methinks this may just be a few people here trying to put Dan's feet to the fire here, to drive him crazy looking for a group that may not in fact exist.


----------



## LillyBBBW

joswitch said:


> Maybe you're right, about "muddying". Even so -
> 
> I don't want to date/socialise or have anything to do with anyone who judges me on the grounds of what someone else does/did.



Nor do I. That is a HUGE peeve of mine. I've gotten personal responses that essentially say, "I'm looking for a strong independent woman who doesn't cause drama. Are you that woman?" and I'm instantly turned off. Talk about drama! Damaged goods. I don't even respond to someone who treats me or anybody like that.


----------



## JoyJoy

joswitch said:


> Maybe you're right, about "muddying". Even so -
> 
> I don't want to date/socialise or have anything to do with anyone who judges me on the grounds of what someone else does/did.



If that's what you think the group is about, then you're misinterpreting something. I think I said myself somewhere in this thread that it's about very specific examples. I personally base my opinions or merits of dating someone on how they present themselves to me. Nothing posted in any forum is going to color that, unless it's about that specific person. Which is the whole point.


----------



## Blackjack

JoyJoy said:


> you're misinterpreting something



This applies to so many people. And they know, Joy. It's done on purpose.


----------



## superodalisque

JoyJoy said:


> If that's what you think the group is about, then you're misinterpreting something. I think I said myself somewhere in this thread that it's about very specific examples. I personally base my opinions or merits of dating someone on how they present themselves to me. Nothing posted in any forum is going to color that, unless it's about that specific person. Which is the whole point.



yes exactly, you kinda have to be broad and nebulous in here or its seen as a personal attack. so while you're trying not to name names its probably much easier for a lot of people to assume you are talking about every FA since they weren't around when things happened. like someone said earlier in "the other place" even this thread uses so much shorthand and in jokes that a lot of people especially the new ones don't have a clue whats going on underneath.

that was the entire point of going somewhere else to discuss that because then you can be more specific open and honest everyone will know you aren't generalizing to every FA. you're just talking about one person in particular. so the monitoring and the rules here make it look orderly but in the long run it makes for more tension. i love no monitoring or rules. then people just hash things out. we disagree a whole lot but its great to just say what you have to say without having to say something stupid like "some FAs". its taken very badly on dims if you tell your truth, your whole truth, so help you God. 

ok i gotta go and live IRL for a while.


----------



## joswitch

JoyJoy said:


> If that's what you think the group is about, then you're misinterpreting something. I think I said myself somewhere in this thread that it's about very specific examples. I personally base my opinions or merits of dating someone on how they present themselves to me. Nothing posted in any forum is going to color that, unless it's about that specific person. Which is the whole point.



My post was nothing to do with "the group".
It was specifically in response to superO's "how a person could develop a badatude" post.
And what my attitude is to people who might have such a prejudiced "badatude" (for whatever reason) towards me, or for that matter anyone else they've never met before...
That is all.


----------



## JoyJoy

joswitch said:


> My post was nothing to do with "the group".
> It was specifically in response to superO's "how a BBW could develop a badatude" post.
> And what my attitude is to people who might have such a "badatude".
> That is all.



Gotcha now...I was the one who misunderstood what you were saying. Sorry.

Still, though, Felecia has a point. Women who run into the guys who hurt them over and over are likely to get a bad attitude, yes. But if we have a place where we can discuss and name names and realize that the behavior is NOT widespread and become more objective, and that there are good guys out there, FA or not, it could help change attitudes. And, by the way, we point out the good guys there, too.


----------



## thirtiesgirl

superodalisque said:


> maybe it can return by christmas time as "The FA Scrooge" and hten we can all go caroling together. at least that movies has a happy ending.



I'm down. As long as I get an alcoholic wassail or two, I'm a happy gal. "...have yourself a merry little thickmas..."


----------



## joswitch

JoyJoy said:


> Gotcha now...I was the one who misunderstood what you were saying. Sorry.


No problem


----------



## mossystate

thirtiesgirl said:


> I'm down. As long as I get an alcoholic wassail or two, I'm a happy gal. "...have yourself a merry little thickmas..."



I read that as your wanting an alcoholic weasel.


and I am stopping right there


----------



## Ash

Carrie said:


> I support this group only if there is a great deal of marveling at my sexual prowess there.



I have my own private group for that.


----------



## indy500tchr

LillyBBBW said:


> Ohhhhhhh, I forgot that forum. Maybe this is somewhat flip-floppy of me but my fist is somewhat unfurled now that I realize it was this forum. That one *BEGGED* to be infiltrated. *It seems almost obvious that nosey-assed exile would be the mole who would blow the whole thing.* That script wrote itself. I didn't think it would happen this quick though.



Not to add more flames to the fire but ummm wasn't it his girlfriend that showed him the site? He didn't do it all by his little self. Not saying I defend what he has done but she (or one of her many "friends") was the one who gave him the information. I'd be more pissed at that.


----------



## thirtiesgirl

mossystate said:


> I read that as your wanting an alcoholic weasel.
> 
> 
> and I am stopping right there



Heh. I've had one or two of those before and learned my lesson. No more. Just hot buttered rum or cider with rum. Yum. ...Rum...


----------



## Dromond

Carrie said:


> I support this group only if there is a great deal of marveling at my sexual prowess there.



I have no knowledge of your sexual prowess, but I do have the hot bananas for your bod. I could definitely marvel about that.


----------



## Dromond

indy500tchr said:


> Not to add more flames to the fire but ummm wasn't it his girlfriend that showed him the site? He didn't do it all by his little self. Not saying I defend what he has done but she (or one of her many "friends") was the one who gave him the information. I'd be more pissed at that.



That is too logical. I'm afraid you'll have to edit your post to add more histrionics.


----------



## indy500tchr

Dromond said:


> That is too logical. I'm afraid you'll have to edit your post to add more histrionics.



DAMMIT! Logic is all I got right now. I'm too tired to come up with something nonsensical at the moment.


----------



## Wagimawr

Did we ever clear up the discussion about DWR?

If I recall correctly, the only reason DWR went private was because some people didn't want the things they say and do there showing up on their Facebook walls. Blame THEM.



superodalisque said:


> the monitoring and the rules here make it look orderly but in the long run it makes for more tension. i love no monitoring or rules. then people just hash things out. we disagree a whole lot but its great to just say what you have to say without having to say something stupid like "some FAs". its taken very badly on dims if you tell your truth, your whole truth, so help you God.



so _so *so so so so*_ true.


----------



## LoveBHMS

indy500tchr said:


> Not to add more flames to the fire but ummm wasn't it his girlfriend that showed him the site? He didn't do it all by his little self. Not saying I defend what he has done but she (or one of her many "friends") was the one who gave him the information. I'd be more pissed at that.



LOL. I was just going to post exactly this point. What Dan did was really nasty but he had help from one of your own. 




> If I recall correctly, the only reason DWR went private was because some people didn't want the things they say and do there showing up on their Facebook walls. Blame THEM.



That was my understanding also, and that that is what is meant by "private" like "private as far as Facebook" but not "private" as in limits as to who can join.


----------



## indy500tchr

LoveBHMS said:


> LOL. I was just going to post exactly this point. What Dan did was really nasty but he had help from one of *your own. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was my understanding also, and that that is what is meant by "private" like "private as far as Facebook" but not "private" as in limits as to who can join.



Correct me if I am wrong but you too have a vagina.


----------



## LoveBHMS

By "your own" I meant somebody in that group, not "a female".

And for the record, it seems all kinds of fucked up when somebody who professes to hate moderation feels the need to moderate a group's comments. Whether they were nasty, small minded, bigoted, whatever. People are entitled to their privacy and talking shit about what has been said in private and rationalizing it by saying "Oh well what they were saying was terrible, so spreading it around is ok" is just plain wrong.


----------



## Vespertine

joswitch said:


> There's really a group devoted just to that??
> Holy shit.
> And I thought I was kidding about FAphobia...
> Guess again....



There are real red flag cases on dims that we can't talk about here. Predatory types with verifiable patterns of negative behavior and a trail of female witnesses who never say anything about it in public. When so many women have the same exact bad experience with a guy many of us would appreciate a heads up since some of us have looked for possible dates from dims. 

DDHFG in my mind tries to minimize the risks we have to take, from the fact that the internet harbors unusual amounts of crazy. The group encompasses other things, but calling it anti-FA is waaay off. It mainly deals with FAs since they're large part of dims and of interest to fat girls who want to date from dims...which means...many are actually looking to date FAs! 

And they want to date them safely, with confidence, hopefully with someone willing to vouch for the guy's character, which imo is basically priceless for dating online. It's very weird and can be disheartening going into the thing totally blind like I did, like many of the women here have. Online personas can be deceiving, of course.

If a guy doesn't have patterns of undesirable behavior (lying, cheating, married, etc) he doesn't have to worry about ending up on the 'don't date' lists. I hope you or any such decent guy who conducts himself in a way that he can be proud of will not take it personally that women are looking out for each other against creepers and users. If we were in flesh space in a comparatively stable community like dims, a group of friendly women would be passing such info around anyway.


----------



## MizzSnakeBite

joswitch said:


> There's really a group devoted just to that??
> Holy shit.
> And I thought I was kidding about FAphobia...
> Guess again....



No, it has nothing to do with FAs, it has to do with individuals. While I haven't read every single post on DDHFG, I *haven't* seen one person say, "omg, FAs are evil!" 

There are threads devoted to the "good" guys too. Someone might post about a bad experience, but often others will post good experiences they had with that individual. The group doesn't have a herd mentality. 

And then there are posts/threads about guys that say they're single, but are actually married. And the guy does this time and time again. While many men cannot get their heads wrapped around that kind of behavior since they would never cheat, it happens all the time. 

I'm sure you would like the sweeping generalizations about FAs to stop, so how about stopping the sweeping generalizations about members of DDHFG.




Vespertine said:


> There are real red flag cases on dims that we can't talk about here. Predatory types with verifiable patterns of negative behavior and a trail of female witnesses who never say anything about it in public. When so many women have the same exact bad experience with a guy many of us would appreciate a heads up since some of us have looked for possible dates from dims.
> 
> DDHFG in my mind tries to minimize the risks we have to take, from the fact that the internet harbors unusual amounts of crazy. The group encompasses other things, but calling it anti-FA is waaay off. It mainly deals with FAs since they're large part of dims and of interest to fat girls who want to date from dims...which means...many are actually looking to date FAs!
> 
> And they want to date them safely, with confidence, hopefully with someone willing to vouch for the guy's character, which imo is basically priceless for dating online. It's very weird and can be disheartening going into the thing totally blind like I did, like many of the women here have. Online personas can be deceiving, of course.
> 
> If a guy doesn't have patterns of undesirable behavior (lying, cheating, married, etc) he doesn't have to worry about ending up on the 'don't date' lists. I hope you or any such decent guy who conducts himself in a way that he can be proud of will not take it personally that women are looking out for each other against creepers and users. If we were in flesh space in a comparatively stable community like dims, a group of friendly women would be passing such info around anyway.



Exactly.


----------



## joswitch

Vespertine said:


> There are real red flag cases on dims that we can't talk about here. Predatory types with verifiable patterns of negative behavior and a trail of female witnesses who never say anything about it in public. When so many women have the same exact bad experience with a guy many of us would appreciate a heads up since some of us have looked for possible dates from dims.
> 
> DDHFG in my mind tries to minimize the risks we have to take, from the fact that the internet harbors unusual amounts of crazy. The group encompasses other things, but calling it anti-FA is waaay off. It mainly deals with FAs since they're large part of dims and of interest to fat girls who want to date from dims...which means...many are actually looking to date FAs!
> 
> And they want to date them safely, with confidence, hopefully with someone willing to vouch for the guy's character, which imo is basically priceless for dating online. It's very weird and can be disheartening going into the thing totally blind like I did, like many of the women here have. Online personas can be deceiving, of course.
> 
> If a guy doesn't have patterns of undesirable behavior (lying, cheating, married, etc) he doesn't have to worry about ending up on the 'don't date' lists. I hope you or any such decent guy who conducts himself in a way that he can be proud of will not take it personally that women are looking out for each other against creepers and users. If we were in flesh space in a comparatively stable community like dims, a group of friendly women would be passing such info around anyway.



Okayz... I get ya... 
I think that given the group's title and the context I first heard it in I was just 
Not that it's really any of my business anyway...

Kinda sad there's so many assholes around that it's needed... Ho hum...


----------



## jdsumm

Vespertine said:


> There are real red flag cases on dims that we can't talk about here. Predatory types with verifiable patterns of negative behavior and a trail of female witnesses who never say anything about it in public. When so many women have the same exact bad experience with a guy many of us would appreciate a heads up since some of us have looked for possible dates from dims.
> 
> DDHFG in my mind tries to minimize the risks we have to take, from the fact that the internet harbors unusual amounts of crazy. The group encompasses other things, but calling it anti-FA is waaay off. It mainly deals with FAs since they're large part of dims and of interest to fat girls who want to date from dims...which means...many are actually looking to date FAs!
> 
> And they want to date them safely, with confidence, hopefully with someone willing to vouch for the guy's character, which imo is basically priceless for dating online. It's very weird and can be disheartening going into the thing totally blind like I did, like many of the women here have. Online personas can be deceiving, of course.
> 
> If a guy doesn't have patterns of undesirable behavior (lying, cheating, married, etc) he doesn't have to worry about ending up on the 'don't date' lists. I hope you or any such decent guy who conducts himself in a way that he can be proud of will not take it personally that women are looking out for each other against creepers and users. If we were in flesh space in a comparatively stable community like dims, a group of friendly women would be passing such info around anyway.



^^YES THIS^^ Thanks for posting! I have been surprised and disheartened by the amount of drama and discord that has surrounded the formation of this group. I do understand the concerns that such a group could devolve into a place for rampant male bashing (I despise male bashing, FA or otherwise) but that hasn't been what I have found. From what I see, the vast majority of the women there will not allow that type of behavior to go unchallenged, and would eventually leave it if it became the norm. It makes me sad frankly to see the meanspiritedness that has resulted over a group of girls getting together to share their experiences, good or bad, in order to help one another learn how to avoid some really harmful (emotionally and financially at the very least) situations.


----------



## LoveBHMS

I really don't see the big deal either. 

A "regular" don'tdatehimgirl [dot] com website has been around for more than a decade. Such a site seems to be a lot more helpful and necessary in a more insular community that is likely to have men using a smaller number of venues to meet women.


----------



## Tracyarts

" Such a site seems to be a lot more helpful and necessary in a more insular community that is likely to have men using a smaller number of venues to meet women. "

As long as it's a forum where women have to log in under their own user names and can't just post an anonymous hit and run, I don't think it's really a bad thing. Because I think that in that kind of context there isn't much of a risk that it will turn into a venue for disgruntled exes and flat out psychos to screw men over by trashing them without the accountability of having to own their words. As long as it isn't just a free for all, it probably won't get out of control and turn into something really ugly because behind closed doors isn't really the same as anonymous. 

Tracy


----------



## mossystate

MizzSnakeBite said:


> No, it has nothing to do with FAs, it has to do with individuals. While I haven't read every single post on DDHFG, I *haven't* seen one person say, "omg, FAs are evil!"



Yeah, but those individuals you are talking about are not Real Fa's...dontcha know.  I think we should start saying that fat women who are not uber confident - or nice - are not really fat. Makes about as much sense. The ' fa ' who is an asshole is still a ' fa '. 

Hell, I am still wondering where all the ' fa ' hate is here on Dims. I mean, unless somebody is saying that anything negative said is not allowed...then...where's the ton of beef. And, being butthurt over any individual fat person who says that they don't want someone who is overly focused ( for them ) on the fat bits...that does not equal a slaughter of some ' fadom '. Sometimes that is a little more complicated, and not everything is about the ' fa '. It's true.


----------



## superodalisque

Vespertine said:


> There are real red flag cases on dims that we can't talk about here. Predatory types with verifiable patterns of negative behavior and a trail of female witnesses who never say anything about it in public. When so many women have the same exact bad experience with a guy many of us would appreciate a heads up since some of us have looked for possible dates from dims.
> 
> DDHFG in my mind tries to minimize the risks we have to take, from the fact that the internet harbors unusual amounts of crazy. The group encompasses other things, but calling it anti-FA is waaay off. It mainly deals with FAs since they're large part of dims and of interest to fat girls who want to date from dims...which means...many are actually looking to date FAs!
> 
> And they want to date them safely, with confidence, hopefully with someone willing to vouch for the guy's character, which imo is basically priceless for dating online. It's very weird and can be disheartening going into the thing totally blind like I did, like many of the women here have. Online personas can be deceiving, of course.
> 
> If a guy doesn't have patterns of undesirable behavior (lying, cheating, married, etc) he doesn't have to worry about ending up on the 'don't date' lists. I hope you or any such decent guy who conducts himself in a way that he can be proud of will not take it personally that women are looking out for each other against creepers and users. If we were in flesh space in a comparatively stable community like dims, a group of friendly women would be passing such info around anyway.



yep for the most part women there pretty much just warn about very extreme cases. and anybody who hasn't been noted to do the same to a LOT of other women or have evolved or are genuinely nice but maybe a just a little clueless are misunderstood are well defended and supported. some of it is the "just be aware this guy has these tendencies" which doesn't mean he is a bad guy at all, just that you may have to prepare yourself for some extra considerations. a guy has to be a very bad serial cross country yutz to get a general stamp of a don't date him. actually its been a very good way to clear up rumors about people too because people are very quick to say why they think something might NOT be true.


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy

mercy said:


> How fascinating. Perhaps you'd like an outside view of YOUR tactics in argument, given that they're so repetitive and predictable:
> 
> 1) Pick up on a tiny, insignificant detail in the post you're criticising, wherein you know perfectly well what point the poster is making, but you've chosen to deliberately misinterpret so you can exploit any bad choice of words or an instance where someone has forgotten to add 10 million caveats to a statement.
> 
> 2) Exploit said detail with lots of text from an outside source, typically Wikipedia, in the full knowledge that nobody will ever bother to read the entire passage and argue any point within.
> 
> 3) Position yourself as intellectual superior by claiming understanding of thought processes/argumentative tactics of opponent and accusing the opponent of logical fallacies such as ad hominem and strawman, thereby dismissing any validity in the argument and avoiding the necessity to actually address relevant points raised therein.
> 
> 4) Finally position self as renegade/free thinker by accusing opponent of "pre-packaged"/"brainwashed"/indoctrinated thinking, ignoring the patronising/borderline misogynist implications of doing so.
> 
> This is fun, isn't it?



I like you girl...well said. 




LillyBBBW said:


> Holy freakin' rollerderby! So many layers.... so many layers.... I don't even know how to feel about all this. lol Which private forum did you infiltrate, exile, there're so many of them? On the one hand, all these super top secret forums for women only serve as a sobering example of the point many people have been trying to make in here about men and women, how they differ, how they're the same, how they communicate, etc. Differences. Similarities. Heh.
> 
> As amusing yet uninteresting as all of this is, I still feel I must point out that you seem a bit old for the little brother sifting through big sisters bloomer drawer and reading her diary thing. Though I'm not surprised. Your past exploits already made it clear that you'd throw a dead cat out in front of you to derail an argument. Wasn't even necessary. Why do you even care what goes on in the ladies room? What's your drive for all this?






LillyBBBW said:


> I don't know. At first I found it all amusing but I do feel badly for the people who were possibly a part of that private forum who weren't even involved in any of this kerfluffel. The sanctity of whatever privacy they tried to enjoy for themselves was deliberately and maliciously defiled. There was no intent for him to see any of that crap and he's no dummy, he knew this. Poor.



Lilly and her hammer always make my day....she's more powerful than the Mighty Thor :bow:



TraciJo67 said:


> It wasn't a good thing to do, no. But then, we have other women who've been 'run tell dat' also, and this is something that should be anticipated on the front end whenever a 'private' group is formed. And, there's this thing about there really never being any true privacy on the internet. Not excusing his actions, nor minimizing them in any way. Just saying that from my end, it was a loathsome thing to do but when framing it in my perspective, it's not exactly violating HIPAA or the attorney/client privilege. It's the internet.
> 
> And all that aside, Vardon asked a pointed question about the so-called FA 'scourge' which is (again, in my opinion) a completely separate issue. I wouldn't be at all comfortable with pinning that label to Dan's narrow lapel ;o)



The big mouth women that intentionally defiled the privacy of the group piss me off more than Dan ever could....but I wasn't shocked at all....by what happened or the timing. Why I have never posted there much to begin with.....people don't respect the privacy of other people as much as they pretend they do. 



CastingPearls said:


> Throw in a couple of weiner dogs for contrast and color.
> 
> And cos I like weiners.



Who doesn't? 



vardon_grip said:


> I feel that it is related. I think bad or creepy behavior gets lumped together with the rest. If you have douchebags that call themselves FA's it gets really hard to separate the douchebag behavior from the body size/sexual preference. It may not be right to lump it together, but when you have an FA who is a creep, it doesn't help to dispel other FA "myth's".



True....but as was pointed out, intelligent people usually know the differences between "good" and "bad". 



mossystate said:


> Get rid of the obsessive need to wrap yourself in a label, to hide in it, sometimes because you find it benefits you ( general you ), and sometimes because others might be casting aspersions and lump everybody into a pile.. and you won't have to fret about so many things.
> 
> A fa is someone who like fat bodies. Does not make them a nice person...a mean person...a good, or a bad person. There is a reason so many need that label, and wrap themselves in it...need it for more than ease of identifying on a messageboard.



197th time I'm saying this.....the label FA doesn't imply anything good or bad...it simply states a preference for a partner. Nothing more....

Just as annoying as some people seem find it when it's implied as a "bad" label....I find it equally wrong/annoying when it's implied they can do no wrong and must all be Princes/Queens. 

Not all fat people are worth a damn....we are as fallible as any other people on this planet. Same can be _easily_ said for people with preferences. 

People that read too much into these labels need their head examined, IMO.




exile in thighville said:


> let's really cut the bullshit about my sentencing though, it doesn't matter if i'm "wrong" or "right". i was able to do it, and we've all learned a lot from that.



Well we certainly learned to never invite you or your gf anywhere private, if nothing else 



joswitch said:


> There's really a group devoted just to that??
> Holy shit.
> And I thought I was kidding about FAphobia...
> Guess again....



Where in that title does it say "Don't date FAs"? It says HIM......as in an individual concept.....irregardless of preference. 

Stop making it into something it's not. 



mossystate said:


> _" I wasn't aware of this private male version of DDHFG. "_
> 
> 
> It's real...and I have already seen some of the posts.



Oh how I laughed. My FA bf was invited.....I have his password 

I love FAs 



wrestlingguy said:


> I don't know if there really is. I started a thread in the DWR group a few weeks ago putting some feelers out there, to see if guys felt there was value in a group like that, but there weren't enough positive responses to motivate me to move forward with it.
> 
> Methinks this may just be a few people here trying to put Dan's feet to the fire here, to drive him crazy looking for a group that may not in fact exist.



Shush it Phil.....the fun was just getting started  



Vespertine said:


> There are real red flag cases on dims that we can't talk about here. Predatory types with verifiable patterns of negative behavior and a trail of female witnesses who never say anything about it in public. When so many women have the same exact bad experience with a guy many of us would appreciate a heads up since some of us have looked for possible dates from dims.
> 
> DDHFG in my mind tries to minimize the risks we have to take, from the fact that the internet harbors unusual amounts of crazy. The group encompasses other things, but calling it anti-FA is waaay off. It mainly deals with FAs since they're large part of dims and of interest to fat girls who want to date from dims...which means...many are actually looking to date FAs!
> 
> And they want to date them safely, with confidence, hopefully with someone willing to vouch for the guy's character, which imo is basically priceless for dating online. It's very weird and can be disheartening going into the thing totally blind like I did, like many of the women here have. Online personas can be deceiving, of course.
> 
> If a guy doesn't have patterns of undesirable behavior (lying, cheating, married, etc) he doesn't have to worry about ending up on the 'don't date' lists. I hope you or any such decent guy who conducts himself in a way that he can be proud of will not take it personally that women are looking out for each other against creepers and users. If we were in flesh space in a comparatively stable community like dims, a group of friendly women would be passing such info around anyway.




I am calling this one of the best posts in the whole thread....thank you :bow:



jdsumm said:


> ^^YES THIS^^ Thanks for posting! I have been surprised and disheartened by the amount of drama and discord that has surrounded the formation of this group. I do understand the concerns that such a group could devolve into a place for rampant male bashing (I despise male bashing, FA or otherwise) but that hasn't been what I have found. From what I see, the vast majority of the women there will not allow that type of behavior to go unchallenged, and would eventually leave it if it became the norm. *It makes me sad frankly to see the meanspiritedness that has resulted over a group of girls getting together to share their experiences, good or bad, in order to help one another learn how to avoid some really harmful (emotionally and financially at the very least) situations*.



This, too. 



Tracyarts said:


> " Such a site seems to be a lot more helpful and necessary in a more insular community that is likely to have men using a smaller number of venues to meet women. "
> 
> As long as it's a forum where women have to log in under their own user names and can't just post an anonymous hit and run, I don't think it's really a bad thing. Because I think that in that kind of context there isn't much of a risk that it will turn into a venue for disgruntled exes and flat out psychos to screw men over by trashing them without the accountability of having to own their words. As long as it isn't just a free for all, it probably won't get out of control and turn into something really ugly because behind closed doors isn't really the same as anonymous.
> 
> Tracy



Excellent point.....and all the more reason that it's a good idea for it to be private. 



mossystate said:


> Yeah, but those individuals you are talking about are not Real Fa's...dontcha know.  I think we should start saying that fat women who are not uber confident - or nice - are not really fat. Makes about as much sense. The ' fa ' who is an asshole is still a ' fa '.
> 
> Hell, I am still wondering where all the ' fa ' hate is here on Dims. I mean, unless somebody is saying that anything negative said is not allowed...then...where's the ton of beef. And, being butthurt over any individual fat person who says that they don't want someone who is overly focused ( for them ) on the fat bits...that does not equal a slaughter of some ' fadom '. Sometimes that is a little more complicated, and not everything is about the ' fa '. It's true.



Simple truth is always the best. 


My FA boyfriend agrees  



thirtiesgirl said:


> Are you on your period?






thirtiesgirl said:


> Ah, yes, because of course my intent in posting a pic of a woman yawning was to sexually excite you. Any open mouth, whether in protest, yawn or speech, apparently will work.



This woman is quickly winning my fat little heart.....and I shall never tell her to keep her mouth open.....or closed  <3


----------



## superodalisque

Tracyarts said:


> " Such a site seems to be a lot more helpful and necessary in a more insular community that is likely to have men using a smaller number of venues to meet women. "
> 
> As long as it's a forum where women have to log in under their own user names and can't just post an anonymous hit and run, I don't think it's really a bad thing. Because I think that in that kind of context there isn't much of a risk that it will turn into a venue for disgruntled exes and flat out psychos to screw men over by trashing them without the accountability of having to own their words. As long as it isn't just a free for all, it probably won't get out of control and turn into something really ugly because behind closed doors isn't really the same as anonymous.
> 
> Tracy



nope its not anonymous. we are trying to find our equilibrium now. how far to go for freedoms sake and what liberties not to take. so we are trying to find a point that seems comfortable and fair to everybody. but what seems very clear to me now is that you have to be careful about what and how you say things. i am all for just saying everything but i've grown to respect why some people want things to be more tempered. i've learned a lot about the other women already being there. i don't think the women there want to violate anyone at all. it says a lot for them, especially when they've often been violated and you'd think they'd really want to give someone a little of their own.


----------



## superodalisque

mossystate said:


> Yeah, but those individuals you are talking about are not Real Fa's...dontcha know.  I think we should start saying that fat women who are not uber confident - or nice - are not really fat. Makes about as much sense. The ' fa ' who is an asshole is still a ' fa '.
> 
> Hell, I am still wondering where all the ' fa ' hate is here on Dims. I mean, unless somebody is saying that anything negative said is not allowed...then...where's the ton of beef. And, being butthurt over any individual fat person who says that they don't want someone who is overly focused ( for them ) on the fat bits...that does not equal a slaughter of some ' fadom '. Sometimes that is a little more complicated, and not everything is about the ' fa '. It's true.



i agree. i get tired of being made to feel something is wrong with me if someone uses the FA stick to poke me with and i complain that it hurts. not all FAs do that ( gee! do i get tired of having to reiterate that everytime i talk about any FA) . i'd like to be able to call out the ones who do and have them stop making the rest of folks who do want to call themselves FAs have to deal with the fallout from their bs.


----------



## thirtiesgirl

Green Eyed Fairy said:


> This woman is quickly winning my fat little heart.....and I shall never tell her to keep her mouth open.....or closed  <3



Aw :blush:, thank you. :bow:


----------



## superodalisque

Carrie said:


> Honestly, I think you're not giving women the credit for critical thinking that they deserve here. I think you're raw with Dan, understandably so, and instead of just sticking to "you're a dick, Dan", you're turning this into a big grand morality play, with the future of FAdom riding on the shoulders of one.



where have i said that Dan is all FAs? ever?


----------



## LoveBHMS

Tracyarts said:


> " Such a site seems to be a lot more helpful and necessary in a more insular community that is likely to have men using a smaller number of venues to meet women. "
> 
> As long as it's a forum where women have to log in under their own user names and can't just post an anonymous hit and run, I don't think it's really a bad thing. Because I think that in that kind of context there isn't much of a risk that it will turn into a venue for disgruntled exes and flat out psychos to screw men over by trashing them without the accountability of having to own their words. As long as it isn't just a free for all, it probably won't get out of control and turn into something really ugly because behind closed doors isn't really the same as anonymous.
> 
> Tracy



Agreed. In order for something like that to have much weight, you'd have to lose some degree of anonymity. A random unknown poster saying that a particular male is just looking for a green card or has an STD or committed date rape might not get a lot of attention while somebody better known in the bash scene would.


----------



## cinnamitch

superodalisque said:


> i agree. i get tired of being made to feel something is wrong with me if someone uses the FA stick to poke me with and i complain that it hurts. not all FAs do that ( gee! do i get tired of having to reiterate that everytime i talk about any FA) . i'd like to be able to call out the ones who do and have them stop making the rest of folks who do want to call themselves FAs have to deal with the fallout from their bs.




I just do not get the complaints that by forming this group that it is going to foster FA hatred. Do some of you think that because we dare share information regarding problems we have had with some men that we are now haters? How can you in good conscience call yourself a lover of fat women when you get so offended by them speaking up about things that aren't right with some guys. Should we just accept it and let other women find out the hard way? Why would you want that for someone. Do you let someone you care for get hurt or do you warn them? This group is not in any way a means to diss men, it is a place to warn others about potential problems and to let them decide if it is a legitimate concern. Any time it has strayed over into more of a gossip issue, it has been quickly put by on the right track. There are men out there who are bad, you can't deny it, just like there are women who are bad. No one says you can't have a group addressing bad women, hell go for it. If it saves some guy heartache or financial loss, I am all for it. 

Stop trying to make certain members out to be man haters, just because you don't like them or don't agree with them. Oh and Dan, you and your groupies act like the snob kids did in high school. You remember, the ones who liked to do silly stuff like tell the fat girl that the cute guy really likes her, only to embarrass her out in front of everyone later on. Son, it is time to grow up. It is not cool to violate privacy , even if you do not agree with the premise of the group, it wasn't your place to violate it. It is because of actions like this that i stopped posting on the SSBBW board. If you can't respect women enough to let them have a place of their own without having to worry that it is going to get into the wrong hands, then how can you honestly say you respect women? Oh and thanks to the guys that "get" the reason the group exists. It is nice to see that there really are men who indeed respect all women, whether they like some of them or not.


----------



## Carrie

superodalisque said:


> where have i said that Dan is all FAs? ever?


Felecia, you didn't say "Dan is all FAs". You said: 


superodalisque said:


> instead of understanding and being supportive you went on and on about how lame and boring it was. but that was because it was not meant for you, or to entertain you. *see, this is why some women get a bad attitude about FAs and why some BBWs get so paranoid. * you infiltrated a group where you weren't invited and had reasons to be private and tried to intimidate everyone there by saying you'd tell what you knew and making sure to indicate you'd do it any time you could. the way you've acted has been very immature. you're like the irritating little brother who always wants to invade the sleep over and then bribes people later on by saying he'll tell what he heard or saw if he doesn't get what he wants. its just bad form altogether--pretty slimy. it doesn't bother me if you say stuff about me but it really upsets me how you were able to try and debase other people who've never done anything to you. just bad form all around.


The only conclusion I could draw from that post was that you are blaming potentially poor perceptions of FAs on Dan's questionable behavior in this situation. Then when I pointed that out here, your response was: 


superodalisque said:


> i agree with that. but if people are seeing other things they CAN get a bad stereotype. thats why i called Dan on it. i didn't say all of the other FAs were in where they didn't belong --just Dan. i don't have an FA conspiracy theory. but if a BBW gets a compilation of different types of bad behaviors from a lot of guys identifying she COULD develop a badatude. its only natural. thats why you can't let guys go with stuff. if you don't maybe they'll stop and not add to the bad stereotype thats muddying up other FAs. what he did personally was messed up. it has nothing to do with other FAs except that it makes things harder for them. i don't think the guys who aren't doing that kind of stuff need that.


...which didn't really sound any different to me. It just sounds like you're granting Dan a lot of power he doesn't deserve for helping to paint a public persona for FAs, as well as putting out this vaguely patronizing vibe that women won't be able to discern the difference between his sexual preferences and his tendency to be, ahh, somewhat punky at times. In defense of the DDHFG group, I've heard a lot of "trust us to separate the wheat from the chaff" arguments about comments made there, which I do agree that more women are more than capable of. So with that in mind, I trust them to not allow one man's internet hijinx to paint their perceptions of FAs as a group. Why won't you? 

Like I said, I think you're justifiably miffed with Dan. I wish you'd stick to just that, rather than obliquely accusing him of contributing to poor FA public relations. That's a discredit to smart women everywhere.


----------



## Carrie

For the record, this thread makes me pretty sad. There are a lot of people in this thread I like, respect and admire, people I've hugged and laughed with and shared stories with who have said, implied, and/or been accused of some pretty questionable things here. It's obviously a very polarizing topic, and to think there's any kind of "win" to this argument is a joke. I think a lot of us want the same thing, ironically, and are just too hung up on our own "stuff" to see it. Present company (me) included, most likely.


----------



## superodalisque

Carrie said:


> Felecia, you didn't say "Dan is all FAs". You said:
> 
> The only conclusion I could draw from that post was that you are blaming potentially poor perceptions of FAs on Dan's questionable behavior in this situation. Then when I pointed that out here, your response was:
> 
> ...which didn't really sound any different to me. It just sounds like you're granting Dan a lot of power he doesn't deserve for helping to paint a public persona for FAs, as well as putting out this vaguely patronizing vibe that women won't be able to discern the difference between his sexual preferences and his tendency to be, ahh, somewhat punky at times. In defense of the DDHFG group, I've heard a lot of "trust us to separate the wheat from the chaff" arguments about comments made there, which I do agree that more women are more than capable of. So with that in mind, I trust them to not allow one man's internet hijinx to paint their perceptions of FAs as a group. Why won't you?
> 
> Like I said, I think you're justifiably miffed with Dan. I wish you'd stick to just that, rather than obliquely accusing him of contributing to poor FA public relations. That's a discredit to smart women everywhere.



so are you saying that what an individual does can have absolutely no impact at all on the group they belong to? all i'm saying is that behaving badly doesn't reflect well on other FAs. whats the big deal about that. if i behaved badly as a BBW it might have something to do with how someone felt when they came into contact with other BBWs. that would be especially true if i only added to a compilation of experiences they'd already had. 

we all want to be taken on our own merits. but the truth is people judge a group by the members of it that they encounter. if those encounters become more negative than positive people will have a negative opinion. all i'm saying is that Dan should not add to a negative stereotype. Dan has noted before that he is concerned about how he and other guys who might be called FAs are perceived. all i'm saying is don't add to a possibly negative perception that could develop for somebody. he is not soley responsible for a bad perception, of course, but everyone belonging to that group has certain standard and responsibility to try and maintain if they don't want to contribute to a negative stereotype. 

we all have something to do with how people see us and the groups we belong to even if we aren't soley responsible for the stereotype ourselves. what he has done is only one experience. but added to others it might not look so good as it relates to FAs if a woman has had other negative experiences. to pretend otherwise would be naive. no one is floating free. everyone is tied together especially when you're talking about a group like FAs who sometimes feel social pressure and stigma. that might be especially true for those who claim they are working against them or suffering because of them. no man is an island.


----------



## superodalisque

vardon_grip said:


> I feel that it is related. I think bad or creepy behavior gets lumped together with the rest. If you have douchebags that call themselves FA's it gets really hard to separate the douchebag behavior from the body size/sexual preference. It may not be right to lump it together, but when you have an FA who is a creep, it doesn't help to dispel other FA "myth's".



maybe an FA could say it better for himself. 

i wouldn't go so far as to call Dan a creep... but yeah.


----------



## wrestlingguy

I think that genereally, the FA "community" doesn't give a rat's ass for the most part about how they are perceived. Truthfully, I think they could care less about what Dan did, and how he affects how this group is viewed by BBW's .

I'm sure there are exceptions to that general apathy, but i think they are few and far between.


----------



## superodalisque

wrestlingguy said:


> I think that genereally, the FA "community" doesn't give a rat's ass for the most part about how they are perceived. Truthfully, I think they could care less about what Dan did, and how he affects how this group is viewed by BBW's .
> 
> I'm sure there are exceptions to that general apathy, but i think they are few and far between.



i think you're exactly right. and they care even less about whats on DDHFG.


----------



## wrestlingguy

superodalisque said:


> i think you're exactly right. and they care even less about whats on DDHFG.



Hopefully they will have to start very soon.


----------



## superodalisque

wrestlingguy said:


> Hopefully they will have to start very soon.



it doesn't really matter if they do end up caring. most of them probably don't have to anyway. as long as the women there get some benefit thats all that matters.


----------



## joswitch

Green Eyed Fairy said:


> Where in that title does it say "Don't date FAs"? It says HIM......as in an individual concept.....irregardless of preference.
> 
> Stop making it into something it's not.



You're behind the times:
http://www.dimensionsmagazine.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1524323&postcount=499

It's always handy to notice when the other "side" in debate has already said: "Ok, yeah, you're right*."

Saves on endless repetition. 


(*about the significance or otherwise of the "group")


----------



## TraciJo67

superodalisque said:


> so are you saying that what an individual does can have absolutely no impact at all on the group they belong to? all i'm saying is that behaving badly doesn't reflect well on other FAs. whats the big deal about that. if i behaved badly as a BBW it might have something to do with how someone felt when they came into contact with other BBWs. that would be especially true if i only added to a compilation of experiences they'd already had.
> 
> we all want to be taken on our own merits. but the truth is people judge a group by the members of it that they encounter. if those encounters become more negative than positive people will have a negative opinion. all i'm saying is that Dan should not add to a negative stereotype. Dan has noted before that he is concerned about how he and other guys who might be called FAs are perceived. all i'm saying is don't add to a possibly negative perception that could develop for somebody. he is not soley responsible for a bad perception, of course, but everyone belonging to that group has certain standard and responsibility to try and maintain if they don't want to contribute to a negative stereotype.
> 
> we all have something to do with how people see us and the groups we belong to even if we aren't soley responsible for the stereotype ourselves. what he has done is only one experience. but added to others it might not look so good as it relates to FAs if a woman has had other negative experiences. to pretend otherwise would be naive. no one is floating free. everyone is tied together especially when you're talking about a group like FAs who sometimes feel social pressure and stigma. that might be especially true for those who claim they are working against them or suffering because of them. no man is an island.


 
SuperO, if someone judges FA's in general based on Dan's specific behaviors, I think that's a poor reflection on the person doing the judging. I wouldn't want to be a part of that. I believe in judging people on individual merit/lack thereof. I hate the punky, sneaky, sly way that Dan gained access to the forum, but that doesn't make him a "bad" FA. When we're parsing that closely, I can see why otherwise reasonable people (like Carrie) would object, because it is pigeon-holing. 

I view DDHFG to be a group about warning people away from specific behaviors/specific men who are -- if not outright predatory -- at least just not what they represent themselves to be. I'm not interesting in categorizing all men, some men, even a few men based on one man's actions. Correct me if I'm wrong -- I know you will! -- but that seems, to me, to be what you are saying here.


----------



## Blackjack

superodalisque said:


> so are you saying that what an individual does can have absolutely no impact at all on the group they belong to?



You're a smart woman, Felicia, and I find it hard to believe that you're this incredibly obtuse. At the same time I know that you're a very kind person, so I find it even harder to believe that you'd act so incredibly obtuse. But I really can't think of any other possible explanations as to how you can totally miss the point _*every goddam time*_.


----------



## liz (di-va)

View attachment 83165

Heh. This struck me as funny. Lit'rary nerdery.

As you were! Lemon out.


----------



## vardon_grip

liz (di-va) said:


> View attachment 83165
> 
> Heh. This struck me as funny. Lit'rary nerdery.
> 
> As you were! Lemon out.



It wouldn't be a Lemon Party without old Dick!


----------



## mossystate

A ' fa ' does something bad and you have some who believe " well, that's a fa for ya right there "...others " oh, that is not a fa ". Both views are stuck in mud. What exactly is the code of ' fa ' conduct? Is it different from other men ( speaking hetero, here )? If the answer is yes...isn't that just treating contact between fat women and men who prefer fat bodies as something weird and unusual ? 
People say they want ' fa's ' to be judged as individuals, but then when they see anything negative about a ' fa ', they go into contortions, instead of just realizing that some people are just talking about the individual. I will say it again...lose the idea that because of what you look like, or what you like...it makes you either a good or a bad human being. Ooof.


----------



## Carrie

mossystate said:


> A ' fa ' does something bad and you have some who believe " well, that's a fa for ya right there "...others " oh, that is not a fa ". Both views are stuck in mud. What exactly is the code of ' fa ' conduct? Is it different from other men ( speaking hetero, here )? If the answer is yes...isn't that just treating contact between fat women and men who prefer fat bodies as something weird and unusual ?
> People say they want ' fa's ' to be judged as individuals, but then when they see anything negative about a ' fa ', they go into contortions, instead of just realizing that some people are just talking about the individual. I will say it again...lose the idea that because of what you look like, or what you like...it makes you either a good or a bad human being. Ooof.


Not sure if I'm one of the ones having contortions and being "butthurt", Monique, because I certainly don't feel that way, but if so, let me clarify. There is a world of difference between specific negative experiences with individual FAs and having a global anti-FA mindset and making corresponding statements. The latter is what I take issue with, not the former. Trust me, I've had my share of experiences with low quality guys who identified as FAs. 

I haven't even been referring to the don't date him fat girl group at all in my argument against the anti-FA mindset, actually. And believe it or not, I don't believe the group is inherently anti-FA. I think it is problematic for other reasons, but I don't believe all the women in there are clutching their pearls at the thought of FAs. Not by a long shot.


----------



## mossystate

Carrie said:


> Not sure if I'm one of the ones having contortions and being "butthurt", Monique, because I certainly don't feel that way, but if so, let me clarify. There is a world of difference between specific negative experiences with individual FAs and having a global anti-FA mindset and making corresponding statements. The latter is what I take issue with, not the former. Trust me, I've had my share of experiences with low quality guys who identified as FAs.
> 
> I haven't even been referring to the don't date him fat girl group at all in my argument against the anti-FA mindset, actually. And believe it or not, I don't believe the group is inherently anti-FA. I think it is problematic for other reasons, but I don't believe all the women in there are clutching their pearls at the thought of FAs. Not by a long shot.



Yeah, I am not really following along too closely, the DDHFG connection in this thread. I think we are both on the same page there.

I guess since I don't think there should be a global pro - fa mindset, past the WOOT that there are men who like squishy bodies, the opposite just makes the same amount of sense...which is not much.


----------



## superodalisque

TraciJo67 said:


> SuperO, if someone judges FA's in general based on Dan's specific behaviors, I think that's a poor reflection on the person doing the judging. I wouldn't want to be a part of that. I believe in judging people on individual merit/lack thereof. I hate the punky, sneaky, sly way that Dan gained access to the forum, but that doesn't make him a "bad" FA. When we're parsing that closely, I can see why otherwise reasonable people (like Carrie) would object, because it is pigeon-holing.
> 
> I view DDHFG to be a group about warning people away from specific behaviors/specific men who are -- if not outright predatory -- at least just not what they represent themselves to be. I'm not interesting in categorizing all men, some men, even a few men based on one man's actions. Correct me if I'm wrong -- I know you will! -- but that seems, to me, to be what you are saying here.



nah i didn't mean just based on Dan's behavior alone. i just meant as a part of a culmination of a bunch of observed behaviors. it just doesn't help the fact that a lot of women develop a bad opinion based on a lot of bad experiences. all we have to judge a group of people by are the examples we get whether they are good ones or bad ones. its just like choosing whether we want to be a democrat or not. we note whether we like what they say or do. we look at the policies they support. and if we keep encountering people of a similar character either good or bad that makes an impact it does give us an overall impression on balance eventually. but like Mossy said it would probably solve a whole lot of stereotyping and misconceptions if we didn't have the label in the first place, especially one everyone is so fierce about their particular view of. some think we should only think of FA perfection , others FA negativity. its all lopsided like she said. 

labels are just a generalization anyway. so if generalizations bother people, as to whether they fall on the good or bad side of a stereotype, i think it might be important to consider if adhering to labels or having them adhere to us at all is a good idea in the first place. FA is just another one of those labels. it depends on the person observing whether they think the people who are a part of that group being labeled FAs are good or bad. they can only do that through observation and experiences. so instead of discussing the men here as FAs, as we often do and people say its important for us to do, why can't he just be an individual man who happens to think fat women are beautiful. if someone doesn't want a stereotype applied maybe its important not to belong to a group at all and just rely on their own identity. then all that matters is what that person does and what they think of themselves as an individual. but unfortunately all a group gets to be is a stereotype because they are all based on SHARED values and ideologies. so unfortunately what you do as a member of a group is part of the formation of the identity of that group. if someone is adamant about being an individual they shouldn't join or name themselves as a part of a group--basic sociology 101


----------



## Dromond

Can I just interject here to say that I'm sick to death of the term "FA?" I see all this arguing and hair pulling over an arbitrary label, and it's just ridiculous. Get rid of the damn label and this whole argument goes away. Maybe we should call "FA's" what they are: people.


----------



## iglooboy55

have never fapped and never will.


----------



## superodalisque

Dromond said:


> Can I just interject here to say that I'm sick to death of the term "FA?" I see all this arguing and hair pulling over an arbitrary label, and it's just ridiculous. Get rid of the damn label and this whole argument goes away. Maybe we should call "FA's" what they are: people.




yes!!! then we can just be people again


----------



## kentwildt

superodalisque said:


> yes!!! then we can just be people again



F.A. = Fat Admirer

My thought is that it refers to people who love fat people. I do not see myself living life with a skinny companion. I love fat women. Why such continuance and comments?


----------



## thirtiesgirl

How about FP, for Fat Preference? That way the divisive semantics of the words 'admire' and 'admirer' are taken out of the equation.


----------



## Blackjack

Personally, I think that it would be best to do nothing with the term itself and instead stop acting like it defines people, as opposed to describing a part of them.

Labels are given far too much weight here, and so frequently by people who complain about how much power these labels have.


----------



## jdsumm

Blackjack said:


> *Personally, I think that it would be best to do nothing with the term itself and instead stop acting like it defines people, as opposed to describing a part of them.*
> 
> Labels are given far too much weight here, and so frequently by people who complain about how much power these labels have.



Sounds pretty darn logical to me!


----------



## LovelyLiz

thirtiesgirl said:


> How about FP, for Fat Preference? That way the divisive semantics of the words 'admire' and 'admirer' are taken out of the equation.



I think part of the issue some have with the term (FA) is that it makes it less personal to them - their problem is more with the word "fat" than the word "admirer." As if FAs just admire the fat, and not the humanity of the woman/man carrying it. Though certainly if we dig we can come up with issues with "admirer" too.

But I really don't have a problem with the term; since I don't think the label is what causes people to have any kind of behavior whatsoever. A guy who is a kind, respectful guy is going to be that whether you call him an FA, FP, or XYZ. And a guy who is a creep is going to be a creep, no matter what his label. 

I'm fine with changing terms, or not. I mean, FA is far from a perfect one - but if we call it something else, I still think that isn't likely to truly change people. That kind of character formation doesn't come from a label or a lack of one, it's a much deeper and longer process.


----------



## thirtiesgirl

mcbeth said:


> I think part of the issue some have with the term (FA) is that it makes it less personal to them - their problem is more with the word "fat" than the word "admirer." As if FAs just admire the fat, and not the humanity of the woman/man carrying it. Though certainly if we dig we can come up with issues with "admirer" too.
> 
> But I really don't have a problem with the term; since I don't think the label is what causes people to have any kind of behavior whatsoever. A guy who is a kind, respectful guy is going to be that whether you call him an FA, FP, or XYZ. And a guy who is a creep is going to be a creep, no matter what his label.
> 
> I'm fine with changing terms, or not. I mean, FA is far from a perfect one - but if we call it something else, I still think that isn't likely to truly change people. That kind of character formation doesn't come from a label or a lack of one, it's a much deeper and longer process.



No, I certainly agree, just changing labels doesn't change the reality. I was just trying to throw a twig into the tsunami of this discussion.


----------



## LoveBHMS

I'm an FFA. That just indicates my sexual preference and nothing more. It has nothing to do with personality or behaviour or manners or ethics as far as how to treat others.

Virtually any indicator of a personal type is going to be limited. You can self ascribe as black, Asian, gay, tall, a musician, or a preppy. Those terms say _something_ about you, but not everything.

It seems to me the dislike of FAs is really a dislike of how some men behave within the confines of the BBW/FA social scene. It might be more helpful to look at why that particular milieu might breed a certain type of bad behaviour, or allow it to continue. You can probably see similar poor behaviour when referring to any traditional bar or club scene. Maybe the problem is in fact that particular focus on sexuality. I mean an FA is there for women who look a certain way, and women are there to find men who want them to look a certain way. I don't for one second think that that makes either party shallow or superficial, but it is going to potentially narrow the focus. 

On some level it may just be a numbers game. If you want a 400 pound woman, there are going to be a fairly small number of them spread out at work, gyms, libraries, or standing behind you in Starbucks. You might even go a whole day or two just going about your business without seeing somebody you're hot for. If you go to a Heavenly Bodies dance or the Butterfly Lounge, you can find a dozen or more.


----------



## LillyBBBW

superodalisque said:


> so are you saying that what an individual does can have absolutely no impact at all on the group they belong to? *all i'm saying is that behaving badly doesn't reflect well on other FAs. whats the big deal about that. *if i behaved badly as a BBW it might have something to do with how someone felt when they came into contact with other BBWs. that would be especially true if i only added to a compilation of experiences they'd already had.
> 
> we all want to be taken on our own merits. but the truth is people judge a group by the members of it that they encounter. if those encounters become more negative than positive people will have a negative opinion. all i'm saying is that Dan should not add to a negative stereotype. Dan has noted before that he is concerned about how he and other guys who might be called FAs are perceived. all i'm saying is don't add to a possibly negative perception that could develop for somebody. he is not soley responsible for a bad perception, of course, but everyone belonging to that group has certain standard and responsibility to try and maintain if they don't want to contribute to a negative stereotype.
> 
> we all have something to do with how people see us and the groups we belong to even if we aren't soley responsible for the stereotype ourselves. what he has done is only one experience. but added to others it might not look so good as it relates to FAs if a woman has had other negative experiences. to pretend otherwise would be naive. no one is floating free. everyone is tied together especially when you're talking about a group like FAs who sometimes feel social pressure and stigma. that might be especially true for those who claim they are working against them or suffering because of them. no man is an island.



The issue with that is the same is it would for someone to say OJ Simpson's behavior reflects poorly on black people, retired football players, men, Californians, etc. No disrespect Supero but it's an ignorant thing to say or assume.


----------



## superodalisque

Blackjack said:


> Personally, I think that it would be best to do nothing with the term itself and instead stop acting like it defines people, as opposed to describing a part of them.
> 
> Labels are given far too much weight here, and so frequently by people who complain about how much power these labels have.



i could agree with that. just as long as i'm not expected to assume every FA must be good or bad. the things that ruffled my feathers lately was that i was supposed to assume that a guy who is an FA and shows up somewhere at an SA event is supposed to always have my good at heart. i never assume he won't but i don't want to have to assume he will either just because he might have a sexual attraction. so what you said i can definitely get with. as long as other people don't pressure me to make assumptions based no other evidence than the fact someone is attracted to fat people. as long as i don't get attacked for trusting my own judgement and saying what that is.


----------



## musicman

superodalisque said:


> all i'm saying is that Dan should not add to a negative stereotype. Dan has noted before that he is concerned about how he and other guys who might be called FAs are perceived. all i'm saying is don't add to a possibly negative perception that could develop for somebody. he is not soley responsible for a bad perception, of course, but *everyone belonging to that group has certain standard and responsibility to try and maintain* if they don't want to contribute to a negative stereotype.



I'm confused. This is exactly what ThinGuy said about the fat woman he saw eating on the train. If you're right, why did we all think he was wrong?


----------



## superodalisque

LillyBBBW said:


> The issue with that is the same is it would for someone to say OJ Simpson's behavior reflects poorly on black people, retired football players, men, Californians, etc. No disrespect Supero but it's an ignorant thing to say or assume.



i see where you are coming from and i wish more people thought like you do. the idea may seem ignorant, unfortunately a lot of people ARE ignorant. thats the same ignorance that leads to fat prejudice etc...if people did not feel O.J. Simpson was not an example of some group the case would never have caused such a furor. thats how group politics work. it isn't the way people should behave but its the way people DO behave. if you really think it never mattered at the time that O.J. Simpson was black--well you live in a different world than i do. 

he shouldn't be held up as an example but he was. thats the reality. if the case happened today it would probably be handled differently but thats who we were at the time. its just like when individual people relate to the world from where they are at the time and not necessarily from a perfect condition. it wouldn't have been a bad idea even for O.J. if some of his friends had warned him about how his behavior pre -case made him look. some people are public beings and potential shame might work better with them than an appeal to rationale and ethics. maybe you do people a favor when you remind them how they look in reality. sure it would be nice if fatopia existed--but it doesn't. until then an FAs actions are noted and up for scrutiny and perhaps stereotyping.


----------



## superodalisque

musicman said:


> I'm confused. This is exactly what ThinGuy said about the fat woman he saw eating on the train. If you're right, why did we all think he was wrong?



not exactly. i don't think there is anything slimy or unethical about fat women eating on a train. thats just a normal thing people do that doesn't hurt anyone. invading someone's space and divulging their secrets is something else altogether. its apples and oranges--and i don't mean eating them. 

one is an assumption based on a prejudice aimed and someone who is doing nothing wrong and the other is someone being an ass, trying to control people and having that reflect badly on the group he belongs to perhaps reinforcing a prejudice just because of wrong actions--unless you feel that invading people's privacy and threatening them with their secrets is ok? where i come from that could be the basis for the beginning of something called extortion. especially if there is some kind of implication that people should do as you say or face consequences somehow.


----------



## superodalisque

thirtiesgirl said:


> No, I certainly agree, just changing labels doesn't change the reality. I was just trying to throw a twig into the tsunami of this discussion.



i dunno. there have been a lot of studies about labels and their effect on people. it seems like they do have quite an impact. people tend to live in a land of self fulfilling prophecies unless they work very hard to break out of a labels assumptions.


----------



## superodalisque

kentwildt said:


> F.A. = Fat Admirer
> 
> My thought is that it refers to people who love fat people. I do not see myself living life with a skinny companion. I love fat women. Why such continuance and comments?



i understand your thought and i appreciate that but it still doesn't solve the fact that the actual words say "FAT ADMIRER" and NOT a person who loves fat people or something similar to that. who knows what just that combination of words does in a person's mind. it would be nice if something could be found where the words you mention like love and woman or person were in there somewhere. i think your take on it is beautiful but the words don't do you and what you are justice. i don't think if i put a bucket of fat out you'd have the same feelings toward it at all. but unfortunately the term says that you would. i know it may seem like splitting hairs to you but its how i feel. i want to see you guys respected.


----------



## LillyBBBW

superodalisque said:


> not exactly. i don't think there is anything slimy or unethical about fat women eating on a train. thats just a normal thing people do that doesn't hurt anyone. invading someone's space and divulging their secrets is something else altogether. its apples and oranges--and i don't mean eating them.
> 
> one is an assumption based on a prejudice aimed and someone who is doing nothing wrong and the other is someone being an ass, trying to control people and having that reflect badly on the group he belongs to perhaps reinforcing a prejudice just because of wrong actions--unless you feel that invading people's privacy and threatening them with their secrets is ok? where i come from that could be the basis for the beginning of something called extortion. especially if there is some kind of implication that people should do as you say or face consequences somehow.



So people only represent others if they're doing something shitty? If the fat woman got on the train with a bomb strapped to her body then she's representing fat women? This is really unfair. Yes there are people who think that way but are we doing any service to them or ourselves by saying, "Oh ok, your feelings are valid,"? In that context? No one wants to take any part in facilitating a nesting ground for poison seeds sown in with personal progress. 

ETA: I know you're mad at Dan and you should be. I'm not trying to take that away from you.


----------



## superodalisque

LillyBBBW said:


> So people only represent others if they're doing something shitty? If the fat woman got on the train with a bomb strapped to her body then she's representing fat women? This is really unfair. Yes there are people who think that way but are we doing any service to them or ourselves by saying, "Oh ok, your feelings are valid,"? In that context? No one wants to take any part in facilitating a nesting ground for poison seeds sown in with personal progress.



i never said they ONLY represented other people if their doing something shitty. re: the black reference, if that were true there would never have been an Obama. all i said was be aware how your actions might reflect on you and the group you belong to. guess what Dan was not representing like Obama at that particular moment lol. and i was just reminding him of that.

yeah, i agree, it is unfair. thats life but sometimes humans are messed up. tg not all of the time but enough of the time. if a super got on a bus with a bomb you can bet there wouldn't be silence about her weight. no one would be like "Oh well it doesn't matter". people would use it as a reason to check fat women just in case some of those rolls were bombs. if a fat woman got on a bus people would want t get off. to say they wouldn't is really touching a reality i don't know about. go ask some of the brown people who didn't even have to be middle eastern after 9/11.


----------



## LillyBBBW

superodalisque said:


> i never said they ONLY represented other people if their doing something shitty. re: the black reference, if that were true there would never have been an Obama. all i said was be aware how your actions might reflect on you and the group you belong to. guess what Dan was not representing like Obama at that particular moment lol. and i was just reminding him of that.
> 
> yeah, i agree, it is unfair. thats life but sometimes humans are messed up. tg not all of the time but enough of the time. if a super got on a bus with a bomb you can bet there wouldn't be silence about her weight. no one would be like "Oh well it doesn't matter". people would use it as a reason to check fat women just in case some of those rolls were bombs. if a fat woman got on a bus people would want t get off. to say they wouldn't is really touching a reality i don't know about. go ask some of the brown people who didn't even have to be middle eastern after 9/11.



But isn't that why we're here? Why support size acceptance and then shoot ourselves in the foot by being just as rabidly excitable as the rest of the world? It's a fight to be treated as individuals. At least that's what I thought it was. We already know that people all over the world think we're gluttunous cows with no self control. The idea isn't to hide all the gluttonous cows so no one will see them or scold them all for making us look bad.


----------



## ashmamma84

As a queer, fat, black woman, I'm sure people have preconceived notions about me and how I live my life. At the end of the day though, if I worried about what others felt or thought I'd be miserable (and pretty insecure too). I refuse to wear a sign that says I'm a good fatty because I exercise and eat right (shame on the rest of you gluttons). I refuse to wear a shirt that says I'm not like _those_ other ignorant Negroes! I'm educated, I have class, etc. I refuse to wear a shirt that says I'm not a bull dagger like _those_ dykes. I just refuse. People will think whatever they will regardless of what I do. 

It's really no different for FA's, imo. Regardless of the language - there will be good and bad. Let them live, and if they stumble along the way, well hey, that's really no different than any other person trying to make their way in life is it?


----------



## superodalisque

LillyBBBW said:


> But isn't that why we're here? Why support size acceptance and then shoot ourselves in the foot by being just as rabidly excitable as the rest of the world? It's a fight to be treated as individuals. At least that's what I thought it was. We already know that people all over the world think we're gluttunous cows with no self control. The idea isn't to hide all the gluttonous cows so no one will see them or scold them all for making us look bad.



sure we're here to be supportive. part of that support is to give people a reality check on how they might be affecting how other people feel about FAs. all i was basically saying was for a woman who has already had bad experiences you don't need to add another one. whats so horrible about that? unless its okay to make bad experiences for other people? i wouldn't expect me or the group i belonged to to be held in good opinion if i didn't care about being even a part of heaping bad experiences on other people.


----------



## superodalisque

ashmamma84 said:


> As a queer, fat, black woman, I'm sure people have preconceived notions about me and how I live my life. At the end of the day though, if I worried about what others felt or thought I'd be miserable (and pretty insecure too). I refuse to wear a sign that says I'm a good fatty because I exercise and eat right (shame on the rest of you gluttons). I refuse to wear a shirt that says I'm not like _those_ other ignorant Negroes! I'm educated, I have class, etc. I refuse to wear a shirt that says I'm not a bull dagger like _those_ dykes. I just refuse. People will think whatever they will regardless of what I do.
> 
> It's really no different for FA's, imo. Regardless of the language - there will be good and bad. Let them live, and if they stumble along the way, well hey, that's really no different than any other person trying to make their way in life is it?



yep exactly YOU are your own best advertising. i was encouraging him to be that as well. but there is a sensitivity here about what FAs seem to be as a group. i was addressing that too. a lot of people haven't gotten to the "I am an individual" point. in fact, they may not want to be since they can be so tied into the term that they can't accept that a critique of one person's act may not be about all of the rest of them. but if they are concerned that it is they should behave according to how they would like to be perceived. i don't think someone is all bad if they stumble but i like to be able to encourage them to get up.


----------



## ashmamma84

superodalisque said:


> sure we're here to be supportive. part of that support is to give people a reality check on how they might be affecting how other people feel about FAs. all i was basically saying was for a woman who has already had bad experiences you don't need to add another one. whats so horrible about that? unless its okay to make bad experiences for other people? i wouldn't expect me or the group i belonged to to be held in good opinion if i didn't care about being even a part of heaping bad experiences on other people.



Honestly, I really think people need to experience the bad. It's only natural to temper the good. Nothing ever goes away until it teaches you what you need to know. So maybe a fat chick needs to go through some things to really get it. Part of that reality check might mean not swearing off all men who are FA's simply because you were hurt. If it takes being hurt a time or two to develop a negative attitude towards FA's, it makes me wonder if that just was a leap a woman wanted to make regardless. Like she's already harbored the prejudice and a fallout just confirms her beliefs. If you have a nightmare, do you stop dreaming? 

I have fallen all over my feet before and sure I put blame on other people as if it was their fault. Then I learned a lil something - I was standing in my own way of progress and better/beautiful experiences. Not anyone else. It's not really just FA's providing these awful experiences. I really think sometimes fat chicks are playing the game as well.


----------



## mossystate

Blackjack said:


> Personally, I think that it would be best to do nothing with the term itself and instead stop acting like it defines people, as opposed to describing a part of them.
> 
> Labels are given far too much weight here, and so frequently by people who complain about how much power these labels have.



As long as you feel this way about people who say things like, " oh, the way he acts, he is not a * real * fa ". If so, then we are reading the same book.

As I have said more than once in this thread - " I guess since I don't think there should be a global pro - fa mindset, past the WOOT that there are men who like squishy bodies, the opposite just makes the same amount of sense...which is not much. "


----------



## LoveBHMS

superodalisque said:


> sure we're here to be supportive. part of that support is to give people a reality check on how they might be affecting how other people feel about FAs. all i was basically saying was for a woman who has already had bad experiences you don't need to add another one. whats so horrible about that? unless its okay to make bad experiences for other people? i wouldn't expect me or the group i belonged to to be held in good opinion if i didn't care about being even a part of heaping bad experiences on other people.



I'm willing to guess that FAs making bad experiences for fatties don't care much about other people, and care even less about how others feel about FAs.

If I were trolling the BHM scene because I needed a green card, or manipulating poor lonely fat guys into buying me presents so I'd spend time with them, or otherwise being dishonest and disrespectful, then I'm probably not the sort of FFA who cares about anyone else. And telling me to knock it off so that the fat guys don't think all FFAs are as awful as me is just laughable.

It's not ok to make bad experiences for others, but people do it anyway. FAs, FFAs, non-FAs, and everyone in between. Some people are jerks and it has nothing to do with their sexual preference. Some people are always going to prey on others' vulnerability to get what they want.


----------



## LillyBBBW

superodalisque said:


> sure we're here to be supportive. part of that support is to give people a reality check on how they might be affecting how other people feel about FAs. all i was basically saying was for a woman who has already had bad experiences you don't need to add another one. whats so horrible about that? unless its okay to make bad experiences for other people? i wouldn't expect me or the group i belonged to to be held in good opinion if i didn't care about being even a part of heaping bad experiences on other people.



No one is against letting people have it when they fcuk sh*t up. I was so mad at one of my exes that I told him I was sick of men and was either going to become a nun, a lesbian or a lesbian nun. I was really mad though. My ex did an asshole thing and you're damn straight I let him know it but he's not responsible for all men nor are they responsible for him. I can distiguish this difference even though I went too far in my condemnation of his actions.


----------



## superodalisque

ashmamma84 said:


> Honestly, I really think people need to experience the bad. It's only natural to temper the good. Nothing ever goes away until it teaches you what you need to know. So maybe a fat chick needs to go through some things to really get it. Part of that reality check might mean not swearing off all men who are FA's simply because you were hurt. If it takes being hurt a time or two to develop a negative attitude towards FA's, it makes me wonder if that just was a leap a woman wanted to make regardless. Like she's already harbored the prejudice and a fallout just confirms her beliefs. If you have a nightmare, do you stop dreaming?
> 
> I have fallen all over my feet before and sure I put blame on other people as if it was their fault. Then I learned a lil something - I was standing in my own way of progress and better/beautiful experiences. Not anyone else. It's not really just FA's providing these awful experiences. I really think sometimes fat chicks are playing the game as well.



yes we do need to experience the bad. thats how we learn. and exactly like you i believe in personal responsibility. part of that personal responsibility includes being vocal about what happens to you. i'm being vocal about the backstory.

the women who were thought to have leaked were also given a tongue lashing . and we are trying to make sure exactly who they are so we can decide as a group what to do about it. the reason that Dan got the focus on dims was because what he did was definite and out in the open. before now i'd have never mentioned it here but he brought it into the conversation. for me personally the issue had died a long time ago. i had let it lie for quite some time and would have forever if he hadn't directly referenced one of my own posts which he shouldn't have read. it was obvious that even though i had already given him a break he wasn't going to give me one and was unrepentant about violating anyones privacy and as he threatened would do it anytime he felt like it. i decided at that moment that maybe it would be important for him to experience at least some of the bad. yeah maybe it was wrong of me but i thought that he just wasn't getting that what he was doing was wrong as well as smug. he was having fun with me because he knew other people didn't know what he was referencing.

i thought just maybe people would help him to get it. but what i have encountered instead are people rallying more around the idea of a term than around what someone did. i find that highly ironic for people insisting this was an act of an individual person--with which i have agreed. its easier for people to continue arguing the term, i guess, instead of the underlying issue. thats part of why i hate the term because its a messed up distraction used whenever a woman has something negative to say about what is being done by someone who happens to be an FA. we are always the crazy one. we are the ones who hate ALL FAs. i never told anyone's secrets or threatened anyone. why am i a big clonking villian just because i pointed it out. i haven't lied. he did something wrong . he IS an FA n a forum devoted to FAs with FA concerns. and yes he did add to some negative opinions some women have about FAs right or wrong. can anyone deny that? would it be more comfortable for people if i lied? probably. but i'm really tired of being asked to lie and soft peddle to make people comfortable and if not getting picked apart to allow bullshit to go down.


----------



## thirtiesgirl

superodalisque said:


> i dunno. there have been a lot of studies about labels and their effect on people. it seems like they do have quite an impact. people tend to live in a land of self fulfilling prophecies unless they work very hard to break out of a labels assumptions.



I agree that words have meaning (for example, the difference between Fat Admirer and Fat Preference), but I don't think just changing a label would change anyone's behavior. It's not until the choice of words is talked about, discussed and parsed out (like what's happening here) that people begin to respond and either change their behavior or not.


----------



## joswitch

superodalisque said:


> *snip*
> he shouldn't be held up as an example
> *snip*
> an FAs actions are noted and up for scrutiny and perhaps stereotyping.



Doublethink.

The dissonance - it burrrns!


----------



## superodalisque

LillyBBBW said:


> No one is against letting people have it when they fcuk sh*t up. I was so mad at one of my exes that I told him I was sick of men and was either going to become a nun, a lesbian or a lesbian nun. I was really mad though. My ex did an asshole thing and you're damn straight I let him know it but he's not responsible for all men nor are they responsible for him. I can distiguish this difference even though I went too far in my condemnation of his actions.



i actually could have gone further but didn't. i wouldn't have mentioned it at all if he hadn't referenced my own private post here in this thread. i haven't read all of the threads on dims and it made me wonder what he was doing with the rest of the stuff he'd read belonging to other women. before you make up your mind about things maybe you should get the whole story before you decide who went too far. i guess its okay to steal women's private thoughts and to threaten them with them? its just this smug sneak thief , i can get away with anything and no one will believe you or support you attitude that a lot of women are up in arms about.


----------



## LillyBBBW

superodalisque said:


> yes we do need to experience the bad. thats how we learn. and exactly like you i believe in personal responsibility. part of that personal responsibility includes being vocal about what happens to you. i'm being vocal about the backstory.
> 
> the women who were thought to have leaked were also given a tongue lashing . and we are trying to make sure exactly who they are so we can decide as a group what to do about it. the reason that Dan got the focus on dims was because what he did was definite and out in the open. before now i'd have never mentioned it here but he brought it into the conversation. for me personally the issue had died a long time ago. i had let it lie for quite some time and would have forever if he hadn't directly referenced one of my own posts which he shouldn't have read. it was obvious that even though i had already given him a break he wasn't going to give me one and was unrepentant about violating anyones privacy and as he threatened would do it anytime he felt like it. i decided at that moment that maybe it would be important for him to experience at least some of the bad. yeah maybe it was wrong of me but i thought that he just wasn't getting that what he was doing was wrong as well as smug. he was having fun with me because he knew other people didn't know what he was referencing.
> 
> i thought just maybe people would help him to get it. but what i have encountered instead are people rallying more around the idea of a term than around what someone did. i find that highly ironic for people insisting this was an act of an individual person--with which i have agreed. its easier for people to continue arguing the term, i guess, instead of the underlying issue. thats part of why i hate the term because its a messed up distraction used whenever a woman has something negative to say about what is being done by someone who happens to be an FA. we are always the crazy one. i never told anyone's secrets or threatened anyone. why am i a big clonking villian just because i pointed it out. i haven't lied. he did something wrong . he IS an FA n a forum devoted to FAs with FA concerns. and yes he did add to some negative opinions some women have about FAs right or wrong. can anyone deny that? would it be more comfortable for people if i lied? probably. but i'm really tired of being asked to lie and soft peddle to make people comfortable and if not getting picked apart to allow bullshit to go down.



Supero, please do not misunderstand this. NOBODY is calling you a villain or saying you don't have the right to be angry. Due to the restrtictions of this board I can't say what I really think of Dan's actions. We're all on the same page with that. This has nothing to do with terms and names and all this stuff. Of course we're on you about this. I think you would do the same if you could see someone painting themselves in a corner. The subtlety of what we're talking about equates to the difference between rising above circumstance and assuming a permanent victim's stance. The victim's stance doesn't suit you at all. I hope once your anger cools somewhat you will be able to see our meaning here. That's all I can say for now.


----------



## superodalisque

LillyBBBW said:


> Supero, please do not misunderstand this. NOBODY is calling you a villain or saying you don't have the right to be angry. Due to the restrtictions of this board I can't say what I really think of Dan's actions. We're all on the same page with that. This has nothing to do with terms and names and all this stuff. Of course we're on you about this. I think you would do the same if you could see someone painting themselves in a corner. The subtlety of what we're talking about equates to the difference between rising above circumstance and assuming a permanent victim's stance. The victim's stance doesn't suit you at all. I hope once your anger cools somewhat you will be able to see our meaning here. That's all I can say for now.




but the core issue is that no BBW should dare to say anything about any FA even if something did occur. thats the point. and its not even the FAs saying it. i'm not a victim because i said exactly what i had to say and i'm not afraid to say it. i would have been one if i had sat quietly by pretending nothing had happened. victims don't stand up for themselves. as for painting myself into a corner i disagree. if i have to defend the fact that someone behaving badly can make a group of people look bad we can agree to disagree. that knitpickery that has no real answer for everyone doesn't take away from the core issue. its nebulous and tertiary to what really happened and you know it.


----------



## LillyBBBW

superodalisque said:


> but the core issue is that no BBW should dare to say anything about any FA even if something did occur. thats the point. and its not even the FAs saying it.



Where?? Show me where it is because I've never seen anyone say that.


----------



## superodalisque

LillyBBBW said:


> Where?? Show me where it is because I've never seen anyone say that.



how the conversation has been steered says plenty


----------



## superodalisque

joswitch said:


> Doublethink.
> 
> The dissonance - it burrrns!



what you don't reference is that you chose statements that don't go together and are both highly "snipped"

one references and ideal and the other a reality--but you knew that

keep trying


----------



## thirtiesgirl

I think he needs to be sent to bed without any pudding.


----------



## superodalisque

thirtiesgirl said:


> I think he needs to be sent to bed without any pudding.



lol that would work


----------



## LillyBBBW

superodalisque said:


> how the conversation has been steered says plenty



*sigh* I'm not going to keep on you, but I know that you are better than this.


----------



## superodalisque

LillyBBBW said:


> *sigh* I'm not going to keep on you, but I know that you are better than this.



same here *shake*


----------



## vardon_grip

superodalisque said:


> how the conversation has been steered says plenty



I think it's also how the conversation was started


----------



## lovelocs

TraciJo67 said:


> Dan, you had your girlfriend register for a group that is invitation-only, for women only. And then you used her account to sign in, read what was written there, and then share said content with others.
> 
> In what universe do you think anyone else but you would assume this is ok?



Finally, for once, someone states what we know about this place: that there's a lot of behind the scenes chatter, backbiting, and catfighting. Glad I'm the detached member...


----------



## superodalisque

Post #8 is a post of genius http://www.dimensionsmagazine.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1525210#post1525210


----------



## joswitch

superodalisque said:


> what you don't reference is that you chose statements that don't go together and are both highly "snipped"
> 
> one references and ideal and the other a reality--but you knew that



Yeah - remember croissant-gate?
It was pretty much universally agreed that we don't attain an ideal of non-stereotyping by attempting to second-guess/appease/make allowances for existing prejudice.

Likewise:
I appreciate that if someone has been hurt they will be pissed off.
I agree that if they were hurt by somone being an asshole - then that asshole deserves censure.

At the same time - I have no time for anyone who treats me badly, without any prior knowledge / experience of me, just cos I share genital assignment and/or sex orientation with aforementioned asshole.

The girl eating croissants on the train doesn't have to accept prejudice - and neither do I.
It may be (a social) reality.
It's wrong.
To create change - reject it / fight it.


----------



## wrestlingguy

I think the difference between seeing a fat girl on a train eating, and the "scourge that is FA's" is a question of degree.

A guy may see a fat girl eating on a train so very occasionally, and a fat girl gets skeezed out by "bad FA's" on a minute by minute basis. To boot, if one looks at the actions involved, eating in public vs. being a pig to a woman online or IRL, I would hope that all of you would say option #2 would seem more offensive.

I am not an FA. I am not defined by this community, nor any other community I participate in. I am a guy who is a father, a businessman, a salesman, an idealist, a spiritual person, a student of life, a former radio show host, a musician, and a former DJ who happens to be attracted to women who are fat. If a woman wants to "lump me" into the SCOURGE category that easily, she's likely not a person I'd want in my life anyway, for friendship or romance. I would want a person to get to know me first, before throwing me back with the rest of the fish.

That said, I "get it", however painful it may be, when a fat girl paints her broad anti FA brush, and I'm part of the brushstroke. I'm sure that in doing so, she's just reliving all of the other times in her life she's been insulted, talked down to, called names, come onto in a perverse sexual way, taken advantage of, played for a fool, etc.........Experience is a teacher.

It's frustrating, but it's understandable. I've seen many good guys in this community get painted with that brush as well, and my fear is that there may be a reaction that more closely resembles the skeezer, since the "good guy" figures since you can't beat 'em, join 'em. 

To me, it resembles a virus, and it needs to stop spreading within the group in which we live. (This is NOT a PSA, just my 2 cents)


----------



## mossystate

So, no painting...and no wearing the bedazzled FA patch on ones chest.


Order up!


----------



## wrestlingguy

mossystate said:


> So, no painting...and no wearing the bedazzled FA patch on ones chest.
> 
> 
> Order up!



I'll have a cheeseburger.....straight, no chaser.


----------



## mossystate

wrestlingguy said:


> I'll have a cheeseburger.....straight, no chaser.



Oh, I just shout the orders...I will let the chef know, and even tell her to wash her hands...just for you!


----------



## wrestlingguy

That's fine, she doesn't have to wash, as long as she hasn't touched any of those disgusting FA's......


----------



## TraciJo67

wrestlingguy said:


> That's fine, she doesn't have to wash, as long as she hasn't touched any of those disgusting FA's......


 
I just brushed my teeth with Joswitch. Does that count?


----------



## Dromond

wrestlingguy said:


> *much snippage*
> 
> I am not an FA. I am not defined by this community, nor any other community I participate in.



Preach. It. Brother.



wrestlingguy said:


> That said, I "get it", however painful it may be, when a fat girl paints her broad anti FA brush, and I'm part of the brushstroke. I'm sure that in doing so, she's just reliving all of the other times in her life she's been insulted, talked down to, called names, come onto in a perverse sexual way, taken advantage of, played for a fool, etc.........Experience is a teacher.
> 
> It's frustrating, but it's understandable. I've seen many good guys in this community get painted with that brush as well, and my fear is that there may be a reaction that more closely resembles the skeezer, since the "good guy" figures since you can't beat 'em, join 'em.
> 
> To me, it resembles a virus, and it needs to stop spreading within the group in which we live. (This is NOT a PSA, just my 2 cents)



Yup, yup. This also. I am not those guys, but I do understand why I can get lumped in with them. In my young and stupid days, I _was_ one of them, so I know entirely too well the damage men like that can do.


----------



## mossystate

wrestlingguy said:


> That's fine, she doesn't have to wash, as long as she hasn't touched any of those disgusting FA's......





TraciJo67 said:


> I just brushed my teeth with Joswitch. Does that count?




Going to have to change the sign outside my fine dining establishment. No shirts, no shoes, no service...not going to cut it in this brave new world.


----------



## thirtiesgirl

Get me a cluck 'n' grunt with Bronx vanilla, walk a cow through the garden, hold the frog sticks, and add a brown cow.


----------



## mossystate

I don't serve your kind, thirties.

My goodness!

The noive!!

View attachment 83210


----------



## thirtiesgirl

I should have known.


----------



## Redhotphatgirl

It's not ok to make bad experiences for others, but people do it anyway. FAs, FFAs, non-FAs, and everyone in between. Some people are jerks and it has nothing to do with their sexual preference. Some people are always going to prey on others' vulnerability to get what they want.

This is it in a nut shell. nut shell i tell ya I have been here for 10 years and there are some women on here that are every bit as bad or worse than a bad fa. You can not bash a bunch of people for their wanting what they want. To be honest I problay talk to more fa's on a regular basis than most of you. Some of them are skeezy most of them are just guys wanting a good relationship with a girl of size.


----------



## CastingPearls

thirtiesgirl said:


> Get me a cluck 'n' grunt with Bronx vanilla, walk a cow through the garden, hold the frog sticks, and add a brown cow.


I want what she's having.


----------



## Redhotphatgirl

I am not an FA. I am not defined by this community, nor any other community I participate in. I am a guy who is a father, a businessman, a salesman, an idealist, a spiritual person, a student of life, a former radio show host, a musician, and a former DJ who happens to be attracted to women who are fat. If a woman wants to "lump me" into the SCOURGE category that easily, she's likely not a person I'd want in my life anyway, for friendship or romance. I would want a person to get to know me first, before throwing me back with the rest of the fish.

That said, I "get it", however painful it may be, when a fat girl paints her broad anti FA brush, and I'm part of the brushstroke. I'm sure that in doing so, she's just reliving all of the other times in her life she's been insulted, talked down to, called names, come onto in a perverse sexual way, taken advantage of, played for a fool, etc.........Experience is a teacher.

It's frustrating, but it's understandable. I've seen many good guys in this community get painted with that brush as well, and my fear is that there may be a reaction that more closely resembles the skeezer, since the "good guy" figures since you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

To me, it resembles a virus, and it needs to stop spreading within the group in which we live. (This is NOT a PSA, just my 2 
cents)



I have never had the opportunity to meet phil but if life lets me I want too. I have had the opportunity to talk to him out here on the www. And the man gets it.

I am married to a guy who loves fat girls. Do I like all his ideas NO do i agree with everything that comes out of his mouth in regard to diets and women NO
Do we always agree on things bbw and fa related hell no. Do i like it when he rubs my rolls along with the rest of me. ( And that goes to any lover i ever had or ever will have yes because i know they knows they rubbing all of me. )hell yes You can not lump all men who love fat women into a term fa and not get some that are not strange. We are individuals they are individuals....this crap has gone on too long....I left chat because it went in there man bashing fat lover bashing i got a surprise for you some fat admiring people are men....men are human...and you got to take each one of us with a grain of salt.


----------



## Redhotphatgirl

wrestlingguy said:


> That's fine, she doesn't have to wash, as long as she hasn't touched any of those disgusting FA's......


yeah cause if they are goin be touched i want to be on that hahahahahaqh


----------



## mossystate

red, I think most of us have pretty much said the same thing about individuals...in fact, most of us took offense to the idea that we are hatin' on _all_ ' fa's '...maybe you are stuck in the thinking that anything negative said about any ' fa ' = ' fa bashing '...or man bashing..........as for chat, well, you must not be seeing the other side of the fence, cuz it ain't any prettier...lol.....unless women are not ' human '....

last night, some guy was sending me PM's...he was mostly harmless, and not very interesting at all ( jesus, is that putting it mildly...lol )...he then started sending messages about eating my " pink taco ".....I laughed at him, and he sent another just like it, telling me how much he would like to dooo that....I then knew he wasn't just being silly and he was lookin' for a certain kind of conversation ( there had been a discussion in the room about food...shocking, I know...heh )...........I simply gave him an eye rolling smiley.....he then sent a PM telling me I was so uptight, which of course is not a very tired way of trying to reduce/bash a woman who has said no to something ................................maybe you have no idea just how many times how many men in there are just being........human


----------



## SSBBW Katerina

superodalisque said:


> yeah McBeth i hate men who love my body and treat me like i'm actually a real woman --especially the ones who don't use the designation like a jerk crutch. how dare they! this should easily contain them : *passes out rolls of duct tape*



That is damned hilarious! getting a friend to make a run to Ace Hardware & Walmart for the duct tape by the gross. I'll clear out their stock, the way 'Elaine Benes' on Seinfeld, cleared out the entire Upper West Side of Manhattan of the Today Sponge! LmAo!!


----------



## thirtiesgirl

mossystate said:


> last night, some guy was sending me PM's...he was mostly harmless, and not very interesting at all ( jesus, is that putting it mildly...lol )...he then started sending messages about eating my " pink taco ".....I laughed at him, and he sent another just like it, telling me how much he would like to dooo that....I then knew he wasn't just being silly and he was lookin' for a certain kind of conversation ( there had been a discussion in the room about food...shocking, I know...heh )...........I simply gave him an eye rolling smiley.....he then sent a PM telling me I was so uptight, which of course is not a very tired way of trying to reduce/bash a woman who has said no to something ................................maybe you have no idea just how many times how many men in there are just being........human



And if they're not willing to accept your 'no' in a chat room, I wouldn't want to see how they'd react in a secluded setting one on one.


----------



## mossystate

thirtiesgirl said:


> And if they're not willing to accept your 'no' in a chat room, I wouldn't want to see how they'd react in a secluded setting one on one.



This could be true for some...and then many others think that the internet is a safe place to pitch temper tantrums, and call names, when women tell them to fuck off. It is the same with the men who, when they are told no, call women fat pigs....yes, in Dims chat. My favorite was when I helped some boy with a problem ( he asked for help ), but I didn't say exactly what he wanted to hear ( I suggested, after a number of PM's swapped, that he might need to take some responsibility for his relationship )...he called me an ugly old fat bitch. Swoon. He was not booted for that. Nope.


----------



## joswitch

mossystate said:


> This could be true for some...and then many others think that the internet is a safe place to pitch temper tantrums, and call names, when women tell them to fuck off. It is the same with the men who, when they are told no, call women fat pigs....yes, in Dims chat. My favorite was when I helped some boy with a problem ( he asked for help ), but I didn't say exactly what he wanted to hear ( I suggested, after a number of PM's swapped, that he might need to take some responsibility for his relationship )...he called me an ugly old fat bitch. Swoon. * He was not booted for that.* Nope.



^That sucks. Is the chat not moderated all the time?
(I never use it)


----------



## truebebeblue

I think this is a never ending type of argument Nothing we will be able to hash out. 
Us arguing that our feelings are valid to the other side isn't going anywhere because the guys we are arguing about it with are generally the good guys...
the men who are behaving this way are sneaking past any serious discussion on their way to the paysite board and chat... The ones behaving badly KNOW what they are doing and are not going to stop until they want to. When one girl shoots them down they move to another... and we know the number of BBW gives pretty good odds. 

So let us have our list and point out the bad guys and their bad behavior.Doesn't mean we hate you good guys... we just want to help separate the two.Save other women some time and heartache.. We are Not throwing the baby out with the bathwater.. quite the opposite!


----------



## EtobicokeFA

truebebeblue said:


> I think this is a never ending type of argument Nothing we will be able to hash out.
> Us arguing that our feelings are valid to the other side isn't going anywhere because the guys we are arguing about it with are generally the good guys...
> the men who are behaving this way are sneaking past any serious discussion on their way to the paysite board and chat... The ones behaving badly KNOW what they are doing and are not going to stop until they want to. When one girl shoots them down they move to another... and we know the number of BBW gives pretty good odds.
> 
> So let us have our list and point out the bad guys and their bad behavior.Doesn't mean we hate you good guys... we just want to help separate the two.Save other women some time and heartache.. We are Not throwing the baby out with the bathwater.. quite the opposite!



You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to truebebeblue again.


----------



## imfree

EtobicokeFA said:


> You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to truebebeblue again.



Got her for you. A very Repworthy 
post, for sure.:bow:


----------



## superodalisque

vardon_grip said:


> I think it's also how the conversation was started



yes exactly. on a note of ridicule for people with concerns from the outset. you'd think there would be at least one thread assuring women who are worried. but no they get ridiculed for them instead.


----------



## Eclectic_Girl

So, let me see if I've got this:

This thread started as a sarcastic parody on how "dangerous" the FA in his natural habitat is, to make the point that FAs aren't the Other, they're just like everybody else except they get the hots for fatties.

Some folks either didn't get the sarcasm or were offended that their deeply-felt negative experiences with FAs were being made light of.

A bunch of people talked past each other about their views on the subject.

JPEGs were unsuccessfully employed to lighten the mood.

Dan (sorry, The Persona Known as Dan) was outed for having made a dick move in a private Facebook group unrelated to Dims except that most members are also Dims members.

Women asserted their right to tell other women about shitty experiences they'd had with guys and to compare notes to find out which guys were being dicks repeatedly to many women.

Guys, not knowing whether they had been named as dicks in this private group, expressed concern that they were being painted with the same broad brush because of other guys being dicks. Some of these guys lamented the fact that other guys made it more difficult for women to see that they themselves weren't dicks. Others expressed the desire to be a dick, or not be a dick, without having to be a representative for the rest of the guys.

A discussion was had (again) on the relative merits and challenges of labels such as FA and whether the Bible, errr... the Label, should be taken literally or metaphorically.

There was general sadness that humans have not evolved beyond the need for labels and categorization.

Both Lilly and Joy had awesome Hammers.

Thirties doesn't like blueberry pie.

Did I miss anything? 'Cause it seems to me that it all boils down to:
1. Don't act like a dick.
2. Don't assume that anyone else is a dick unless they prove otherwise. Even if they like the same things as a dick you've known before.
3. If you, or your Persona, acts like a dick, expect to be called a dick, and expect the details of your dickishness to be communicated in this very small subculture. If you are uncomfortable with that, see #1.


----------



## superodalisque

wrestlingguy said:


> I think the difference between seeing a fat girl on a train eating, and the "scourge that is FA's" is a question of degree.
> 
> A guy may see a fat girl eating on a train so very occasionally, and a fat girl gets skeezed out by "bad FA's" on a minute by minute basis. To boot, if one looks at the actions involved, eating in public vs. being a pig to a woman online or IRL, I would hope that all of you would say option #2 would seem more offensive.
> 
> I am not an FA. I am not defined by this community, nor any other community I participate in. I am a guy who is a father, a businessman, a salesman, an idealist, a spiritual person, a student of life, a former radio show host, a musician, and a former DJ who happens to be attracted to women who are fat. If a woman wants to "lump me" into the SCOURGE category that easily, she's likely not a person I'd want in my life anyway, for friendship or romance. I would want a person to get to know me first, before throwing me back with the rest of the fish.
> 
> That said, I "get it", however painful it may be, when a fat girl paints her broad anti FA brush, and I'm part of the brushstroke. I'm sure that in doing so, she's just reliving all of the other times in her life she's been insulted, talked down to, called names, come onto in a perverse sexual way, taken advantage of, played for a fool, etc.........Experience is a teacher.
> 
> It's frustrating, but it's understandable. I've seen many good guys in this community get painted with that brush as well, and my fear is that there may be a reaction that more closely resembles the skeezer, since the "good guy" figures since you can't beat 'em, join 'em.
> 
> To me, it resembles a virus, and it needs to stop spreading within the group in which we live. (This is NOT a PSA, just my 2 cents)




yep we need more guys to be the antedote more than than the virus. we need a cure for the broad brush. one of them is not misbehaving so much openly unashamedly and unapologetically as an FA against an official BBW group. and another is not having so many in the community take the part of said admitted "skeezer" when it comes to his misbehavior. it just magnifies it because it makes it seem that that behavior is more acceptable and thats it is allowable for FAs. and that REALLY gives FAs a bad name because they just look like a protected class that no justice follows no matter what they do.


----------



## superodalisque

Eclectic_Girl said:


> So, let me see if I've got this:
> 
> This thread started as a sarcastic parody on how "dangerous" the FA in his natural habitat is, to make the point that FAs aren't the Other, they're just like everybody else except they get the hots for fatties.
> 
> Some folks either didn't get the sarcasm or were offended that their deeply-felt negative experiences with FAs were being made light of.
> 
> A bunch of people talked past each other about their views on the subject.
> 
> JPEGs were unsuccessfully employed to lighten the mood.
> 
> Dan (sorry, The Persona Known as Dan) was outed for having made a dick move in a private Facebook group unrelated to Dims except that most members are also Dims members.
> 
> Women asserted their right to tell other women about shitty experiences they'd had with guys and to compare notes to find out which guys were being dicks repeatedly to many women.
> 
> Guys, not knowing whether they had been named as dicks in this private group, expressed concern that they were being painted with the same broad brush because of other guys being dicks. Some of these guys lamented the fact that other guys made it more difficult for women to see that they themselves weren't dicks. Others expressed the desire to be a dick, or not be a dick, without having to be a representative for the rest of the guys.
> 
> A discussion was had (again) on the relative merits and challenges of labels such as FA and whether the Bible, errr... the Label, should be taken literally or metaphorically.
> 
> There was general sadness that humans have not evolved beyond the need for labels and categorization.
> 
> Both Lilly and Joy had awesome Hammers.
> 
> Thirties doesn't like blueberry pie.
> 
> Did I miss anything? 'Cause it seems to me that it all boils down to:
> 1. Don't act like a dick.
> 2. Don't assume that anyone else is a dick unless they prove otherwise. Even if they like the same things as a dick you've known before.
> 3. If you, or your Persona, acts like a dick, expect to be called a dick, and expect the details of your dickishness to be communicated in this very small subculture. If you are uncomfortable with that, see #1.



exactly. dammit you should have made the 1st post! where have you been anyway?


----------



## Eclectic_Girl

superodalisque said:


> exactly. dammit you should have made the 1st post! where have you been anyway?



I have a very hectic schedule that includes napping, watching all the SciFi ever filmed, and having sex with my (proudly FA and not at all dickish) boyfriend.


----------



## AnnMarie

Eclectic_Girl said:


> I have a very hectic schedule that includes napping, watching all the SciFi ever filmed, and having sex with my (proudly FA and not at all dickish) boyfriend.



You're late, beyotch.


----------



## Eclectic_Girl

AnnMarie said:


> You're late, beyotch.



I know. That watching SciFi really takes a lot out of me.


----------



## joswitch

Eclectic_Girl said:


> So, let me see if I've got this:
> 
> This thread started as a sarcastic parody on how "dangerous" the FA in his natural habitat is, to make the point that FAs aren't the Other, they're just like everybody else except they get the hots for fatties.
> 
> Some folks either didn't get the sarcasm or were offended that their deeply-felt negative experiences with FAs were being made light of.
> 
> A bunch of people talked past each other about their views on the subject.
> 
> JPEGs were unsuccessfully employed to lighten the mood.
> 
> Dan (sorry, The Persona Known as Dan) was outed for having made a dick move in a private Facebook group unrelated to Dims except that most members are also Dims members.
> 
> Women asserted their right to tell other women about shitty experiences they'd had with guys and to compare notes to find out which guys were being dicks repeatedly to many women.
> 
> Guys, not knowing whether they had been named as dicks in this private group, expressed concern that they were being painted with the same broad brush because of other guys being dicks. Some of these guys lamented the fact that other guys made it more difficult for women to see that they themselves weren't dicks. Others expressed the desire to be a dick, or not be a dick, without having to be a representative for the rest of the guys.
> 
> A discussion was had (again) on the relative merits and challenges of labels such as FA and whether the Bible, errr... the Label, should be taken literally or metaphorically.
> 
> There was general sadness that humans have not evolved beyond the need for labels and categorization.
> 
> Both Lilly and Joy had awesome Hammers.
> 
> Thirties doesn't like blueberry pie.
> 
> Did I miss anything? 'Cause it seems to me that it all boils down to:
> 1. Don't act like a dick.
> 2. Don't assume that anyone else is a dick unless they prove otherwise. Even if they like the same things as a dick you've known before.
> 3. If you, or your Persona, acts like a dick, expect to be called a dick, and expect the details of your dickishness to be communicated in this very small subculture. If you are uncomfortable with that, see #1.



Exactly! Awesome summing up! Wins the thread.
You just saved someone a 24 page read!
/end thread

surely?


----------



## superodalisque

joswitch said:


> Yeah - remember croissant-gate?
> It was pretty much universally agreed that we don't attain an ideal of non-stereotyping by attempting to second-guess/appease/make allowances for existing prejudice.
> 
> Likewise:
> I appreciate that if someone has been hurt they will be pissed off.
> I agree that if they were hurt by somone being an asshole - then that asshole deserves censure.
> 
> At the same time - I have no time for anyone who treats me badly, without any prior knowledge / experience of me, just cos I share genital assignment and/or sex orientation with aforementioned asshole.
> 
> The girl eating croissants on the train doesn't have to accept prejudice - and neither do I.
> It may be (a social) reality.
> It's wrong.
> To create change - reject it / fight it.



even if someone has misconceptions how is anyone treating you badly if they just don't get involved with you? its a non action.
and if you don't want to date her anyway whats the big deal?


----------



## superodalisque

EtobicokeFA said:


> You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to truebebeblue again.



i know the feeling. she even has me repping her in places that don't give rep!


----------



## mossystate

what about scroungy fa's






















too soon?


----------



## liz (di-va)

kentwildt said:


> F.A. = Fat Admirer
> 
> My thought is that it refers to people who love fat people. I do not see myself living life with a skinny companion. I love fat women. Why such continuance and comments?


I think the dude with one post should get the last word.


----------



## MaxArden

Did we roll credits yet?


----------



## imfree

MaxArden said:


> Did we roll credits yet?



Nope, not yet. I've seen it written in here
that "we have people here who have the
authority to lock 'em down", however.


----------



## thirtiesgirl

MaxArden said:


> Did we roll credits yet?



I thought Eclectic_Girl just did.

Now back to your regularly scheduled programming.


----------



## imfree

lovelocs said:


> Finally, for once, someone states what we know about this place: that there's a lot of behind the scenes chatter, backbiting, and catfighting. Glad I'm the detached member...



I've always thought of all that stuff behind the 
scenes as being Dimmer Darkness. I've seen
OP's come out of Dimmer Darkness, attack,
then disappear without a trace. That's Dimmer
Darkness for you.


----------



## CastingPearls

MaxArden said:


> Did we roll credits yet?


Unfortunately not. However this may be the last death rattle.......We can only hope.


----------



## Pefird

There's pages and pages of this discussion and I can't read them all because I have to get back to "fapping." So, I don't know whether anyone has posted this plan yet. But, AnnMarie promised that this wouldn't be used against me somewhere between how she likes to eat pie and her "*belly jiggle,*" so here goes...

The best way to catch us: Set up a very large box propped up with a very large stick in the center of town or the center of a food court. Attach a long string to the very large stick. Then place a life-sized cut out of a bbw/ssbbw (I suggest AnnMarie herself) under the very large box. Then you lead the string into a nearby hiding spot and wait with string in hand. When an FA appears and goes under the box to gawk, stare, and hopefully before he/she starts "fapping" his/herself: yank the string, taking up the slack and removing the stick and the FA will be caught under the very large box. Alternately you can use a bhm cut out.

Ok, I have to get back to "fapping" myself.

Note; Maybe for copy write issues I should change the title to "The Long-eared, cotton tailed, rodent Approach?"


----------

