I am fat, kinky and smoke. I do not have children and, with the exception of myself, the only people affected by my actions are consenting adults who have the option of participating in, or being around when I participate in, these activities. When there were children in my life, I altered my behavior because the health and welfare of those children was more important than my personal wants. That's kinda what the whole parenting thing is about to me.

If this woman is able to take care of her children (in whatever manner that may involve for her - i.e. direct care or via caregivers) and they are happy, healthy, etc. then there is no reason to take her children away from her. If/when they are not being "taken care of", then they should be removed from her care.

Let's pretend for a minute that we knew nothing about this story but instead read a news article about two children who were horribly neglected because their mother weighed 1000lbs and did not / could not take care of them. Would any of us be arguing whether she had the right to keep her children?

Hey, Bit.

I am running off to work, but I wanted to acknowledge your post and let you know that I will respond tonight.

http://www.closeronline.co.uk/RealLi...y-to-72st.aspx

This woman is selfish. She obviously cares way more about getting her rocks off -which, to me, seems to be what it's all about - than she does about spending time with her children, and given the fact that she already has health issues directly related to her weight, she obviously doesn't care a shit about their future.

As to the working to pay for her food excuse, - I don't care how many hours a day she 'has' to work, the simple truth is that she obviously enjoys doing it rather than spending time with her daughter as otherwise, she wouldn't be doing what she's doing and wouldn't be relying on poor old Phillipe to 'do the things she can't' - what about the cost of her medical treatment, past and present, who's been paying/going to be paying for that? Again, she doesn't seem to care.

So, would I take her kid/s away from her? In a heartbeat. Womyn the world over have no choice but to work long hours in order to support their families. This woman works long hours simply because she wants to get her name in a record book and be famous, even if doing so means depriving her children of a mother? Please.

Words

I was the one who brought up MS. And I brought it up to illustrate there were OTHER reasons why people would not be able to tend to their children, yet that does not make them bad parents. In no way do I compare MS with her being a Gainer. Hers is by choice. MS comes as it does.

I laid in bed last night and thought about her. I thought about how selfish of a person she is for putting her business/pleasure ahead of her children. And then i realized she is a work aholic as well...she cannot escape from her means of work..her web site. She has to condition her body to be fat all the time...

then I thought...no. No. NO! There is something very disturbing about her ...as disturbing as that woman who gave birth to 12 children. They are both using their children to demonstrate they are good people. If not for the kids, would we not turn our faces and look away? She NEEDS those kids to keep our focus on her...its another string for her to pull, another manipulation...

And yet we do not take their children away.

My parents unofficially adopted the son of my mother's best friend when he was still in grade school, because her friend's MS had progressed to the point that she was not able to care for all ten of her children.

No one EVER tried to take the children away. It would have been unconscionable.

Gemme said, "So, anyone who has the money should just hire a nanny and not have that one on one quality time with their children?"

*puzzled look* What is quality time? How do we define it? Is one required to dress a child for school in order to have quality time? Is one required to cook for that child to have quality time? What if one spends the time they have reading to a child, or helping a child with their spelling, or any of a hundred other things which show love but do not require physical activity?

Believe me, I remember the times my mother read to me WAY more fondly than the times she went shrieking and slamming through the house doing housework, and by kindergarten we were all perfectly capable of taking our own baths and dressing ourselves.

As for whether this particular woman has a choice in the matter, it's pretty normal for people to get up to a couple hundred pounds, maybe a little more--you know, for a woman, size 2x is a VERY common size.

She weighs three times that. How did she get there? Surely she has the same hormonal imbalances that plague anyone who weighs three or four hundred pounds, right? Nobody gets that big just by eating; your hormones have to be out of whack for that kind of weight.

Seriously, by the time a person weighs five or six hundred pounds, what can they do for a living? Does this woman truly have the life choices that people are ascribing to her?

Maybe she does; maybe I'm seeing it wrong. But in this day and age when child protection agencies are failing to rescue children who are beaten every day, children who are the victims of incest, children who are used for sex with strangers so their parents can get more drugs--all parental choices!--in this day and age when the system utterly fails those who need it the very most, why are we focused on this woman?

I have a very uncomfortable feeling that it's because she's visible. I have a very uncomfortable feeling that it's because she's trespassing on our culture's strongly-held stereotypes of proper womanhood, proper motherhood.

We do not actually know that her children are or will be unhappy or neglected in any way.

I've always felt that once you have children, your life isn't 'just' yours anymore. Your children come first.

With that being said, I really don't think I have to say anymore.

I find it interesting that the people who dont see how destructive this is for the children, are people who dont HAVE children.

(non judgy..just an observation)

I've been kinda mulling this thing over in my head for a couple of days.
I think the place that I keep coming back to is centered somewhere around the whole "what about the children" thing.

Let me caveat what Im about to say with "I dont have kids for a reason":

I hear a lot of people bringing up the discussion point that this woman should be able to do whatever she wants but that it's the children's well-being that is the "but, but, but..." in this scenario. The idea that the woman can't do what she wants because she must put her children's needs above her own. The idea that it is "selfish" of her to focus on herself so wholly when she has children.

Im not at all saying I dont agree with this because I do think that bringing a child into this world is not something that people can do without responsibility. I think that children aren't able to take care of themselves (for the most part) and that parents have a responsibility to make good decisions around their health and well-being.

My itchy spot is the culture of "Motherhood" that states that getting pregnant and having a child must change the focus of the woman's life. I think I'm feeling something around all of those automaton-ish Soccer Mom's who whisk their kids from one recital to the next, bust their ass to be the "perfect Mom", but somehow lose themselves along the way.
I think that on some level society expects that or, as Bit said, you really run the risk as a Mother of being seen as an in improper Mother.
I think about a lot of Moms I have known who had kids and I didn't recognize them a year later. They no longer took care of themselves, they stopped doing their hobbies, their entire lives became focused on keeping the child healthy and happy...and somewhere in all of that chaos, the Mother forgot to keep *herself* healthy and so the child turned out to be an ill-behaved, spoiled little asshole that nobody could stand to be around.

(can you tell I don't do kids?) :P

I also wonder if this were a Man, if anyone would be asking about *his* children's well-being.

I can put aside my irritation over the fat=unhealthy thing for the sake of this discussion because I, too, agree that at 1000 pounds (even 600) that this woman's mobility is (as written in the article) severely limited. I imagine she might also have some weight-related joint issues either now or at some point.
Im thinking that she is buying into some fetishization around fat too. I looked at 3 of her websites and it looks like she participates in the feeder/gainer community and fat-love communities pretty heavily.

More thoughts in a bit..

Responding to underlined portions: (using Words' provided link)
 

How did she get where she is/was?
.....


At the age of 24 Donna married Robert Simpson, a chef who encouraged her eating by bringing home leftovers from work to feed her. “He’d come home with steak and desserts,” she recalls. “He liked me supersized.”
......
For the first time ever she went on a diet, urged on by her father who was concerned for her health, and lost 5st in six months.

But she soon lapsed when she met fat-lover Philippe Gouamba, 47, in an online chat room for oversized women in 2006. “When I ate enough for five people on our first date, it really impressed him,” says Donna, from New Jersey, USA. Philippe, who counts watching his girlfriend eat as one of his favourite hobbies, says: “I’ve always been attracted to big women, but Donna is my fantasy. The more she weighs, the sexier she is.”


How she is planning to get to her target weight (1000 lbs.):

“My food costs £400 a week,” says Donna. “In a typical day I’ll eat four burgers and fries, a loaf of bread with peanut butter and jam, four servings of meatloaf and mashed potato, a large pizza, a chocolate cake with ice cream and cream, 12 cupcakes, two cheesecakes and fizzy drinks.


--------

Her health problems (and their effects on her children):


To reach her target, ex-carer Donna, who already suffers from diabetes and high-blood pressure, needs to gain another 27st and predicts it will take her until 2012 at her current weight gain of 7st a year.

.....
Although doctors had said her 38st frame would make it almost impossible to conceive, Donna fell pregnant within three months of dating Phillipe. But she developed diabetes and high-blood pressure during pregnancy and needed a team of 19 doctors and nurses to get through the high-risk Caesarean birth.

When baby Jacqueline was born weighing 8lbs 14oz in February 2007, Donna became the world’s fattest woman to give birth – the previous largest had weighed 34st. But she admits she struggles to care for her daughter, as she can barely walk 20ft without needing to sit down. “It’s difficult keeping up with Jacqueline, but we’re very closely bonded,” says Donna. “Fortunately, anything I can’t do with her, her dad can, so I don’t feel guilty.”

I find it destructive to herself and her children:
 

[QUOTE=Bit;69864]why are we focused on this woman?

I have a very uncomfortable feeling that it's because she's visible. I have a very uncomfortable feeling that it's because she's trespassing on our culture's strongly-held stereotypes of proper womanhood, proper motherhood.

Bit, I snipped you post for brevity as this is the part that I wanted to respond to -

I think we are focused on "this woman" because she chose to put her quest for 1000lbs and her means of income (her websites) in the public eye.

My feelings about how she is instilling, what will most likely become, habits and ideas around food that her children will feel is "normal" and only led to what are commonly known health issues related to morbid obesity.

I feel as a mother, it is my responsibility to teach my son certain things; after all, I am his primary reference point or "barometer" in how to move through the world. I try to teach him that relationships aren't disposable and that they are about love AND commitment. I try to teach him to embrace diversity in ALL things - people, music, politics, religion, et al. I also try to teach him about moderation and healthy eating habits.

I know that he also learns less from my words and more from my actions - and is likely to mimic the behaviors he sees.

From that perspective, I don't care how many outside sources her children have for healthy living. I believe they will take more from her behaviors than from any external influence.

I always feel if someone puts something out in public, its fair game for discussion, opinions, comments and, at times, judgement and criticisms based on the "me" barometer of right/wrong/appropriate/inappropriate/healthy/nonhealthy.

From that me barometer, I just think she is being selfish and unfair to her children.
Christie

Now I know that I'm not the healthiest eater in the world, and I often eat too much, but just thinking that one person could eat this much in a typical day makes Me sick (I mean physically nauseated)

How can you eat that much in one day, seriously? :blink:

I would like to think we would, especially if he were the custodial parent.

And if these men think being that large is sexy, why dont THEY gain the weight?

I feel like this is just one more way woman are trying to look a certain way for a man. It makes me sick. Starving yourself to the detriment of your health is just as horrible.

Side note: I don't have children.

Medusa: You would be right, TOO.
I don't think a mother (or father) should "give up" their lives for their children - it certainly doesn't seem 'fair'. However, I think that those types of actions are a bit too extreme - you can find a medium place to have a life AND make sure you are there for your kids at the same time - I have lots of friends who do it, and they don't seem to be suffering for the sake of their children.

Fat positive to me does not equal destructive behavior. I really think her "goal" is set for self-destruct.

i agree.

she's killing herself.

would we watch a drug addict over a course of time, overdose? would we want to protect her children?

meh, this just sucks.

It freaks me out to think that we would want the government to take away her kids.

What is the line?

Who gets to pick?

Who would be in charge of deciding what is too fat. 200lbs? 300lbs? Mobility?

Should pregnant women be forced to give birth based on giving up one's life for ones children? If a child needs an organ, should the government force them to give it.

And no, I don't think we would look at a man on the same way. We never do.

No, I don't have kids or my own, but have lived with kids of a partner and I agree they take a lot of work, but do we want to government deciding on what weight is and is not safe to be a mother?

Slippery slope.

The fact is that there are many people who develop diseases like diabetes and high blood pressure, and then choose not to follow their doctors' orders. My own brother is not severely overweight, but he challenges his ulcerative colitis daily to the point that I have to wonder if he is trying to kill himself. He's a young father, married with two children and a business that supports his family. His death, which doesn't seem so farfetched, would be emotionally and physically devastating to his family. His choices don't attract media attention, but they are questionable, none-the-less.

One thing about having kids is that you just don't know how it's going to turn out. There are situations when what is required is to put yourself aside for some years to make sure that their needs are met. Especially if there are medical issues or financial strains, it is conceivable that a person (a mom) will lose herself entirely for a time, and I don't think that's unusual. Keeping your own "center" through the roller-coaster of making sure your kid's needs are met is not easy or always functional, even. This is something I know about. If you read a parenting magazine in the doctor's waiting room, there are all these little articles about taking care of yourself: take a bubble bath, take up scrapbooking, read a book, join a photography class...etc. People have to be REMINDED to focus on themselves, even a couple of hours a week. That can be the reality of their lives.

Gaining weight to become 1,000 lbs, and all the stuff that goes with it for this woman is certainly her choice. I actually *do* think it's wrong on so many levels. I don't think her children should be taken away, in that they do have another caregiver in the home who can meet their basic needs. But, their mother is sure a questionable role model, and I can't help think about how they will view their mother and their childhood when they are grown. Having this woman as a mother is not a benign thing. Think about how our own mothers affected us. I do think it's OK to look at something, like this situation, and filter it through some sense of ethics without apology. Some things are actually right, and some things are actually not so right, even though we can agree that we won't all agree on what they are.

I like the parallel that you draw between what this person is doing and a drug addict.
If we view her choice to eat this much (or the attention that she gets from eating this much?) as an addiction, would we view her husband as an enabler? (this one seems like a no brainer)
Would we view the feeder/gainer community that she is part of as culpable in helping her maintain her addiction? Is there a culture in the feeder/gainer community that celebrates this addiction?

Thank you for the quotes, HSIN.

Here's my question for everyone. Can you choose to do that without throwing up? Can ANY of us choose to do that without throwing up?

There is something physically, hormonally wrong with this woman. That's why it really bothers me that her size is being attributed to her choice. She has some underlying hormonal imbalance that forces her body to turn what she eats into fat, and it allows her to eat unreasonable amounts of food--amounts that would make any of the rest of us throw up because our bodies would automatically reject the sheer volume of food.

She did not choose the underlying hormonal imbalance.

What she chooses to do with this problem that she is forced to live with, whether she chooses to embrace it, to celebrate it, to flaunt it--this does not negate the fact that she has an underlying physical problem that has caused it in the first place.

As for her children, are they being beaten or molested? Are they growing up under emotional abuse? Are they being prevented from attending school? Are they neglected?

Or are they happy and well-loved?

We do not have proof that her children will grow up maladjusted.

We don't actually have enough information--in either direction--to make an accurate judgment call about them. But let's assume for the sake of argument that they will somehow grow up maladjusted, that they will have a bad relationship with food, that they may need therapy to gain a healthy adult life.

What makes them any different from me, or from you? How many of us still struggle with weight issues, self-esteem issues? Even worse, how many of us struggle with abuse and molestation and neglect issues? How many of us only live healthy adult lives because we got therapy?

Nobody wishes for children to suffer; it wrenches the heart. But we survived it, and if these children do suffer, they also will survive it.

My guess is, they will survive it much more easily than those who are beaten, molested, and neglected.

When someone says "I have a goal" ... it implies that they are purposely and actively working to attain that goal.

Hormonal balances aside - does it not say something when someone says I WANT to eat myself to 1000 lbs??

Right or wrong, do you think the government should take away her kids?

What is the line?

I think if she is unable or incapable of caring for her children, then yes, I do - just as I would with ANY type of child neglect/abuse/what-have-you from ANY parent - but not just because she wants to eat herself into oblivion. If she is capable of providing proper care, then of course not. I personally think she is not setting a good example - but that's my opinion.

Running along apretty's statement ... would you not want intervention if a drug addict's kid is being neglected?

When a person puts themselves out there (meaning in the public eye), EVERYONE, including government agencies (especially when the potential for danger exists) are going to watch closely. If they didn't - we'd cry that the system failed.

If she isn't thinking about her kids, maybe someone has to. But I don't think anything should be handled prematurely.

Agreed, I would want to know if indeed the kids are being neglected.

Are people who buy the Guiness Book of World Records or support the types of magazines and websites she is making money from culpable?

So only she is at fault?

I think as long as we as a society continue to be fascinated with people like this and continue to buy the books, we are encouraging people like her.