I agree that if Donna were starving herself, it would not be an issue.

The issue is that the media and most people I know, including other fat people are fat phobic.

This is a news story because Donna is fat. Really fat, and not embarrassed about it.

I don't know about that... Think about all the flack that thin *Stars* get for being too skinny...

I don't think people would be talking about having her kids removed if she was going for the record of being the most under weight...

I've been watching the new Kirsti Alley show on A&E. There was drama leading up to her weigh in. The whole show is about her losing weight again. It turns out she only weighs 230lbs. To me, that is average. I don't know, but I was just amazed that all this fuss was being made about someone who is 230lbs. And then I thought how sad that the gossip mags say such horrible things about her and it is all related to her weight. As an actress she has to be about 110lbs and look emaciated to be "pretty." The whole show just reveals how sick our society is when it comes to women and weight and beauty. Rufus

I agree, I have never heard talk of removing people's kids for being too thin.

Too fat stuff makes me twitch.

I've got nothing. :nothingtoadd:

Think about it this way?

My family had me on crazy diets starting at age 7. One after another.

I was not fat to start out with, but I sure am now.

Its OK that we don't agree about the kids being taken away, but we need a way larger pool of people with no food issues ready to help, if we start taking away the children of people with unhealthy eating issues. Wayyyyy more. And then, what if we remove them from their home and they are abused worse in the system, like so many are.

I just think its sad all around. The expecatations we have of other people, how children are treated, hormones and gross stuff in foods....all of it. Very depressing.

I need to dig up an article because I seem to recall that Texas (?) had an initiative on the ballot a few years back about how people who were deemed "too fat" couldnt adopt or foster children.

Lemme see if I can find it

Here is a better breakdown of the story:

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=3429655&page=1

Wow. I support big girls but that is messed up. Its like reverse anorexia. I think it is for attention. Judging by the way she is in the GWRB and online for some kind of peep show. I think mabey she does not feel beautiful and wants all these men to see her as sexy so she feels good about herself. If that is the case she just needs a good guy who likes her for her, chubby chaser or not.

I stumbled across this thread today while poking around looking for feeder/gainer support threads. For those of you who were following this, she's reached 700lbs. but the emphasis is still on the effect on her children.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/ar...-4-feeder.html

I disagree with both of you and the comparisons made here about what would happen if a woman decided to try to become the most underweight woman on record. I would actually argue that society deems women who are anorexic and bulimic as more mentally and physically ill than a woman like the subject of this topic who is trying to achieve the 1000 lbs mark. Both anorexia and bulimia have been pathologized to a far greater extent than obesity as far as the medical community is concerned, in much the same way as self-mutilation and other inflictions of bodily harm and self-deprivation. If a mother were attempting to become the most underweight woman on record while also being the mother of young children, I honestly think they would have removed the children from her long ago and hospitalized her, because anorexia and bulimia are taken seriously as severe illnesses.

In comparison, something like excessive eating to the point of what this woman is trying to achieve is considered by society and medical community more along the lines of a "lifestyle choice" that someone has control over rather than a serious compulsion or illness. This is, of course, entirely the fault of society, its traditions and the way it has always deemed self-deprivation as a form of punishment on the body vs. over-indulgence as simply the inability to control "cravings." Of course, that is the result of a severe misunderstanding of why people either eat excessively or deprive themselves of food. But I do think it's dangerous to pit one against the other (overeating vs. bulimia/anorexia). Both are equally severe and its very important to recognise that, imo. But I see the opposite happen on this forum a lot when it comes to these discussions about weight. Because people have been hurt by society's negative stereotypes and behaviours towards those who don't fit the narrow social stereotype of "beauty," (here I mean that North American society seems to think that certain weights and body types are "more attractive" than others. It's totally wrong, imo, but don't know how else to express society's stereotypes/rigid perspectives that affect everyone negatively. Or even if we talk about methods of dress/self-presentation etc. Society always wants people to fit that rigid "role" that I think the queer community often defies.) they seem to exaggerate society's support for excessively thin women. Yet society is also extremely unkind to thin women, and I think it's wrong to assume that an anorexic woman wouldn't have her children taken away. In fact many anorexic mothers have had exactly that happen, because it was believed that their inability to feed themselves would negatively affect their ability to feed their children.

There is definitely a "range" that society has created, where people on either end, either "too thin" or "too big" get a lot of shit for being who they are and I don't think either side should be alienated from the other. Body image and negative social judgement is something both face perhaps more severely than other portions of the North American population, and should face together, imo.

You don't wake up everyday thinking "How can I get fatter?" knowing that it can be a serious health risk. I am pretty sure its illegal to commit suicide and this looks like a clear case.

I love her, I think she's a superstar. I wish there weren't such negative connotations surrounding feeders/gainers. The media portrays sexualized and fetishized women all the time. Why is Donna any different? I wish I could be half as comfortable, at peace, and proud to be myself. I've recently come to realize that the only time I felt powerful and self-confident is when a feeder told me how the parts of my body were incredibly attractive to them. It's an amazingly empowering experience and I don't blame her at all for wanting to feel that way 24/7.

Yowzzzza !!! Blink Blink

OOOOPS!! I have to print a retraction. The info I posted was outdated. As of August 2011 she has split with her fiance and is now trying to lose weight for the sake of her children. Her goal weight is 370 lbs.

She also has shut down her website and is turning it into a more family-oriented site with a blog. Interesting. Thoughts?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donna_S...t_personality)

Official Website

so is smoking, consuming too much sugar and salt and having a diet loaded up in fast foods in general. Whats the limit of whats ok and not ok? Who are we to point fingers when in America, its ok to eat a bacon loaded double cheeseburger loaded with creamed dressings?

And that's the problem, I guess. At one point is it ok for medical professionals to call for intervention? Is there or should there be a difference between interference in the lives of those who are anorexic/bulimic and those who overeat to the extent that this woman does? Over here the government implements "sin taxes" on cigarettes and alcohol, largely because of the added stress those who fall ill due to excess of the above place on the health care system. Should similar taxes be placed on foods with higher risk of high cholesterol, type 2 diabetes etc for a similar reason? If the government does not provide health care services, should the government still be intervening in the lives of those who endanger their own health through whatever means? Or should it be entirely the individual's decision? And if it is, then does that mean that the government should not intervene in the instance of attempted suicide?

Personally, I do believe that everyone should have the ability to do with their own bodies as they please no matter how harmful it is, as long as they are not harming others. Though if they are at a higher risk of cancer, diabetes etc. due to their own consumption of products that place them at higher risks, I don't have anything against the implementation of "sin taxes."

But reading this woman's website that was posted here, it seems she's decided to lose weight in order to improve her health and to be better able to take care of her children. It seems as though she is now taking the stance that her goal was not entirely a result of trying to promote body positivity, but due to her own negative experiences with body image and family members trying to shame her for not fitting the stereotypical Western idea of "beauty." Interesting case anyways. I don't think it's entirely black and white, that's for sure.

Personally rather than taxes on high risk foods I would love to see healthy food subsidized somehow. Or at least sold cheaper. You can get buy 1 get 2 free bags of chips but fruits and veggies cost an arm and a leg. It's almost too expensive to eat healthy. And imagine a large family.

this woman has only decided to lose weight because family doesnt want her to be a burden on them, and she is complying. Her website states IF she finds someone who wants her heftier, she would start the process all over again. So in other words, she will do whatever it takes to be taken care of. Period.

dependency is dependency is dependency....

I wouldn't mind seeing both happen, really. I do think that taxation and warning labels do help raise awareness. Even if people still smoke with the labels and taxes on cigarettes, people are still aware of the fact that it causes cancer, yet I used to have so many clients who didn't know the negative effects of junk food.

Can you point to the precise passage where she says this and link it? I've read through her main website and blog and everything I read is along the lines of:

In her blog she says very similar things. She seems to a) want to make sure she's there for her children, b) recognises that in order to be there for her kids she needs to regain emotional and physical well-being. So her concern seems to be both for her children and her own well-being first and foremost. If she was someone who was just look for the next person she could be dependent on I don't think she'd be saying things like "I have only myself to blame for the position I am currently in and I must now face the greatest challenge of my life."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0...4.html#s361581

'According to a post on her website, Simpson says family concerns were the main reason behind her decision.

"Now that I have sole responsibility of taking care of my children, I must drastically change my lifestyle," she wrote. "Most people see me as a woman who became famous for wanting to gain weight while the rest of the world was trying to slim down. This was true as I was in a relationship that was based on a fetish that exists only in a fantasy."

Despite reports that she weighed as much as 730 pounds, Simpson says her peak weight was 600 pounds. However, the stress of moving to Ohio caused her to lose 60 pounds.

Now her plan is to lose another 170 pounds to get to a goal weight of 370 pounds.

"That is, unless I meet someone who wants me to be heavier," she said. "I need to lose enough weight so I can do things for myself, like get out of showers."'