I was not saying you did, just asking. :)

The only one putting a gun to her head is herself.
I can almost hear my sister saying "if they told you to jump off a bridge, would you...?"

Addiction/Motherhood/Children welfare..
 

Hi... My name is Random and I'm an addict...

So many years since I first said those words..

I have been clean 19 yrs and nine months..
I didn't find out I was expecting until I was three months along..

The FIRST thought in my head after.. *what? what? no.. I have a ut infection and the stomake flu.. It was only ONE time..* was.. What the hell have I done to this kid.. I told the dr every drug I had taken in the last three months, that i was more than a close personal friend with Mr. Coccain and I had eaten mushrooms the night before..

It was a hard call... abortion or keeping him... keeping him or putting him up for adoption..

I chose adoption... I wanted to get back to MY life!!! My girlfriend wanted her girlfriend back.. I could stay clean for 6 months.. I could do what was fair for this life I CHOOSED to bring into this world...

I didn't end up adopting him out... I chose my child over my addiction and my old life... That was my choice... and with that choice I changed my priorites..

For me.... When you bring a life into the world and you make the choice to keep that life... Then you have to try your best to do what is right for that kid...

We, as parents screw up, we screw our kids up.. That's going to happen, because no one is perfect and no one makes the right choices all the time...

But for me.. There are limits and lines... Hard choices we have to make.. Our needs vs what is best for our families..

Not at all too far, since I was about to make that very point.

Look at my puddin'! Being all feminist-y and stuff... :pile:

Yes, Daywalker, I know they do. One of my dear friends from years ago had MS and she had a family. My point being just because someone has something that interferes with their mobility, that doesnt mean they cant take care of themselves or thier children...

Bit -

So much posting has gone on since you responded to my post early this morning, that you may not have an interest in my response at this point, but I wanted to follow through and write back. If I miss anything, please let me know.

Sorry if I am interrupting the flow, folks.

I tried to cut and paste, but it was a mess, so I thought I would just respond free style.

It seems as though the main thing you were saying is that by my saying that if the woman becomes 1,000 lbs she would not be able to physically care for her child, (due to mobility issues), that I was strongly implying that her children should be taken away from her.

My answer is no, I do not think that anyone's children should be taken away from them unless they are being abused or neglected in some way. I don't see this woman any differently than I would anyone else. If she is indeed unable to physically care for her child at any point, then my hope is that some other adult can be a part of the household who can, so that they can all stay together.

If not, then I hope that the children would be with people they know (relatives or other), and not go into the foster care system, if possible.

Ok, so now I am off to read all of the posts I have missed all day!

P.S. Gemme, thanks for throwing out there what you thought I was saying since I couldn't post until now....you were right!

yes....I just didnt state it clear enough. There are some people who would think that people with MS could not take care of their children. But, having MS is not reason for taking children away from them. One's physical ability does not make someone a bad parent. There are ways for that care to happen. A caregiver, another parent, a family member, etc...

Wow. Oh wow. Just......wow.

It's worse than I initially thought. :wtf:

True. It is good that they have another trusted adult in their lives, even if he is an enabler to their mother.

*raises hand*

I haven't any children either. :)

She didn't just wake up and eat thousands of calories in one day. She ate more and more, expanding her stomach and her appetite, until she reached where she is now. If she actually begins on this journey, and eats 12,000 calories per day, she will be eating per day what I eat in 9.28 days. :blink:

While there have been a few who mentioned the removal of the children, the vast majority of responses have not said that. I think that no one wants that to happen, but it is a possibilty if she didn't have Phillippe in her life. I think he, as the father of the toddler, will be able to help the kids. Hopefully, he will be strong enough to be the only parent, if she continues to attempt to reach her goal.

I like that they mentioned she feeds her daughter a healthy diet, so she does know the difference. As it's been pointed out several times, this is this woman's CHOICE. So sad.

Absolutely! He's a major enabler in a long line of them.

Good questions. I haven't known many Gainers, but those that I do and have known always kept their health in mind. They did eat for others' pleasure, but never to that extent. They still wanted to be able to "Get out and experience LIFE!"...direct quote...as well as their fetish.

I think that it's up to the gainer to determine what is right for them. I believe they have the ultimate control. It's their fetish, their body, their lives. But, I do believe that if it crosses over from the enjoyment of a fetish to a full blown addiction, I believe that that would not happen without the prodding of a feeder. It could easily be a shared addiction, like a shared hallucination. Both parties would feel like nothing was wrong, but the push and pull of their addiction would be out of control.

Not at all. There are thousands and thousands and thousands of records in those books. No one is going to buy one book at, what?, $50 bucks for one little entry.

I do agree that the media and enterprises through the media have some responsibility. It would surprise me greatly and impress the Hell out of me if the Guiness Book turned her down. Unlikely though.

*nods*

I love this whole post, but the underlined part is my view of motherhood as well.

Thanks!

She's a model. Period. Because models are marketing their physical body they may do any number of things the average person would not do (some of which are unhealthy) to modify their asset and enhance its profitability. Same with anyone else whose body is their business- athletes, bodybuilders, laborers, etc. Laborers who work in hot environments may pop sodium tablets like candy. Professional wrestlers may take narcotics to enable them to work when badly injured. Bodybuilders may inject steroids. Athletes- all of the above and more. Should a Barry Bonds have his children removed from him because his steroid cocktails may eventually render him disabled?

Obese women working as models -and making a very nice living doing so- is nothing new and has been going on for hundreds, if not thousands of years. And there has always been a sexualized aspect to the marketability of fat women. There is no equivalent history of fat men being marketable.

What happened here is that an offhand comment Donna made -part of her sales pitch/fantasy creation- was reported and took off like wildfire. The reason is that the meme of "willfully fat" is one that provokes pleasing self-righteous outrage from not only thin people, but "less fat" people, and "struggling to lose weight" people who can all enjoy a nice round of bonding and reassurance over putting down the willfully fat addict gluttonous "not like us" freak.
Ms. Simpson just so happens to be astute enough to know how to cash in on this widespread social fantasy of "Not Fat Like Us". And people are willing to pay for this modeling of otherness. Big time. If society wasn't extremely invested in this fantasy, this meme would die a quick death in the "Guy In Indiana Smokes Four Packs A Day" file.

The funny thing is that Ms. Simpson's statements and her truth no longer matters, because the meme of "willful fatty" is much more marketable than her little truth. Millions will be made off it. I only hope she is smart enough to play along and get a few pennies herself for her troubles.
-------------------------------------------------------------
600-pound NJ mom Donna Simpson's quest to be heaviest woman on Earth just 'a fantasy for fans'

BY Maria Fugate
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

Wednesday, March 17th 2010, 7:50 PM

Hungry size 4 fashion models, eat your hearts out.

Six-hundred-pound Donna Simpson, 42, isn't what most people picture when they think of modeling, but that's exactly how the New Jersey mom makes
big money these days, according to ABC News.

The pale brunette with curly slicked-back hair is a successful model on Supersizedbombsells.com, a Web site for men who worship big women, ABC
News reports.

"I have fans who send me baklava and cheesecake and everything else you can imagine," says Simpson . "I'm heavy, and I wouldn't mind being heavier."

Simpson made headlines this week after the British newspaper Daily Mail reported that she was on a quest to gain 400 pounds and be named Guinness
World Records' fattest woman on Earth.

But Simpson, stay-at-home mom of a 3-year-old girl, says the Mail got it twisted, ABC News reported.

"The whole thing about the 1,000 pounds is a fantasy I provide to my fans," she tells ABCNews.com, irked about the story.

Still, at more than a quarter of a ton, she's a heavyweight any way you slice it — and her husband, Phillippe Gouamba, told ABC News.com he
stands behind her.

"I support her because I enjoy it," he said.

He's hardly alone. Plus-size models all around the world are getting a noticably bigger share of the pie these days — proudly appearing everywhere from designer rundays to print and TV ads and proving there's a market for much more than one skinny size fits all.

And you only have to look up BBW -- big beautiful women -- online to find a wide range of sites celebrating curvier examples of female beauty.

Though Simpson is not shooting for a record and insists she's healthy as she is, many plus-size women acknowledge they face health significant risks, ABC News.com reports.

Obesity increases the likelihood of heart disease, diabetes, hypertension and some types of cancers, the government says; First Lady Michelle Obama
recently announced she will make a battle against childhood obesity in the nation her top priority this year.

But Mikey Garcia, who owns Mikey's BBW (Big Beautiful Women) Club in Waterford, Mich., notes there are many unhealthy thin women too because
they are constantly dieting or smoking.

"Just because a woman is a bigger size doesn't mean she's not healthy," Garcia said, according to ABC News.com.

The women of Supersized Bombshells, many of whom were mercilessly ridiculed as children in school and still shunned by some, bask in the positive attention.

Priscilla Bell, 26, who tips the scales at a hearty 355 pounds, says modeling for men lets her to be herself — a self-confident young mom, ABC News.
com reported.

She says she gets hundreds of e-mails from appreciative fans every day, and makes about $600 a month from her postings.

"There are men who look at me and say I'm as beautiful as Tyra Banks or Heidi Klum," says Bell, whose best-selling video shows her cooking in the
buff.

Sounds like a lot more fun than a daily diet of spring water and undressed salad.

I don't think you took it too far.

An article from Salon.com

Feederism: A sex kink tabloids won't touch
The Daily Mail's story about a morbidly obese woman still gaining weight ignores one salacious detail


excerpt:
......

A sex story that even the Daily Mail won't touch? It goes to show that despite our desire to be titillated through shock and horror, there are certain sexual subcultures that are truly forbidden. The piece briefly mentions that Simpson "runs a website where men pay her to watch her eat fast food," but it ignores the site's dark sexual undercurrents. The site, SuperSizedBombshells.com, shows her posing naked, in lingerie, wearing handcuffs and rubbing folds of her flesh against another obese woman. Men don't just "pay to watch her eat," they pay to get off.

Her site is but a small part of a thriving online community for fat fetishists. Simpson actually met her current partner on a dating site for fat admirers. Innumerable porn sites delight in big-bodied women and folds of excess fat; and some take it farther, specializing in video clips of women struggling to do aerobics or otherwise demonstrating how their weight has incapacitated them. (For $12, visitors can buy a video clip of Simpson "testing her mobility" in her underwear.) Then, there are sites that cater to feederists, who like to watch super-sized women eat, sometimes to the point of painful fullness. Often times, there is a male "feeder" who gives a female "feedee" fatty junk foods.

It isn't just the tremendous health risks of feeder porn that most find unsettling. Several months ago, an excellent Bitch magazine article explained:

Feeders get off on the idea that their feedee might one day become too 'satisfied' -- and too obese -- to move, thus making them completely dependent on their feeder. It's an extreme manifestation of the idea that masculinity in men involves eroticized dominance over women.

It's that element of misogyny that makes extreme fat fetishism unpopular in the fat acceptance community.

Six foot tall 115 lb models market themselves to the male gaze (and perfect women look like that- really!). Two girls one cup market themselves to the male gaze (and they were really into that hotness-slurpilicious! - really!). Women who can puke on command market themselves to male fetishists (and they love puking!-really!) The stripper at the corner bar markets herself to dudes that really think she is oh so into him as she puts her hand on his thigh for a buck (She's really into you! You're special!), Fat models market themselves to fat fetishists/feeders (She's so into it!). Entire cultures of women keep their faces covered because men are not responsible for their actions when faced with the "eroticism" of a female face and to do otherwise "invites" rape (the raped then punished by death for incitement). Nothing new. Not news.
The only thing unique and newsworthy about this story is fat fatty mcfatterson.

hmmmm :|:|:|

seriously, what was that.

5 out of 1290 misunderstood my post. Not bad!
:)

The majority of your post made perfect sense and I imagine, like me, many nodded their heads in agreement. Until that ending part there. That part I don't understand.

So it's just a tempest in a teapot, then? We've been going on for pages because the Daily Mail skewed the story to sensationalism?

Sheesh.

(Here's a link to the story Cyclopea posted, in case anyone wants it.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/03/17/2010-03-17_plusplus_models_the_next_big_thing.html )

yuck....
 

Every sence I have been readnig about this women who, imho,is seriously sick to be doing the things she dose.what she is doing to her health,her kids..now and in the future,is so irrisponsable.Just so she can tody up to a bunch of guys who are about as sick as she is.I gess she is getting something out of all thais but she has a very low opinion of herself to be doing this,wich is another thing the kids will be liveing with when they get older..I wonder if this will haveing them doing the same thing?

Ah. Well proper grammatical format is important after all in that case. N'est pas?

Ummm.. why is this any different than any sex worker setting up a webcam and making her living letting people watch her?

Why is it sick? Just because I don't agree with a kink, doesn't mean it's sick...

Is this story true or an Internet hoax. My first thought it is a hoax, but I could be wrong.

Rufus

Thanks Bit! I thought it was clear and I'm glad you understood. A bit defeating when all the thoughts and ideas in a post are discarded because of poor punctuation! Oh well, that's the internetz! Or maybe nothing else was interesting in my posts.
Thank you for not only "getting" what I meant, but taking the time to explain it to those who were confused, and especially for then commenting on the meat of one of my posts. :)
Oh- and posting the link too!

Ms Cyn..
 

Let me rephrase that...to me its sick because it is just somethig her kids will see and beleave its normal.If mom wants to be kinky I could care less and if she dosent care what her kids see being harmfull to her health,wich in time eating like this will cause her more misery than she will ever know..sufocation by fat is a hellish way to die.I have seen people die from this because they just ate them selves to death.In case u may think im average weight ,no im not,I tip the scales at 259 and am 5'5"..I did weigh near 300 after being hurt in an accident and being unable to get around much,so I know how easy it is to pack on the pounds.. im loseing it a bit everyday so I will be hear for a long time and healthy to boot.
Btw, I have dated women who were stripers and not one of them stayed in it long..the $$$$ was good but puting up with the other draw backs of the trade wasnt worth it in the long run.THe others that I know who are still in it are looking for a way out ...

Warning: Long Post
 

I've been thinking about this article. I must confess that my thoughts have been all over road which is why I wanted to think this through. No doubt I will think some more after this post. And of course being the nerd that I am I had to read everything I could find because I wanted to try and understand.This has been a good discussion. I apologize if I am being redundant.

My emotions have ranged from sad to angry to frustrated to convicted to stunned to compassion. I was sad because she was making a self destructive choice. It would be different if she remained healthy as she pushes to 1000lbs. But she is experiencing the negative consequences of her actions. She is having to battle with the health issues. However she remains determined to pursue her goal. My reaction is a natural one for me - Why? What is behind her decision? What is driving her to say screw the consequences, this is what I want? None of us truly knows that. And it's too easy to simply call her selfish. I'm not saying that we ignore bad behavior or not hold individuals accountable. But let's be consistent.

I was angry because I didn't hear much of an outcry directed at her fiancee. I didn't hear or read much about him being a bad father or limiting his exposure to the children. After all isn't he enabling the addiction or whatever is driving her decisions to bring harm to herself? I was angry with those who support her sites. They too are contributing to her journey to self harm. Will they be supporting her when she is on the negative side of this journey? How sad it is that we as a society often find ways to benefit from another person's destruction.

And here's another question - How many of us CHOOSE do things that we KNOW will bring negative consequences? Yet we do it over and over again. We ignore what the Surgeon General says. We ignore what the "experts" say. (who are they anyway?) We boldly say by our actions - screw whatever <fill in the blank> says, I'm going to live my life. Do we lessen the salt, do the exercise, cut the soda, put down the alcohol, drive when we know we shouldn't because of lack of sleep or too much alcohol, text/yack on phone while driving? And the list goes on. Do we do the healthy/right stuff or do we by our actions say not today, I'm doing whatever I feel like. It's my right. But the immediate reaction what she's doing is different. I have to ask why, how? Because we see actions, her choices as more extreme? Who are to judge her?

These were things that hit me. What also stung me was the part about her physical exercise. I wasn't exercising at all either. And the bottom line truth is that my lack of action was a choice. The excuses were just that - excuses! So am I just as irresponsible as she is being? The truth is yes. Should I be denied raising my children (if I had any) because of such poor choices? I don't think so. So if I shouldn't why should she? Removing the children does not deal with the root cause. I guess it's an occupational hazard but I have to do a root cause analysis on everything to make sure the right areas are being addressed.

I know this takes the discussion off point a bit but I think we need to be careful and look at this from different angles. And if there is one, you know I'll find it. Even though we engage in self destructive behaviors on a regular basis (for those who don't fall into this category - you read with one eye so you know when it's safe to read with both later) we feel it is our right whether we have children or not. And the same is true when we choose to engage in behaviors that others think are not natural and they pull out some statistic or some manual to show proof that we should change. Some don't eat meat and believe it is a poor choice and bad judgment. We're harming our bodies. (obviously I don't believe this as I at Fudruckers yesterday - lol).

We weigh all the data and then we choose. This woman has chosen. It may not be our choice. It may be an unwise choice. But it is her choice. With choice comes consequences. Donna will have to deal with the consequences of her actions. And unfortunately in one way or another so will her children and fiancee. Maybe it's the pastor's heart that was hit as I read what I could find about Donna. I just want to make sure we're also taking a hard look at ourselves before we are so quick to judge.

And the biggest reason I was saddened - it took an extreme situation like this to really make me look at me.

I'll sit down now.

random thoughts...