playing advocate
 

I see its hard for some people to wrap their minds around the fact that she is mindfully doing something harmful to herself.

Could this not be said about people who practice BDSM?

The audience of the public, who is often uneducated about BDSM, often speaks lowly of people who practice this lifestyle. They cant get past the concept that they allow people to push pins in them, hang weights off their balls, are flogged and beaten and ask for more....

the audience of the public sometimes believes that women and men who do this, are not mentally healthy and should not be allowed to have children, especially if they live the lifestyle 24/7.

so how is this any different than her festish lifestyle?

Hmm.

Wondering if folks feel the same way about smokers?

Personally, no, because smoking is not a guaranteed death. Just like non-smokers get lung cancer, smokers may get something else that is not related to their smoking at all.

Our bodies are fragile. They are simply not designed to bear that much weight. It seems almost like a game to her (to me). My concern lies with her children.

I am not saying that in MY opinion, they are one and the same. In fact, I know they are not...as you said, her behavior could kill her. But the audience of the public will jam these two together...and say what she is doing is the same as those who practice BDSM

and as Ms Medusa just posted..is this in the same line as smokers? Honestly, I dont get why people are burning $6 a day habit that will eventually kill them. Now that is MHO.

so...is there a cut off level of who much fat is too much fat? Is 50 lbs overweight enough? 100? 200? When do we say its too much?

and what about those who dont eat enough...arent they also doing something extremely unhealthy?

Smokers not only affect their lives but also their family and friend's lives that they smoke around. And you say smoking is not a guaranteed death...neither is overeating. They are SLOW deaths...and yes, some other factor will take them down death's lane but it most surely will be related to their habit of choice...

Smoking is not guaranteed death but being fat is?

(not snark, just trying to follow the thought on this)

thanks...just wanted to make sure I wasnt misunderstood...

I don't know where the line lies and I'm certainly not the one to figure that out.

I didn't say that the guaranteed death would be quick. It's just guaranteed, like if all men lived long enough, they would absolutely get prostate cancer. I picked that nugget of information up in some journal several years back and it surprised me, and made me wonder about other 'inevitable' illnesses.

But I digress...

It's not about fat for me. It's about this woman purposely creating a body that will break her down from the inside out, until she's unable to BREATHE. For me, it's about the teenage boy and his little sister being without a mother.

I admit it; I'm approaching this completely from the mindset of the kids. I don't want them taken away from her. I don't want her to stop her affliliation with her fetish. I would like for her to consider her children's lives without her, because that is what she is planning and preparing for.

Smoking definitely contributes to ill health. My mother died from complications due to advanced emphysema after smoking for more than 40 years, so I get this. But it's not guaranteed. There are smokers who exercise and eat well and are healthy in other aspects.

What I am saying is that it is impossible to live, to exist....at a weight of 1000 pounds. Our bodies are not designed to withstand bearing half a ton of weight. The heart, the muscles, the bones, the organs....they just aren't. They will shut down, one by one.

I have no issue with her wanting to do something to make her mark in this world. Her weight now is pretty heavy but I do think she's living and doing the things she needs to do to be a good parent. The damage that another 400 pounds would do to her body would most likely be irreversible. If she gets there...then what? She's very likely to be bedridden and on oxygen. What kind of a life is that?

I still keep coming back to 'what about her kids'?

Like I said, if it were just her, I'd say...it's your body, do what you want with it...but as a parent and one of a very small child....it doesn't seem to me as if the magnitude of this decision has dawned on her.

For me it is the simple issue of her having children.

If she wants to gain weight to hit some sort of record, potentially to the detriment of her own health, that is her issue. People do crap all the time that puts them at risk, for various reasons. Her choice to gain weight is her choice. For whatever reason (fame, money, she thinks she would be happier at that weight, etc.). That is all cool.

However, I really don't think that it is too much to ask that when someone is a parent they attempt to meet their child's physical and emotional needs to the best of their ability.

I don't really think it is very common that we find a person who sanely goes in the opposite direction. This woman will NOT be able to care for her toddler physically if she weighs 1,000 lbs. It will not be physically possible. Period. And this is the choice that she is sanely making. Her need to get whatever it is she will psychologically get out of weighing 1,000 lbs outweighs her desire to care for her children. It is that simple.

And that sucks for her kids.

But no, I don't think that anyone should attempt to take her children. She is currently able to care for her children (or at least we haven't heard otherwise).

"this woman will NOT be able to care for her toddler physically if she weighs 1,000 lbs. It will not be physically possible. Period" Dapper Butch

so...the mother who becomes incapacitated for some reason, and is no longer able to care for her child...should she have her children taken from her? Is it the INTENT of her actions that make it wrong for her and not wrong for the mother, who for the sake of arguement, gets MS after she has had children? I am just real curious because we draw the line with her, but I see examples all over my little world, of parents who should not have kids...and yet they do. People who dropped out of high school, work at minimum wage jobs and are having kids. People who drink like fish but hold down jobs.People who are of the generational welfare poverty community who have kids. These are all deliberate actions that truly do affect the lives of the children.

She wants to get fat. And she is supporting her family by doing so. How is that any different than the woman who is a strip artist or the high end prostitute who does it so she can support her childen.

I dunno...I think if she wants to get fat so she can support her family and her own desires, who are we to say she cant AND she cant be a good mother in doing so.

Personally I am appalled she is doing this. I cant understand why she would want to outsize herself that much. I couldnt imagine giving up my mobility. And I cant imagine not being able to shave my own legs. I am sorry..I am a practicle girl.

But .... she is her own person.

She might be the one inviting the media into her world but I don't think that her children invited the media into their world...

There is no guarantee of an imminent death, but I believe it will bring a pre-mature death

Of course that is her business and who am I to judge her... Hopefully she will live long enough to see her children become adults.

Hi, Softness. I think that you are taking the above statement out of context which really gives the reader a completely different impression of what I was trying to get across in my post, and what my post was about.

And I think that you are aware of this, and that you already know the below, but I will clarify, just in case:

I did not say in my post that this woman's children should be taken away, so I have no idea why you implied that I said this somewhere in my post. In fact, if you want to get technical, I said, "But no, I don't think that anyone should attempt to take her children away."

Dapper..my apologies for my post seeming to imply this. I did NOT mean to do that at all. I am merely posing questions...thinking out loud, so to speak. And I dont want you to think I was intentionally misconstruing your words. I wasnt.

Ok. Thanks.

But you DID strongly imply it, Dapper, whether you meant to or not.

I bolded for emphasis to point out that whatever you meant, it came across as if someone who is not able to personally care for her children should have them taken away. And I think softness had a valid point: what if instead of being fat, she had MS?

Where do we draw the line, especially if she's supporting her family doing this? How do we know she won't make enough money to hire a nanny? I personally think it's a very slippery slope when we start talking about whether someone who is not, by any account at all, abusive deserves to have her children live with her or not. I understand that you don't think she should lose her children for this behavior--yet--but where do we draw the line without stepping on all their rights?