Woman aims for 1,000 pound weight goal

[Soft*Silver]

http://www.youtube.com/user/MuggleSa...78/fULtU2NfPQA

[Apocalipstic]

Originally Posted by Random

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

Too fat stuff makes me twitch.

[SuperFemme]

I've got nothing.

[Apocalipstic]

Originally Posted by Gemme

I agree with Random, mostly. Yes, we are a fat-phobic nation. Yes, this...in part...makes news because she is a larger person. Yes, I think that if someone made the announcement (whether only "for her fans" or not) that they wanted to lose so much weight that it would be unhealthy for them and put them in danger and their kids at risk of losing their mother, that the media would jump on it too.

I do think there tends to be more anger associated with this than there would be for someone going the opposite direction. Think "Oh, that poor woman! What is she trying to do to herself?" versus what has been said here about Donna.

To say, though, that someone with young children who still need their mother starving herself would 'not be an issue' cheats all of us and takes our humanity away. I'm an ass a lot of the time, I admit, but I don't like being tossed into a group of supposed non-feeling people so easily. That irks me.

Someone doing something harmful to their body is fine. It's their choice. Someone doing something that will kill them and will kill them IN FRONT OF THEIR CHILDREN, day by day, is extraordinarily sad and painful no matter if they are wasting away or eating themselves to death.

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.

[Medusa]

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

[SuperFemme]

Gary Stocklaufer weighs 500 pounds. He said a family court judge ruled this week that he wasn't fit enough to be an adoptive father."It's out-and-out discrimination," Stocklaufer said.Stocklaufer is a state-certified foster parent. He and his wife, Cynthia, had taken in baby Max from a cousin who couldn't raise him.

The couple also has an adopted son named Bobby.Stocklaufer said he and his wife wanted to formally adopt Max, so they went to family court and expected quick approval.They didn't get it.

"We had Max for three months. He was taken away around the 13th of last month," Stocklaufer said. "He means the world to us, and our world has been taken out from underneath of us."

Stocklaufer said his weight should remain immaterial to his being an adoptive father."I mean, if I'm able to be a licensed foster care parent and we've had lots of kids in this home, then why would I not be able to adopt my own cousin?" Stocklaufer said. "We tried to follow all the legal steps, not knowing my weight would ever be an issue."

The ruling has shaken the couple's faith in the state's system."We're hurt, sad, frustrated," Cynthia Stocklaufer said. "We've tried to raise our child to believe the justice system will work for you.""

"We understand they're out for the best interest of the child, but the state should not have this kind of authority," Stocklaufer said.

Coincidentally, the judge who ruled Stocklaufer unfit is the same judge who allowed the adoption of Bobby seven years ago.Meanwhile, Stocklaufer said he plans to continue fighting to get Max back.

A representative of the Jackson County Family court said she couldn't comment on the case because of children's privacy laws.

Late Thursday afternoon, the 16th Judicial Circuit Court of Missouri released a statement that said: "Missouri law restricts the disclosure of any information in adoption cases to very specific circumstances. Court files, records and information in adoption proceedings are closed and, aside from the parties in the case, can only be released by court order."

"The particular case that you are inquiring about is still an ongoing case. Additional proceedings may still occur in the case. While the petitioners are free to talk about the case, court personnel cannot discuss any of the facts involved in the proceeding."

"Under Missouri law, the court is required to consider the welfare and best interests of the child when determining whether or not an adoption should be approved, which is a complicated determination ... Factors to be considered include the petitioner's educational, financial, marital, medical and psychological status and criminal background check."

http://www.wmortv32.com/family/13767506/detail.html

[SuperFemme]

Here is a better breakdown of the story:

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

[Bad_boi]

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.

[Gemme]

Her story was on the daytime talk show The Doctors a while back. They were just as shocked as most of us.

[ScandalAndy]

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

[EnderD_503]

Originally Posted by Apocalipstic

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

Too fat stuff makes me twitch.

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.

[Sachita]

Originally Posted by Apocalipstic

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.

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.

[Elijah]

The article states she is looking for a new "feeder" to take the pressure off her 4 year old daughter and this is what she says about that...

'He must be handsome, slim, and at least 10 years younger than me,' she says.


Interesting irony.

[ScandalAndy]

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.

[nobelcarrot69]

Yowzzzza !!! Blink Blink

[ScandalAndy]

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

[Starbuck]

Well damn, that's still a hefty gal, but it's a heap better than a 1,000 pounds!

[Soft*Silver]

Originally Posted by Sachita

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.

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?

[EnderD_503]

Originally Posted by Miss_Tia

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.

[Cin]

Originally Posted by EnderD_503

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?

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."

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.