Woman aims for 1,000 pound weight goal

[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.

[Soon]

Originally Posted by Bit

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.

How did she get where she is/was?
.....


At the age of 24 Donna married Robert Simpson, a chef who encouraged her eating by bringing home leftovers from work to feed her. “He’d come home with steak and desserts,” she recalls. “He liked me supersized.”
......
For the first time ever she went on a diet, urged on by her father who was concerned for her health, and lost 5st in six months.

But she soon lapsed when she met fat-lover Philippe Gouamba, 47, in an online chat room for oversized women in 2006. “When I ate enough for five people on our first date, it really impressed him,” says Donna, from New Jersey, USA. Philippe, who counts watching his girlfriend eat as one of his favourite hobbies, says: “I’ve always been attracted to big women, but Donna is my fantasy. The more she weighs, the sexier she is.”


How she is planning to get to her target weight (1000 lbs.):

“My food costs £400 a week,” says Donna. “In a typical day I’ll eat four burgers and fries, a loaf of bread with peanut butter and jam, four servings of meatloaf and mashed potato, a large pizza, a chocolate cake with ice cream and cream, 12 cupcakes, two cheesecakes and fizzy drinks.


--------

Her health problems (and their effects on her children):


To reach her target, ex-carer Donna, who already suffers from diabetes and high-blood pressure, needs to gain another 27st and predicts it will take her until 2012 at her current weight gain of 7st a year.

.....
Although doctors had said her 38st frame would make it almost impossible to conceive, Donna fell pregnant within three months of dating Phillipe. But she developed diabetes and high-blood pressure during pregnancy and needed a team of 19 doctors and nurses to get through the high-risk Caesarean birth.

When baby Jacqueline was born weighing 8lbs 14oz in February 2007, Donna became the world’s fattest woman to give birth – the previous largest had weighed 34st. But she admits she struggles to care for her daughter, as she can barely walk 20ft without needing to sit down. “It’s difficult keeping up with Jacqueline, but we’re very closely bonded,” says Donna. “Fortunately, anything I can’t do with her, her dad can, so I don’t feel guilty.”

[Leigh]

Originally Posted by HowSoonIsNow

How is she planning to get to her target weight (1000 lbs.):

“My food costs £400 a week,” says Donna. “In a typical day I’ll eat four burgers and fries, a loaf of bread with peanut butter and jam, four servings of meatloaf and mashed potato, a large pizza, a chocolate cake with ice cream and cream, 12 cupcakes, two cheesecakes and fizzy drinks.

Now I know that I'm not the healthiest eater in the world, and I often eat too much, but just thinking that one person could eat this much in a typical day makes Me sick (I mean physically nauseated)

How can you eat that much in one day, seriously?

[Bit]

Originally Posted by HowSoonIsNow

“In a typical day I’ll eat four burgers and fries, a loaf of bread with peanut butter and jam, four servings of meatloaf and mashed potato, a large pizza, a chocolate cake with ice cream and cream, 12 cupcakes, two cheesecakes and fizzy drinks.

Thank you for the quotes, HSIN.

Here's my question for everyone. Can you choose to do that without throwing up? Can ANY of us choose to do that without throwing up?

There is something physically, hormonally wrong with this woman. That's why it really bothers me that her size is being attributed to her choice. She has some underlying hormonal imbalance that forces her body to turn what she eats into fat, and it allows her to eat unreasonable amounts of food--amounts that would make any of the rest of us throw up because our bodies would automatically reject the sheer volume of food.

She did not choose the underlying hormonal imbalance.

What she chooses to do with this problem that she is forced to live with, whether she chooses to embrace it, to celebrate it, to flaunt it--this does not negate the fact that she has an underlying physical problem that has caused it in the first place.

As for her children, are they being beaten or molested? Are they growing up under emotional abuse? Are they being prevented from attending school? Are they neglected?

Or are they happy and well-loved?

We do not have proof that her children will grow up maladjusted.

We don't actually have enough information--in either direction--to make an accurate judgment call about them. But let's assume for the sake of argument that they will somehow grow up maladjusted, that they will have a bad relationship with food, that they may need therapy to gain a healthy adult life.

What makes them any different from me, or from you? How many of us still struggle with weight issues, self-esteem issues? Even worse, how many of us struggle with abuse and molestation and neglect issues? How many of us only live healthy adult lives because we got therapy?

Nobody wishes for children to suffer; it wrenches the heart. But we survived it, and if these children do suffer, they also will survive it.

My guess is, they will survive it much more easily than those who are beaten, molested, and neglected.

[NJFemmie]

When someone says "I have a goal" ... it implies that they are purposely and actively working to attain that goal.

Hormonal balances aside - does it not say something when someone says I WANT to eat myself to 1000 lbs??

[Apocalipstic]

Originally Posted by NJFemmie

When someone says "I have a goal" ... it implies that they are purposely and actively working to attain that goal.

Hormonal balances aside - does it not say something when someone says I WANT to eat myself to 1000 lbs??

Right or wrong, do you think the government should take away her kids?

What is the line?

[UofMfan]

As a mother of a son who was almost taken away from me simply due to the fact that I was gay, I am a little weary when I hear people talk about the “government”, or anyone for that matter, taking kids away from their mothers. Having said that, I must keep in mind that I did not “choose” my sexual orientation, whereas this woman has chosen and as continuously chooses, to put herself and her dysfunctional ways before her children. In any event, I still don’t advocate anyone’s children being taken away unless they are truly in danger. There lies the question about child custody, and it is so difficult to decide in this case if they are indeed in danger or simply subjected to unhealthy behavior. It also amazes me that most of those who are appalled at the “government” running anything, more specifically healthcare, have no problem rationalizing the government’s role in parenting issues. I am with Apocalipstic, where do we draw the line?

The article is not giving us the whole picture, but the one that it does give us is very grim. This woman is willing to kill herself in the name of 15 minutes of fame and her name appearing in print in the Guinness Book of World Records. This says so much more about our society than it does about this poor woman. In the age of realities, celebrity worshiping, etc, how can we blame her? We have the Octomom as another example, when will we stop worshiping the wrong people for the wrong reasons? What will be next?

I personally don’t believe this has anything to do with being “fat positive”, and I am sure this will bring in a lot of comments. Being “fat positive” does not equal being suicidal. I have been pondering whether to post on here or not because of the sensitivity of the subject, but in my mind setting a goal to reach 1,000lbs is simply insane. It is not sexy it is not positive it is not safe, for her or her children. Being 1,000 lbs is not being fat, it is a legacy that this woman will leave her children, one that not only includes eating disorders, but it also includes giving your children the wrong lessons and more importantly, teaching them how low self-esteem can go.

[NJFemmie]

Originally Posted by apocalipstic

Right or wrong, do you think the government should take away her kids?

What is the line?

I think if she is unable or incapable of caring for her children, then yes, I do - just as I would with ANY type of child neglect/abuse/what-have-you from ANY parent - but not just because she wants to eat herself into oblivion. If she is capable of providing proper care, then of course not. I personally think she is not setting a good example - but that's my opinion.

Running along apretty's statement ... would you not want intervention if a drug addict's kid is being neglected?

When a person puts themselves out there (meaning in the public eye), EVERYONE, including government agencies (especially when the potential for danger exists) are going to watch closely. If they didn't - we'd cry that the system failed.

If she isn't thinking about her kids, maybe someone has to. But I don't think anything should be handled prematurely.

[Apocalipstic]

Originally Posted by NJFemmie

I think if she is unable or incapable of caring for her children, then yes, I do - just as I would with ANY type of child neglect/abuse/what-have-you from ANY parent - but not just because she wants to eat herself into oblivion. If she is capable of providing proper care, then of course not. I personally think she is not setting a good example - but that's my opinion.

Running along apretty's statement ... would you not want intervention if a drug addict's kid is being neglected?

When a person puts themselves out there (meaning in the public eye), EVERYONE, including government agencies (especially when the potential for danger exists) are going to watch closely. If they didn't - we'd cry that the system failed.

If she isn't thinking about her kids, maybe someone has to. But I don't think anything should be handled prematurely.

Agreed, I would want to know if indeed the kids are being neglected.

[Soon]

Bit,

Just as we don't have "proof that her children will grow up maladjusted" (or neglected, etc.), how do you know, for certain, that this she has an "underlying hormonal imbalance"?

I am no physiological expert, but from my understanding, the stomach can expand to to a much larger size depending on food intake.

Even if there was an initial imbalance, her choices override it at this point.

Everything I have read has attributed her increasing weight as her choice, and I find it interesting that you are focused on how she lacks choice due to a hormonal imbalance.

Maybe it's like saying a person has a predisposition to drug/alcohol addiction? However, be that as it may, I think society should become at least aware of a parent who knowingly and publicly asserts their right to their addictions to the point of self-destruction--at the very least to keep an eye on the children's welfare (to answer Apoc's question) to see if the children's needs are being met. However, even with the most basic needs met, I do worry about the inherent harm (present and future) such behaviour has on her children (psychological and, perhaps, later, physical)--but I don't think that is a reason to remove them.

She takes complete ownership and has encouraged publicity of this quest to reach her goal weight.

I don't have much empathy for her--unlike those who are struggling to overcome their issues/addictions for themselves and families--she desires to go head long into a journey that will lead to further harm.


To answer Apoc's last question: No, I don't think the World Record consumers are culpable.

[UofMfan]

Originally Posted by HowSoonIsNow

Bit,

Just as we don't have "proof that her children will grow up maladjusted" (or neglected, etc.), how do you know, for certain, that this she has an "underlying hormonal imbalance"?

I am no physiological expert, but from my understanding, the stomach can expand to to a much larger size depending on food intake.

Even if there was an initial imbalance, her choices override it at this point.

Everything I have read has attributed her increasing weight as her choice, and I find it interesting that you are focused on how she lacks choice due to a hormonal imbalance.

Maybe it's like saying a person has a predisposition to drug/alcohol addiction? However, be that as it may, I think society should become at least aware of a parent who knowingly and publicly asserts their right to in their addictions to the point of self-destruction. At least to keep an eye on the children's welfare (to answer Apoc's question) to see if the children's needs are being met. However, even with the most basic needs met, I do worry about the inherent psychological harm (present and future) such behaviour has on her children--but I don't think that is a reason to remove them.

She takes complete ownership and has encouraged publicity of this quest to reach her goal weight.

I don't have much empathy for her--unlike those who are struggling to overcome their issues/addictions for themselves and families--she desires to go head long into a journey that will lead to further harm.

I have a hormonal imbalance and I do not weigh 1,000lbs, not even close!

[Apocalipstic]

Originally Posted by HowSoonIsNow

Bit,

Just as we don't have "proof that her children will grow up maladjusted" (or neglected, etc.), how do you know, for certain, that this she has an "underlying hormonal imbalance"?

I am no physiological expert, but from my understanding, the stomach can expand to to a much larger size depending on food intake.

Even if there was an initial imbalance, her choices override it at this point.

Everything I have read has attributed her increasing weight as her choice, and I find it interesting that you are focused on how she lacks choice due to a hormonal imbalance.

Maybe it's like saying a person has a predisposition to drug/alcohol addiction? However, be that as it may, I think society should become at least aware of a parent who knowingly and publicly asserts their right to in their addictions to the point of self-destruction. At least to keep an eye on the children's welfare (to answer Apoc's question) to see if the children's needs are being met. However, even with the most basic needs met, I do worry about the inherent psychological harm (present and future) such behaviour has on her children--but I don't think that is a reason to remove them.

She takes complete ownership and has encouraged publicity of this quest to reach her goal weight.

I don't have much empathy for her--unlike those who are struggling to overcome their issues/addictions for themselves and families--she desires to go head long into a journey that will lead to further harm.


To answer Apoc's last question: No, I don't think the World Record consumers are culpable.

So only she is at fault?

[Soon]

Originally Posted by apocalipstic

So only she is at fault?

I didn't say that; I do feel that there is some culpability in the men in her life who have encouraged her obesity to suit their desires.

However, again, she has chosen to allow herself to grow as part of their (and her own) fulfillment.

I would feel the same way with a woman who is intent on becoming extremely thin in order to cater to someone else's idea of beauty-even if she felt sexier for doing so.