# Essay on FA's



## topicalj (Mar 22, 2016)

Hey Dimensions folks,
I recently spent over a month researching and writing an essay on fat people, FatPeopleHate, the body positive movement, and FA's. I've gotten a lot of feedback from various people, but none in the body positive movement or FA community. Curious what people would think. Although you may disagree with some of the discussion (and possibly tonal disagreements,) there's no doubt some parts that will interest you. A lot of really recent research used as sources.

You can find the essay here: https://medium.com/@JSiks/on-fat-chicks-3854a5d6b489#.ls6ja6js8

Appreciate your feedback!:bow:
-J


----------



## Yakatori (Mar 29, 2016)

This part of _Dimensions_ is actually called the _BBW-folder_ or _BBW sub-forum_. Intended as a kind of _safe space_ for the women to be able to have some kind of dialogue away from this particular brand of _douchery_ (and others).

Otherwise, I think, for where you are right now; emotionally, developmentally, _ect_...(high school-_ish_?) you're probably better off getting one of those Moleskine® notebooks you see hipsters carrying around and just keeping track of all this in there.

And then, when you fill it up, just put it in a shoe-box or something like that, and start again writing in a new one. 

Everything, all of this type of stuff. Like, if you learn a new word or hear a surprisingly good joke, write that down. Or you're just thinking or observing something or feeling a certain way about something that just happened.

And then, from time to time (but not too, too often), you take the notebooks out and just kind of browse through them. And this, hopefully, gives you some new inspiration or somehow generates a new angle from some previous jumping off point. Or, more frequently, you just kind of _cringe_ a bit.

Which is good, perfectly healthy. How both a person, in general, and writers-in particular, really start to develop. And are best able to actually see first hand, and better quantify the rate and trajectory of their own development.

And then, maybe, if you really, really persist; like, after you fill some 20-30 notebooks, you come to some point where certain ideas of themes start to coalesce in how you articulate them. And becomet more muscular, efficient, at describing certain kinds of things or situations. Or making certain kinds of observations. Like, you basically learn how to _relate_ stuff. Make it _relatable_, _accessable_ for other people.

Which, of course, is necessarily balanced by the utility or otherwise redeeming value of what it is you have to say, if it's something other people might actually want to know more about, and specifically or necessarily from your point of view. Or at least someone like you, in your position. _e.g_., You're an effective communicator, writer, who happens to live in the middle of a war zone (Syria?). Or you once went on a date with a young(er) Donald Trump. Or you're embedded with the _Mars Rover_ team, or whatever.

But _this_, this is not....



> "_...If you’re a *decent*-looking average guy, with *decent*-looking average guy friends..._"


Do you know what that word actually means? 

A person who passes for _decent_, who's passably a _decent_ person, human being, does not call such a person their friend, who would evaluate another person on that kind of scale, much less their friend's significant other. That's not how _decent_ people behave.

I'm telling you, it's a fact. They don't, they just don't.


----------



## agouderia (Mar 29, 2016)

Moved to FA/FFA Forum where it belongs.


----------



## Tad (Mar 30, 2016)

That is a _hefty _article. I read some parts somewhat carefully, skimmed much of it, and just skipped over portions. I really don't have the free time right now to do it justice. Structurally, I'd maybe think that it could be made into a series of smaller, more focused, articles? But having written up the whole thing I can understand reluctance to monkey with it now.

The mechanical part out of the way, I view it a lot more favorably than does Yakatori. I think you have done some good work and expressed if fairly well. I think perhaps your own biases come into how you looked at the data more than you might realize, but then again you are pretty open about who you are and what you are like, so the reader can discount for that on their own.

Overall I think this goes several steps farther in delving into this subject than do most discussions I've read here or elsewhere. I would encourage others to read it and comment, and I'll try to get through all of it more carefully as I find the free time.

Thanks for linking it in here.


----------



## topicalj (Mar 30, 2016)

Yakatori said:


> Do you know what that word actually means?


 
Thought I had made a spelling error for a second...

'Decent' means 'of an acceptable standard.' 'Decent-looking' friends, in this context, would mean, 'friends whose appearance is accepted by society.' 

The essay is not about friendship, but if you're unaware, there's stigma around dating a fat woman.


To quote you, "I'm telling you, it's a fact."


----------



## topicalj (Mar 30, 2016)

Tad said:


> Structurally, I'd maybe think that it could be made into a series of smaller, more focused, articles? But having written up the whole thing I can understand reluctance to monkey with it now.
> 
> The mechanical part out of the way, I view it a lot more favorably than does Yakatori... Overall I think this goes several steps farther in delving into this subject than do most discussions I've read here or elsewhere. I would encourage others to read it and comment, and I'll try to get through all of it more carefully as I find the free time.
> 
> Thanks for linking it in here.


 
Really appreciate it. 

I had considered doing a 5-parter. But, tbh there's a couple sections which are necessary to the whole, but aren't very engaging on their own when separated. 
It certainly is much longer than I'd like it to be. Definitely avoiding 'monkeying around' as you said, after so much time writing it as it is. 

Funny enough, I had written it hoping it'd be accessible to people on both sides of the arguments, but now after getting feedback from many different communities- I've found it's actually mainstream that appreciates and learns from it (the CEO of Medium recommended the essay ,) did not expect mainstream to have any interest...

The two movements described within can rarely get passed the first paragraph... and are usually as much, or more dismissive than Yakatori


----------



## agouderia (Mar 30, 2016)

I would agree with Tad - maybe breaking it up into different parts would also do your analysis good.

Because I could detect a few contradictions - like between your initial stance on the BMI question and what you write further down.

You're (unfortunately) right - the visually accepted female BMI today is borderline underweight, being BMI 18-20.
But while you deplore fat hate, you at the same time very uncritically take on the commonplace weight progapanda denouncing women with BMI 25 as overweight = unhealthy.
Even though there is no statistically significant data to be found that people in the BMI 25-30 range have higher mortality rates if you control for genetic disposition.

So freeing your mind from the regular ruts in weight arguments and be more stringent in your analysis and positioning would help. 
Comprehensively dealing with one issue in one chapter would probably assist in that - instead of coming back to one aspect several times in varying contexts.

Oh - and delete the chapter about Rubens. It's simply historically wrong. Botticelli and Cranach were 80-120 years earlier, had a very different regional and religious context - to start with the obvious and not have to go into the art-historic details.


----------



## topicalj (Mar 31, 2016)

agouderia said:


> I could detect a few contradictions - like between your initial stance on the BMI question and what you write further down.



Thanks. Are you talking about how I say 'some suspect 18-20 BMI is best for optimal health and fertility...' then later say 'BMIs between 20.0 and 24.9 have been associated with the lowest risk of death and chronic illness'?

It's true, within 5-10 BMI points, the studies seem somewhat all over the place.

I did try to address this with "This is a complex and vast area of inquiry, but from just a brief gander we can see widespread controversy within the scientific community, and many conflicting studies."



agouderia said:


> while you deplore fat hate, you at the same time very uncritically take on the commonplace weight progapanda denouncing women with BMI 25 as overweight = unhealthy.
> Even though there is no statistically significant data to be found that people in the BMI 25-30 range have higher mortality rates if you control for genetic disposition.



Not sure why you say that.
The section 'dangers of fat' pretty much covers exactly what you just said. I agree the term 'overweight' is a misnomer, but it seems to still be the accepted term within the scientific community and average joes. What is the preferred term?



agouderia said:


> Oh - and delete the chapter about Rubens. It's simply historically wrong. Botticelli and Cranach were 80-120 years earlier, had a very different regional and religious context - to start with the obvious and not have to go into the art-historic details.



AHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That section was particularly stress inducing. Early on in research I came across a section in a peer reviewed journal where researchers examined Ruben's paintings within their broader context. The study basically attempted to debunk claims that his paintings were proof/evidence of sexual appetites of his time.
At the time I came across it, I had no intention of writing about Rubens, and didn't write down the source.... later I tried to relocate it (probably cumulatively spent an entire day,) but frustratingly couldn't find it... the Rubens section was actually the last section I wrote because I was hoping to find the journal again. I hoped on my own I had crafted a passable argument, but perhaps not.

Admittedly, I'm not an art history buff. My understanding: Cranach and Rubens had roughly 50 years between their bodies of work, and, importantly, the environment and culture shared was pretty much the same. Not true? I suppose I'll have to look into that more *grumble*

Thanks for the criticism.


----------



## Blockierer (Apr 1, 2016)

Good work! 
Although there are some statements I don't agree.

For example:



topicalj said:


> .. As our society generally looks down on a man with a fat woman, a public relationship of this sort would typically lower a mans social status; in this negative feedback loop, a fat woman makes for the opposite of a trophy wife, a fat woman is a liability. ...



I'm married to a fat woman and it is not my experience that I've got a lower social status because of my wife. I had the choice, thin or fat. Obviously, I decided for fat.



topicalj said:


> .. I think fat chicks are alright, and I reason that the stigma behind this is largely societys problem, not mine. ...


This should be written in bold letters.


----------



## landshark (Apr 1, 2016)

Blockierer said:


> Good work!
> Although there are some statements I don't agree.
> 
> For example...



I see both sides of this, Blockierer. Your point is very well stated and I feel the same way about my life choices as you do yours. I chose the woman I am married to and I do not feel the slightest bit inferior as a man just because my wife doesn't fit society's mainstream ideal. 

OTOH, I agree with the writer that there is still a widespread social stigma associated with men who pursue fat women. Granted this stigma is forwarded not by anyone who actually matters to me personally, but it is out there. A prevailing notion is that men who pursue fat women, or worse: men who are married to fat women are themselves undesirable. If they want a fat woman, they must "lack self esteem" or "themselves be fat or otherwise unattractive" or "be uneducated" or "unemployed" or "low income" or in summary "all around losers." 

Again, this narrative doesn't bother me, I am very secure in myself and my life choices. Some of the people who propel this narrative would be lucky to have the wife I have (or for the women who subscribe to it, BE the amazing woman my wife is). Still, I feel somewhat compelled to counter this narrative where I encounter it. It's not like I really expect to change anyone's mind, it's just that if someone is going to continue on their pre-conceived notions about a certain type of person they will do so in the face of overwhelming evidence their ideas are flawed. In other words, they will continue in their ignorance as ignorantly as one can. Also, when I encounter this narrative in an online forum, where I really don't expect to change anyone's mind, I like the idea of leaving a written record of counter points. You'd be amazed...I will still get emails from time to time from people who will stumble into a conversation that is years old and tell me how much they appreciated my points.


----------



## Blockierer (Apr 1, 2016)

happily_married said:


> ....
> OTOH, I agree with the writer that there is still a widespread social stigma associated with men who pursue fat women. Granted this stigma is forwarded not by anyone who actually matters to me personally, but it is out there. A prevailing notion is that men who pursue fat women, or worse: men who are married to fat women are *themselves undesirable*. If they want a fat woman, they must *"lack self esteem"* or "*themselves be fat or otherwise unattractive"* or "*be uneducated*" or "*unemployed*" or "*low income*" or in summary "*all around losers*."
> ....


*lol*
I'm happy we both don't meet the points you listed.


----------



## Tad (Apr 1, 2016)

I think this tends to apply to anyone who isn’t going for an &#8216;aspirational’ partner. Fat, different ethnic group (unless that group averages high socio-economic status), less education, visible disability, etc.

Certainly guys can be competitive, and anyone who isn’t choosing to compete in whatever competition they care about can get dismissed as weak, a loser, or whatever. The trick, in my experience, is being very clear with yourself and with others on what your definition of success is. It would be the equivalent of going into a gym and somebody challenging you “How much can you dead-lift?” and responding “I don’t actually do a lot heavy weights, I’m training for a marathon and don’t want a lot of bulk.” If you are clearly succeeding by your own standards, it is much harder for others to pick at you, and much easier for you to tune out those who try anyway. IMO, YMMY, etc.

Maybe worth adding: I have a very competitive older brother who was a nationally ranked athlete in high school and university, always dated women that most of society would consider bombshells, and carried on to do very well in business. So I had driven home pretty early on that I had to decide for myself what I wanted in life, and not compare myself to him in the things that he was competitive about. This may slant my view on this topic, because I tend to view competing on mainstream items to be something to actively avoid.


----------



## landshark (Apr 4, 2016)

Blockierer said:


> *lol*
> I'm happy we both don't meet the points you listed.



Haha, I hope not! 

But really, even those "points" can be subjective. They are frowned upon and meant as an insult by the general public toward men like you and I, but let's review them, shall we? 



happily_married said:


> A prevailing notion is that men who pursue fat women, or worse: men who are married to fat women are *themselves undesirable.* If they want a fat woman, they must *"lack self esteem"* or *"themselves be fat or otherwise unattractive"* or *"be uneducated"* or *"unemployed"* or *"low income"* or in summary *"all around losers."*



On being undesirable: this is a subjective description. Forget that when fat haters use it they have a certain set idea in mind. Forget that a lot of us defy that idea on its surface. All of that ignores that "undesirable" is totally subjective. No matter what shape, size, color, social standing (and so on) one is, they are most likely desirable to someone. Pure numbers bear it out. 

On lacking self esteem: I could say I don't lack for self esteem but it would be lost on the fat haters who peddle this narrative. Sometimes you can't convince someone who has his or her mind made up. But I dated women who fit both societies "mainstream" ideal (fit and athletic) and women who weighed 350+ pounds. I approached women who fit both descriptions and my success rate with fat women was no better than with fit women. And that's because BBWs really are just regular women who weigh more than other regular women. And as such they have preferences of their own, all as unique as the individual. And as I learned, I simply didn't appeal to many of them, just as I didn't appeal to many of the fit/athletic women I approached. So if I lacked self esteem and turned to fat women to boost it, and experienced no greater success rate there than anywhere else, doesn't that fly in the face of the "self esteem" narrative? 

On being fat or otherwise unattractive: See above, re: "Undesirable."

On being uneducated: Unfortunately this word educated is used as a synonym for intelligent and that is not always the case. And I say this as a guy who values education. I have a master's degree and am well on my way to a second. However some of the most intelligent people I've known over the years have no formal education while some of the least intelligent people I know hold multiple degrees and in some cases are even college professors! So to equate education with intelligence is, simply put, an unintelligent thing to do. To judge someone on this criteria, especially for the sake of validating a pre-conceived narrative, is decidedly unintelligent. 

On being unemployed or low income: It is one thing to fault someone for sitting on his sofa and never striving to do well for himself all the while collecting entitlements like SNAP cards from the government, even while being able bodied. We do have a lot of those and I do frown on those types of choices. But not everyone who is unemployed or is low income is a lazy loser (not to mention not every woman on the arm of said lazy loser is a fat woman) and some people are legitimately struggling to get by. To assume this is why they date fat women is pure idiocy, especially when such a hypothesis simply doesn't pass the eye test. People of all shapes and sizes are struggling to get by. Not just fat ones and those who date them.

On being an all around loser: Again, it goes back to being undesirable. I've had people who make less than I do, are weaker, less educated, likely less intelligent, drive a beat up 25 year old P.O.S. (I bought my wife a $60k SUV) and have a woman ugly as hell but skinny beside him tell me I'm a loser for having a fat wife. :doh: Okay, man. You go on thinking that all the way back to your busted up home in your busted up car with your woman with her busted up grill while you drink your six pack of Steel Reserve and scratching your lotto tickets paid for by cash you withdrew on your SNAP card. I'll go on not being a loser, fat wife or not!


----------



## bigmac (Apr 9, 2016)

Tad said:


> I think this tends to apply to anyone who isn’t going for an *&#8216;aspirational’ partner.* Fat, different ethnic group (unless that group averages high socio-economic status), less education, visible disability, etc.
> 
> ...



The unfortunate reality is that living a decent middle-class life today requires two solid (i.e. usually professional) incomes. Thus having a college degree and a career becomes the price of admission to the dating pool.

Workplace discrimination hurts more than just bank accounts. People denied careers are underprivileged in the marriage marketplace as well.


----------



## Tad (Apr 11, 2016)

bigmac said:


> The unfortunate reality is that living a decent middle-class life today requires two solid (i.e. usually professional) incomes. Thus having a college degree and a career becomes the price of admission to the dating pool.
> 
> Workplace discrimination hurts more than just bank accounts. People denied careers are underprivileged in the marriage marketplace as well.



BM: you keep saying this, and I keep reminding you that it very much depends on where you live, and what lifestyle you like.

For the first twelve years of our marriage my wife had a few months of internships as part of her masters program, but otherwise didn't work (working on her masters, then job hunting for a bit, then pregnant/SAHM), after which she worked part time in retail for another eight years mostly to keep herself busy and sane (yes, the money was nice but it was like 15% of our total income), and it has only been in the last couple of years that she has worked full time, and that still not in a professional role.

In that time we bought and paid for a house, had a kid, and saved for his post-secondary education. I'm an engineer so make solid money, but it isn't like I'm an investment banker or anything like that. BUT we live in a smaller city, live in a smaller and older house, keep transportation costs low (one small car which we drive into the ground even though we don't drive a lot), vacations have been driving to a campground or to visit people (with one exception -- the first three years of her part time retail work were saved up for a trip to Hawaii).

True that if we wanted 2500 square feet of house and a back yard pool and yearly trips to somewhere warmer and an up-market car and so forth, it would take two incomes, even living where we live.

But it isn't as black and white as you make it out to be.


----------



## Xyantha Reborn (Apr 11, 2016)

Agreed, Tad. I know many people who either both work retail, or where only one partner works, and they get along just fine. In a city like Toronto most people rent; house or condo ownership does not meet with the groovy and trendy lifestyle that they want; nor do kids in many cases. Their aspirations and comforts are not [yours].

My view is skewed as well. I have very high standards with who I associate with; not of income, or education level, but of mental capacity and moral grounds. No one I know would say that about fat admirers, male or female. Because I would not associate with people like that. I have neither the time nor tolerance to deal with that type of claptrap. And thus I am not exposed to it in my life.

I finally got a chance to glance at this essay;

In terms of the essay's opening, I feel like the fat shaming could have been replaced by making fun of any age group, race, etc. It is more of a statement on people's low self esteem and drive to fit in than fat specific. And it is also north American centric. I have had size 00 women from Trinidad for example sigh over my curves and tell me that I am the epitome of womanliness back home. They got mocked relentlessly for being boyish. To that point; many ultra thin women I know got relentlessly made fun of too in North America. 

"In a very general sense, my own experience found fat women to be nicer, smarter, funnier, and more caring than their thinner counterparts. I think its fair to assume this would be due to them having more need to cultivate these traits in their day to day lives." - This statement is backwards. Women who are considered traditionally beautiful can be mean, selfish, and bombastic and get away with it. They are the outlier, not heavy women. This is an important distinction because the majority of women do not have to cultivate not being a b*itch...the same way most men don't have to cultivate not being abusive. It is the attractive men who have the leeway to cultivate abusive attitudes and still get laid.

"If youre a decent-looking average guy, with decent-looking average guy friends, youre gonna get shit if you fuck around with a fat girl." - I think that is dictated by your social circle and who you chose to associate with...and your age. Most grown men I know, FA or not, turn utterly wrathful at any slight against their significant other, no matter how placid normally. Men who have been friends for a decade will break up because another man _crossed the line._

I think this essay should be split into two pieces. One, self realization, the other, facts and figures. I do find some of the verbiage rather jarring, and it does detract from the scientific portion; in fact, would make me discount it entirely. That sort of sentence structure belongs in the self reflective piece. The scientific piece, if it is to hold water, should be stand alone and independent from your 'believies'. Together, it came off as someone trying to justify their own 'issues' with science, rather than examining the evidence itself.

This is my opinion;

People's brains are configured to instantly recognize similarities and dissimilarities, and to reject things that appear different. This has to be trained and desensitized on every front. It isn't uncommon to hear a child innocently ask why their skin is white and that man's is black? As a parent or friend, the response they receive shapes the way they react and perceive the world. Unfortunately as they grow older children are socialized with other children - if those children are trained to hate people of size or colour, that mindset is cemented, and behaviours locked in. If you turned around as a ten year old and jeered at a fatty and the other boys basically called you a looser and wouldn't hang out with you for the day, that experience would be locked in. Unfortunately, it tends to be opposite. That feeling of needing to fit in that we experience as children tends to stick with many adults as they grow.

As creatures of expedience we tend to practice behaviours that 'work'. Trying to retroactively address this as an adult is like swimming up stream. You often cannot change their opinion. I think most F/FAs are not necessarily hoping for even acceptance or understanding of it...but more hoping for a live and let live attitude. Same with the heavier people I know. They don't need the world to consider them attractive, they would just like to lose the stigma, TYVM.


That being said, I am glad that you seem to have started to accept your own preferences.


----------



## bigmac (Apr 11, 2016)

Tad said:


> ...
> 
> True that if we wanted 2500 square feet of house and a back yard pool and yearly trips to somewhere warmer and an up-market car and so forth, it would take two incomes, even living where we live.
> 
> But it isn't as black and white as you make it out to be.




Lets see 60 year old 900 square foot house costs $450,000 (and you have to save up for a down payment while paying $2,250 in rent and $600 in utilities every month). Daycare for two young kids costs $1,800 pre-month. A very modest one week trip to Vancouver so the kids can see their Grandparents $4000 (first vacation in four years -- and I've never been south of San Diego -- my wife was born in Tijuana but the old family compound is hardly a vacation spot). I've never actually actually added up what our share of the two oldest kids six degrees costs. And we can add the $300 per credit its costing for my wife to get another degree so she can advance at work.

I'd like to see anyone do this on one income.

Regarding cars -- my 17 year old Volvo's odometer will turn 300,000 miles in less than 400 miles. My wife drives the kids more so she gets the newer car (only 13 years old).

Sure we could move to Cleveland -- but if we did there's a very good chance one or both of us would be unemployed or underemployed. Bottom line is that if you want the best shot at professional careers you have to live in a high cost area (they're high cost because people in the area have good jobs). If you live in such an area two incomes are required.


----------



## Xyantha Reborn (Apr 11, 2016)

Your estimate of housing is way off, for one. Even for Toronto, that's high. I don't think Ottawa is higher than Toronto. Assuming of course that you don't think that someone needs to live in the most upperclass neighbourhood in order to qualify.

Many people save up for the down payment while living with their parents. They offset the rent of their 1500 sq foot house by renting out the basement. Most people on one income would drive to Vancouver. Cost of gas. Life may not be as glamourous, but it is still manageable.

You have an assumption based on your standard of living that does not match everyone else's. And you assume people follow the "white" method of living, where kids leave at 22 and have no support. Many cultures save up their money. 

One of my coworkers supports his wife and BOTH sets of their parents on one income. He doesn't tend to eat out lunch as often, or spend hundreds of dollars on liquor, but they manage. His parents provide free childcare, and they also paid the downpayment for the house and contribute their pensions. 

Just to give you context; both my husband and I have excellent jobs and live in a nice neighbourhood. We are neither poor nor single income. But if push came to shove we could absolutely live on one income, provided we made _concessions_.


----------



## landshark (Apr 11, 2016)

I think BM's claim greatly depends on one's lifestyle choices and location. He's alluded to high cost areas being high cost because they are in demand and that's reasonable, in fact basic economics. But it is certainly not definitive for a country as large and diverse as the U.S. Even Canada with a much smaller population probably cannot be accurately shoehorned into that description given its geographic size and diversity. 

And even in higher cost areas it is possible to live on a single income. I'm not swimming in cash but make solid money. I live outside Washington DC, one of the most obscenely expensive areas in the country. My wife is a SAHM and I've been the sole income earner since we've been married. 

To BM's point: we see low income people date all the time. Families get by. I sometimes have no idea how they do it but they do. It is not just professionals in the dating pool. This claim doesn't pass the eye test.


----------



## Xyantha Reborn (Apr 11, 2016)

Again; white person premis. In many cultures it is expected for one person to be employed while the other stays at home. 

And being employed while on the dating scene is not the same as being employed while married. In the context of your original point, happily married; you were refering to the FA not the bbw. But i think the stigma is usually the opposit way; where the perception is that the heavier person is lazy and stays st home. Could you clarify your stance for me - which way do you see that stigma running? I am on my phone so perhaps i misread.

Also...There are more poor people than there are rich people. Are these people single? Or don't date? Most young people start of with lower incomes. Most 20 something girlies are not looking for an old successful guy who makes 150k. They want a hawt guy. People who work retail still date and marry. Breaking 100k is certainly not a prereq to start a family. And to be honest, the stigma about being fat and unemployed is not universal; that is something that originates from the states. So I assume the author is from the US, where he may be getting a specific piece of culture. Fat acceptance is not limited to the US...so the article comes across as being biased and geo specific IMO.


----------



## landshark (Apr 11, 2016)

^ The bigger stigma is with an overweight person as near as I can discern, but there is also a real stigma associated with dating or being married to a fat person as well. It is not nearly as wide spread and an FA like me will not experience it to the same extent his fat partner will. If I am out and about by myself nobody will think twice about me. My wife sometimes encounters stares and looks of disgust and disapproval for her weight. She wears her "sin" on her sleeve: it's out there for all to see so obviously she bears a greater stigma than I do.

When we are together I do sometimes notice people looking at us both in disapproval (usually women) although as I noted on another thread other BBWs often nod their approval. Not that I needed it, but it's an interesting observation. 
I've even had a girl tell me she didn't understand why I was with the girl I was with (this was prior to my wife and I meeting) when the girl I was dating at the time got up at a restaraunt to go use the ladies room. More recently I was in the gym working out and a pair of guys nearby were takin about how it was one thing to [have sex with] fat chicks, and another thing to have a fat girlfriend, but only a loser finds himself stuck with a fat wife.

While I don't think examples like this are definitive of public sentiment they certainly are widespread. It used to bother me but I've actually learned to embrace it. Can't change people's minds so I'll take being amused at their ignorance.


----------



## Tad (Apr 11, 2016)

BM: I absolutely accept that what you are saying is true in your life, and likely for the life of many people you know.

In return, please respect that your experiences are not in fact universal. When people tell you that their experience is different, it would be nice if you could acknowledge that yes they have experienced things differently than you have.

As to how people can live on one income? Don't forget that in turn there are no child care costs, reduced food costs (more time to shop and prepare food = more ability to eat on a budget), reduced clothing costs, reduced transportation costs, and often an ability for the working partner to be gone for longer hours, which may enable a longer commute (from a cheaper area to live), more hours per day earning money, or the like. And sometimes, depending on the jurisdiction, there are some tax savings to be had too.

And of course, if you are living in Cleveland because you wanted to get by on one income, that it would be unlikely for both of you to find good jobs wouldn't matter so much, provided that one of you did. Would there be the same opportunities as in the bay area, NYC, etc? No, of course not. But that becomes a matter of individual priorities. People with different backgrounds and experiences, and different priorities, will find the situation to be different. Heck, even if you found a time machine and cloning ray, and went back and cloned your 23 year old self 99 times and set them all loose to live their life, and caught up with them now, there is a good chance that some of them would have chosen a different path, and be happy with it. (although I will give you that most likely the majority would have followed similar paths, and some of those that didn't may regret their choices).


----------



## Xyantha Reborn (Apr 11, 2016)

I wonder if other FFA can weigh in here, because as a female FA this has not been my experience.

When men learn I am an FFA they often look envious or tell my husband "lucky bastard". Once I cook for them they say something along the lines of "good thing because with that cooking you getting fat was inevitable." 

Other women kind of blink, and shrug, and although they can't comprehend it, I don't perceive any stigma. 

My husband has got some comments, but it isn't stigma the same way. But then, he is also unrepentant. When a guy is so crass as to comment on his weight/my happiness, he bluntly tells them that not only do I find him hot, he can basically make me come in my panties my eating a slice of cake. That response is generally so blunt and "did I ask you your goddamn opinion, no? tmi, so stfu" that no one ever says anything again.

I've never had that kind of judgement as an FFA except from my family, and a sound drubbing made them swallow all future comments. And my husband is so shameless about admitting my preference that the only stigma he feels is at work occasionally. (more from a promotion perspective). As time has gone on, his self consciousness has faded into a sort of indifference to other's opinions, and I think people understand that their opinions are not wanted on that score


----------



## bigmac (Apr 11, 2016)

Xyantha Reborn said:


> Your estimate of housing is way off, for one. Even for Toronto, that's high. I don't think Ottawa is higher than Toronto. Assuming of course that you don't think that someone needs to live in the most upperclass neighbourhood in order to qualify.
> 
> ...



If anything my numbers are low. I'm not talking fancy neighborhoods -- I'm talking post war tract houses (few people would describe Semi Valley as fancy). 

http://www.zillow.com/ventura-county-ca/home-values/

Here in the good old USA you have to make a Hobbesian choice. If you want a decent job and at least marginally acceptable schools be prepared to pay through the nose for housing. If you want cheap housing be prepared for a crappy labour market and even worse schools.

Also, if you want the former you'll need a spouse with a good career. Since SSBBWs are seriously challenged in the labour market, in my part of the world you'll most likely have to forgo a super-size spouse.


----------



## Xyantha Reborn (Apr 11, 2016)

Even going so far as to assume all that is true...that is your standard of living, and your values. Not others...and that is the point. 

A lot, and i mean a lot, of people are renting in Toronto because being tied down to a house is horrifying to them. They LOVE the groovey lifestyle of renting and being able to go where they want, when they want. They don't need or want expensive cars; in Toronto, upperclasss corporates rub shoulders with the homeless on the subways. Why would they go on a ridiculous vacation to drink when they can have a maid clean their house and go hang out at a ballgame instead?

The point is that you make these statemenrs based on a narrow view of what you want in your own life. It does not mean that others cannot find value, fulfillment, or love with a different income bracket, or a single income, whether the partner is fat or not.

And two incomes also assumes a lot. Two people working an average accounting job are not going to make as much as one highly skilled mobile developer, or even a contract PM. So its more cost efficient for one spouse to work especialy if there are children; the cost of childcare can be atrocious.

Ps the market is inflated but its still possible to get a house under half a million in toronto. It will not be rosedale or high park, but it is doable. And considering outlier cities like barrie and kitchener are becoming tech hubs, there are pockets for skilled labour wih lower housing costs.


----------



## LeoGibson (Apr 11, 2016)

Someone needs to give my wife the memo that we either need to split up or she needs to get to work ASAP! Because we pay $1650 per month on a 15 year old 2400 sq. ft. house in a nice subdivision on the booming side of what many say is now the 3rd largest city in the U.S., overtaking Chicago. 

P.S. We do so on one salary. 

P.P.S. It is also a blue collar degree-less salary.


----------



## Xyantha Reborn (Apr 11, 2016)

Leo you are super sweet but with your tough look I am totally convinced you could be that tough in movies who rolls people for their money  no wonder you have such a nice house


----------



## LeoGibson (Apr 11, 2016)

Well, nothing wrong with making a little cash on the side. You know, for a little walking around money.


----------



## Colonial Warrior (Oct 7, 2016)

A very nice study, very polite and I agree with you conclussions. Loo for one of the most anicient of the statues, the Venus of Willendorf. I am a FA and i accept because I feel its a natural attraction.


----------



## fuelingfire (Oct 8, 2016)

How did I miss this thread. This should have been posted in many smaller parts. Due to it's many of the topics will probably be ignored. 

I always thought most guys liked large breasts. I was surprised to hear that non-FAs prefer regular sized breasts.


----------



## bigmac (Oct 8, 2016)

fuelingfire said:


> ...
> 
> I always thought most guys liked large breasts. I was surprised to hear that non-FAs prefer regular sized breasts.




Nothing wrong with regular sized breasts (or even small ones) -- as long as the nipples are responsive size isn't much of an issue for me.


----------



## y2kboris1 (Dec 2, 2016)

Jason first off your article was interesting, although I'm not sure I would agree with some of the conclusions you draw, but I particularly found the part about how mass media affects people's perceptions about what's attractive interesting. Kinda makes you wonder if we could somehow remove media if only for a single generation what kind of impact that would have on people's perceptions. I have one question though and it's been bugging me for the longest time; in the course of your research have you ever run across any research studies where someone has tried to figure out how many of us there exactly are? (how many FA/FFA)? Of all the things I've read over the years on Dims, Curvage, FF, Feabie, etc; I've never once seen a study where anyone has been able to extrapolate an exact number of our population demographic. Are FAs 1% of the population? 5%, 10%? It would be great to have an answer.


----------



## Blockierer (Dec 4, 2016)

y2kboris1 said:


> ... I've never once seen a study where anyone has been able to extrapolate an exact number of our population demographic. Are FAs 1% of the population? 5%, 10%? It would be great to have an answer.


It depends on how you define what is an (F)FA. Is an FA someone who is exclusively attracted to fat people? Or is an FA someone who likes both slim and fat?


----------



## y2kboris1 (Dec 4, 2016)

Blockierer said:


> It depends on how you define what is an (F)FA. Is an FA someone who is exclusively attracted to fat people? Or is an FA someone who likes both slim and fat?


 I suppose Blockierer an FA would be anyone with a prediliction to find larger women attractive primarily. In that sense it's inclusive. They can be bisizual, but predominantly their preferred biological genotype/phenotype would be someone with a larger/chubbier body type. I guess in some ways that kinda describes me: I am most ascertainly an FA, however I have, and can... find smaller women attractive. It's just my own preference would be if I had a choice, larger is better.


----------

