Woman aims for 1,000 pound weight goal
 

This is where putting aside your own wants for the sake of your children come into play. Clearly this woman needs some major therapy and fast. I dont think taking her children away is the way to go. Family and personal therapy could really help though.

Not sure what I think either, I have issues around weight myself.

Several of the on line comments call for her children to be taken away. I guess this worries me most, are fat people going to start losing their children? What is the line?

Also, I must say that I have never seen an artcle or TV show where it mentions how much sushi someone can eat. Usually it is fried stuff. Just a random observation.

I support this woman's right to choose the weight that she feels comfortable and sexy with.

Women in this country do dangerous shit every day to lose enough weight to be on the other end of the weight spectrum. i.e. "If I only eat ice cubes for the next week and take these diet pills that have been shown to damage my heart and liver, I can get to my goal weight of 135 pounds!"

I'm itchy around the idea of taking someone's children away because they want to be super-sized. I'm itchy around the whole "fat = unhealthy" thing. Part of my scab is that I, too, am a biggo fat woman and I don't want people making judgments on my ability, health, or love of my family if I choose to gain or lose weight, have my breasts removed, have a hystorectomy, etc.

I'm also interested in the parallels around women who undergo elective cosmetic plastic surgery and who are not seen as putting their children in danger every time they go under the knife.

Thank you so much for this post!

It freaks me out to think that people judge our worth by our weight. It seems so invasive. I have issues about how I should feel about my own weight, I certainly am not about to make a judgment about anyone else...except you do make a great point. What about mothers who don't eat and are cadaverous? Is this better somehow?

I know someone like you describe. She is 5'5", 45, weights 95lbs, has had several face lifts, lip augmentations, at least 3 boob jobs (she does not have enough fat for them to look right) and is on tons of medication. Both of her daughters are size 22 and she berates them daily.

Which is healthier?

I try to be as fat positive as possible, but with so much in the media about how horrific it is to be fat, I get down on myself sometimes, especially if I gain. Yes, I weighed less when I drank all the time like a damn fish and even less than that when I did cocaine...but was that healthier?

Smart lady- taking it all the way to the bank:

"MyFoxNY.com
OLD BRIDGE -- Donna Simpson, an Old Bridge resident who hopes to become the world’s heaviest woman, was looking for publicity. And she is getting it, big time.
Two days after the 42-year-old Simpson announced she intended to eat her way into the record books, "Entertainment Tonight" was at her door. Her manager was fielding phone calls from "Oprah," "Dr. Phil," and "Inside Edition." And she’s been offered a reality show and book deal.
Her newly assigned manager, Michael Taub, said the offers were in the mid-five figures range.
At her modest, sparse brick home on Pleasant Valley Road, a half-dozen camera crew members from television’s "ET" hauled video equipment from their cars to Simpson’s house in preparation for an interview today. In Simpson’s kitchen, a broadcast reporter was getting her hair and makeup done.
Simpson, dressed in a white tank top and black stretch pants, sat in a chair in her living room. She was on her phone and laptop. "You have to leave now," she said, referring all inquiries to "her representative." Simpson declined requests from The Star-Ledger to be interviewed and photographed.
Taub, who is based in San Diego said although "ET" was filming at Simpson’s house, the program would not necessarily air because no exclusive deal had been struck.
"Nothing has been finalized," said Taub,..."
------------
I don't really care what anyone does with their body but I do enjoy it when people can turn social prejudice and hypocrisy into coin. You go Donna!

this woman runs a website for people who like to watch her eat. She is called a Gainer. The people who watch her, or actually help her eat, are called Feeders.

There is a movie about this fetish ...its on Netflix and its called Feed. Her is the summary of it:

After uncovering a sexually charged Web site that features morbidly obese women being held captive and taunted with fattening food, Australian cop Richard (Jack Thompson) travels to Ohio to investigate. Viewing the Aussie's appearance as an opportunity for a fun game rather than a reason for him to go offline, the site's sadistic webmaster (Alex O'Loughlin) lures Richard into a dangerous game that's unappetizing, to say the least.


I had never heard of this before, and when I ran across this movie, I was simply, stunned. I investigated the web for more details..and its a thriving community.

Do I agree with her right to gain weight. Absolutely. Do I think her children will be depended upon to do her role of caretaker so that SHE can be taken care of, instead of her taking care of them. Absolutely. Is this grounds for removal of the children. Depends. Just because someone lives differently than us, and does things that we might find odd, doesnt mean we are right and she is wrong. (not that anyone was saying that) She just needs to make sure the kids are taken care of and they arent forced into a role reversal.

If she wasn't a mother I would say let her do whatever she wants its her body. The fact that she is a mother makes me furious. That has to be the most selfish thing you could do to yourself. She will not be around to watch her children grow up and thats sad.

shes a lil nuts ive seen people who cant get out of bed they were'nt happy and you can be skinny and have high bp ,diabeties,strokes and other major problems I think she is being selfish to her kids cause they will be waiting on her hand and foot! shell be lucky to be breathing at 1000 pounds how sad. All she cares about is being in the guinness books she should be thinking about being in her kids lives for a long time.

Maybe she will make enough money to hire someone to take care of her and her klids....sounds like she might. :)

As we say where I live : "Trop c'est comme pas assez" meaning

"Too much is as bad as not enough" ...

It is sad to see that the media will exploit this story, her and her children...

She apparently owns several websites for fatties, feeders, gainers, and FAs (Fat Admirers). Im kinda with Cyclo on the "business woman" aspect of this one ;)

And yet I continue to be amazed...
 

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?