1144: The Blob

[Keith]

By My Law, I wouldn't even be allowed to be born!

[Carruthers]

Originally Posted by Blitzgal

For some reason the whole feeder phenomenon reminds me of Chinese foot binding. The fetish seems more linked to the fact that the woman is hobbled and can no longer move properly (or get away). Everyone involved in the mess pretends that the woman is up on a pedestal and being worshiped because it helps them justify the insanity of the situation.

That rang such a bell I thought it must be true. But then there are an awful lot of immobile males aroiund too. Which doesn't mean it can't be true, just not completely explanatory.

My prejudice is that I expect the 'larger folk' (I cannot even bring myself to use the f word) to be slobby. Imagine my surprise when once I was asking directions from the only person on the street - a large lady in what appeared to be a cheap cotton print dress - I was answered in a highly cultivated upper class British accent with all the requisite diphthongs.

Doesn't mean she wasn't a slob though , I suppose

[otis_coole]

That was disgusting...but hilarious.

[Blitzgal]

Originally Posted by Keith

Don't you dare tell me a 600 pound mother is an insane idea!

Next thing you know they'll be taking kids away from me cause I got a piece of hair stuck in my eye!

Keet, you had a whole segment on this show about people evading your point when they argue. The feeding phenomenon is fucked up. Still doesn't mean the state has any business butting in to take the kids away because she is fat. Let's take the kids away from smokers, then, and the Duggars who have their other kids raise the youngest ones, and that drunk driving midget on TLC. Those people are also making bad choices so they shouldn't be allowed to have kids, either.

Originally Posted by Carruthers

That rang such a bell I thought it must be true. But then there are an awful lot of immobile males aroiund too. Which doesn't mean it can't be true, just not completely explanatory.

They aren't fetishized the way that women are, though. Unless it's by other men. Apparently one of the fatties on that MTV reality show would have men fly in from other states to fuck him.

[Carruthers]

Originally Posted by Blitzgal

They aren't fetishized the way that women are, though. Unless it's by other men. Apparently one of the fatties on that MTV reality show would have men fly in from other states to fuck him.

Well, no. But if your point is that fetishisation (insanely) justifies the hobbling, which itself is the reason for the feeding (and the binding), then what would you propose would be the reason for fattening up (and immobilising) males? Which doesn't seem to have the equivalent to (say) the foot-binding.

I daresay there used to be castration for court functionaries back in the old Roman Empire (persisting into later ages for arguably fetishised castrati singers)? They tended to be fattish, but maybe not immobilised.

Wittering. Sorry.

[Junkenstein]

Originally Posted by Blitzgal

Keet, you had a whole segment on this show about people evading your point when they argue. The feeding phenomenon is fucked up. Still doesn't mean the state has any business butting in to take the kids away because she is fat. Let's take the kids away from smokers, then, and the Duggars who have their other kids raise the youngest ones, and that drunk driving midget on TLC. Those people are also making bad choices so they shouldn't be allowed to have kids, either..

The state isnt supposed to take away her kids because she is fat but because she's fat to the point of seriously endangering herself and she seems to get a kick out of it. She's not an overweight person, she's afreak that enjoys being one. What benefit are her kids having from staying with her and being raised by her.

And it's not about "taking away kids". It's about investigating who's able to raise decently said kids or not. If the state, after investigation, found out that a person obsessivley smokes 30 packs of cigarettes in her house, filling her kids' lungs with passive smoke, i'd say: yes, take away their kids. Same with drinkers, gamblers, and so on. It's not the choice, it's the mind of who makes that choice that has to be questioned. If you cannot see that what you do is wrong and dangerous, then you're not capable to raise children, so you CANNOT raise them.

And be clear i am totally serious on this. I'm not saying to cause flames or push buttons. Some people do not have the right to have kids or raise them.

[Carruthers]

Originally Posted by Junkenstein

... Some people do not have the right to have kids or raise them.

That may be a culture thing though. Certain societies really go for 'fat' as it's an indication of wealth and/or status.

Obviously (obviously?!) this isn't the sort of thing we're talking about - which is freakish fattism - and even in those societies there would be a line where they'd say exactly the same thing, i.e. "you do not have the right to have/raise kids because you're a goddam freak".

But the line would be drawn at a different - possibly very different - place and the very same person may be 'enfreaked' in one but get away with it in another. Which doesn't seem fair, or just, somehow.

[BrownEyedBtch]

Originally Posted by Blitzgal

For some reason the whole feeder phenomenon reminds me of Chinese foot binding. The fetish seems more linked to the fact that the woman is hobbled and can no longer move properly (or get away). Everyone involved in the mess pretends that the woman is up on a pedestal and being worshiped because it helps them justify the insanity of the situation.

The thing about foot binding is that in China, girls were taught to believe that having the tiny, dainty feet would make them more attractive to potential suitors. It's terrible, but it was a part of their culture.

Seeing how fat you can get in order to get a place in a book no one reads anymore is not the same. Culturally, people are shocked at people who don't fit in just one seat on a plane, never mind people who are so damn big the pilot wouldn't be able to balance the plane for takeoff and landing. No one considers her to be a catch because she's fat and getting fatter. Even chubby chasers have their limits.

[Blitzgal]

Originally Posted by Junkenstein

What benefit are her kids having from staying with her and being raised by her.

Again, it's not for the state to decide that, and certainly not merely on the basis of her setting a bad example to them! You made a very good point in your post. She's endangering HERSELF. Not the kids. The state steps in when the kids are endangered. Otherwise, again, why not investigate the household of every smoker and everyone who drinks? These are other legal activities that also affect a kid's life and health.

Originally Posted by BrownEyedBtch

No one considers her to be a catch because she's fat and getting fatter. Even chubby chasers have their limits.

You missed the part where she's making bank running a porn site where men pay to watch her eat and bathe. There is a fetish for everything.

Edit: My bad, she doesn't run the site. She's a "model" on the website "SupersizedBombshells"
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/anti-...ry?id=10103942

[Junkenstein]

Originally Posted by Carruthers

But the line would be drawn at a different - possibly very different - place and the very same person may be 'enfreaked' in one but get away with it in another. Which doesn't seem fair, or just, somehow.

I'm not speaking of taking away kids because you think thatm somebody is a freak. If you're a two headed bigfoot but you are a good father with a clear head and a healthy mentality, you can have all the kids you want.

A 600 pound woman who gets filmed while she eats for money and thinks she's "fine how she is" isnt mentally healthy. She is sick in the head and a potential danger to her children. And even if she isnt dangerous, the background she provides is not good for kids. And in the end that's what should count.

Originally Posted by Blitzgal

Again, it's not for the state to decide that, and certainly not merely on the basis of her setting a bad example to them! You made a very good point in your post. She's endangering HERSELF. Not the kids. The state steps in when the kids are endangered. Otherwise, again, why not investigate the household of every smoker and everyone who drinks? These are other legal activities that also affect a kid's life and health.

A person who endangers herself at that length is in such a wrong mindset that she cannot be able to be a good mother. Growing ups kids is not an easy job, you have to be mentally and phisically healthy enough to do that or you'll curse your kids with a life of misery. That lady is insane. She's sick in the head. She CANNOT be a good mother, by any means.

If you dont want the state to step in, than it should be her family, an organization, anyone. And yes, again, i agree to investigate the households of drinkers and smokers.

If someone did that there would be lot less abused and broken children around. But we live in a "parents first" society, so monsters can have all the flesh toys they want and keep them, because it's their right. It's just fucking disgusting.