Woman aims for 1,000 pound weight goal

[Bit]

Originally Posted by DapperButch

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."

But you DID strongly imply it, Dapper, whether you meant to or not.

Originally Posted by DapperButch

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).

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?

[Gemme]

Originally Posted by Bit

But you DID strongly imply it, Dapper, whether you meant to or not.

I have to disagree, Bit. Hy said, very clearly, that hy didn't think anyone should attempt to take the children from her. It's at the end of Dapper's post, which is why it might have been missed.

Hy's saying, I believe, that being that size and dealing with the health complications that are sure to arise, that caring for her children will become more difficult for her.


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?

Oh, you hit a sore point with me here (I must be uber sensitive tonight). So, anyone who has the money should just hire a nanny and not have that one on one quality time with their children? I respectfully disagree.

For myself, the point is not about her and her desires at all. It's about the FALLOUT from those desires upon her children. How many people do anyone of us know that are at or near 1000 pounds and living life as actively as most of us do? I don't know of any at all. Those folks that I have heard of that are in the 600-700-800 lb. and up range or that I have seen have immense health issues and have suffered a decrease in the quality of their lives.

Her choice to feed herself until she reaches 1000 lbs. will definitely affect her children, and not in a positive way. "Oh, look! Mom's getting money from strangers to eat and eating is robbing her of her mobility and now she doesn't have the ability to go anywhere with us and do stuff with us. We sit around her bed and hug and talk sometimes but I really wish I had my old mom back."

I see that happening, at the very best possibility.

MS, as we all know, is not a choice. This woman is making a CHOICE to do this to herself, with no apparent regard for her children. That is what gets my goat.

[suebee]

There's no beating around the bush for me: this woman WILL NOT be able to take care of her children. She will be bedridden. The human frame cannot support 1000lbs. This woman WILL die. The human heart cannot supply blood to a 1000lb. body without being overworked and eventually stopping. Becoming disabled to the point of NOT being able to care for her children is a choice for this woman. Leaving her children orphans is a choice for this woman. If she is mentally competant then she is making choices that will leave her unable to care for them. At the point she is unable to carry out her parental duties that will become neglect. If she's not mentally competant than she is not capable of making decisions that will enable her to look after the children.

MInd, there is a lot of information missing in the article. I don't think it said anything about who was the primary caregiver (though she did mention her children keeping her busy), nor did it mention if there was anybody else who was involved in their lives.

Sad situation all around.

[Gayla]

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?

[Miss Scarlett]

Do I agree with her choice?

No. But it's her choice and I respect that.

[DapperButch]

Hey, Bit.

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

[Daywalker]

Originally Posted by June

Choosing. This is the point for me. My partner has MS, it is not a choice. I think if I ponder this long enough, it is going to feel like deliberate child neglect to me, which of course does have consequences.

And in my mind, there is no correlation between a consensual D/s relationship OR getting a chronic, debilitating disease, and CHOOSING to debilitate yourself. Frankly, I feel kind of offended at the insinuation, since I live with and love someone who doesn't have a choice.

And also, unfortunately, most people who acquire MS or other illnesses, often do not have the funds to just hire a fucking nanny or a housekeeper and in some cases, they can't even afford the medical care they need, and this woman, if she is "successful" is going to need some of that too.

Thank You Juney.




And how did this situation begin to be compared with MS?


I'm not really sure how to feel about this.

I did not choose MS, however I take it on with gusto as I feel it was given
to me because perhaps someone else could not handle it. It is my Gift.
This woman is making a conscious choice to gain weight, has a goal...to
reach. I gained 12 pounds since last month, not because I had a goal...but
because the MS is giving me a hard time along with Raynauds now, and my
mobility has been effected. Her mobility is already effected, and she plans
to make it even harder to do the things I consider myself lucky to do.

So the comparison with this thread
topic and MS has me befuddled this morning.

I shall marinate on this a bit over coffee.

[Soft*Silver]

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...

[Daywalker]

Originally Posted by softness

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...

People with MS can and do have and raise and tend to their children.

[Soft*Silver]

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...

Originally Posted by Daywalker

People with MS can and do have and raise and tend to their children.

[Leigh]

I am very glad to see that everyone is having a discussion about this, and that so far everyone has been pretty respectful of one another even if we disagree on certain points. What really hurts Me in this case, is that she is consciously choosing to put her own health in danger in order to achieve a record that really should not be something to aim for. She is clearly, at some point, not going to be able to care for her kids and if your going to put your own needs before the needs of your kids then why do you even have them?

I'm not meaning to make anyone upset here and I apologize if anything I say hits a chord with anyone, but I guess I just don't get how she could think of only herself and not her kids. If she wanted to chase some kind of a record in Guiness, why not wait until your kids are older and moved out before you begin something that will surely kill you long before its your time. Its sad really that she is doing this to herself and her family, and even if it is her choice I personally don't agree with it but thats just Me

[LadyFlamezzz]

Originally Posted by Daywalker

Thank You Juney.




And how did this situation begin to be compared with MS?


I'm not really sure how to feel about this.

I did not choose MS, however I take it on with gusto as I feel it was given
to me because perhaps someone else could not handle it. It is my Gift.
This woman is making a conscious choice to gain weight, has a goal...to
reach. I gained 12 pounds since last month, not because I had a goal...but
because the MS is giving me a hard time along with Raynauds now, and my
mobility has been effected. Her mobility is already effected, and she plans
to make it even harder to do the things I consider myself lucky to do.

So the comparison with this thread
topic and MS has me befuddled this morning.

I shall marinate on this a bit over coffee.

there is No comparison baybee!

[Bit]

Originally Posted by June

And also, unfortunately, most people who acquire MS or other illnesses, often do not have the funds to just hire a fucking nanny or a housekeeper.....

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.

[NJFemmie]

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.

[IrishGrrl]

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)

[Soon]

Originally Posted by IrishGrrl

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 don't have children.

[NJFemmie]

Originally Posted by IrishGrrl

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)

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.

[Lynn]

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.

[Medusa]

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..

[christie]

Originally Posted by Medusa

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

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