Woman aims for 1,000 pound weight goal

[Bit]

Originally Posted by cybersuebee

First, I think you've got your stats reversed.

Second, enough people on this site have been called one of those names to recognize it for what it was.

Sue, I think Cyclopea probably forgot the quotation marks... I think the name calling was the reference to the way the media has sensationalized the story--in other words, I think it was an attempt to say that this story is "news" only because the media is branding Donna with the equivalent of the name.

[Bit]

Originally Posted by Cyclopea

BY Maria Fugate
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

Wednesday, March 17th 2010, 7:50 PM

...........But Simpson, stay-at-home mom of a 3-year-old girl, says the Mail got it twisted, ABC News reported.

"The whole thing about the 1,000 pounds is a fantasy I provide to my fans," she tells ABCNews.com, irked about the story.

So it's just a tempest in a teapot, then? We've been going on for pages because the Daily Mail skewed the story to sensationalism?

Sheesh.

(Here's a link to the story Cyclopea posted, in case anyone wants it.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/03/17/2010-03-17_plusplus_models_the_next_big_thing.html )

[Gemme]

Originally Posted by Bit

So it's just a tempest in a teapot, then? We've been going on for pages because the Daily Mail skewed the story to sensationalism?

Sheesh.

(Here's a link to the story Cyclopea posted, in case anyone wants it.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/03/17/2010-03-17_plusplus_models_the_next_big_thing.html )

Maybe yes, maybe no. She wouldn't have 'people' for the media to go to if she wasn't somewhat responsible for it, I'd think.

Wouldn't be the first time, though, would it?

*wry grin*

Just as a few (myself included) said something about media and what it jumps on....we do the same....but I think the discussion has been good. It looks like everyone seems to be more concerned with the care of the children than anything, which is the most important thing to me.

[Rockinonahigh]

Every sence I have been readnig about this women who, imho,is seriously sick to be doing the things she dose.what she is doing to her health,her kids..now and in the future,is so irrisponsable.Just so she can tody up to a bunch of guys who are about as sick as she is.I gess she is getting something out of all thais but she has a very low opinion of herself to be doing this,wich is another thing the kids will be liveing with when they get older..I wonder if this will haveing them doing the same thing?

[suebee]

Originally Posted by Bit

Sue, I think Cyclopea probably forgot the quotation marks... I think the name calling was the reference to the way the media has sensationalized the story--in other words, I think it was an attempt to say that this story is "news" only because the media is branding Donna with the equivalent of the name.

Ah. Well proper grammatical format is important after all in that case. N'est pas?

[Random]

Originally Posted by Rockinonahigh

Every sence I have been readnig about this women who, imho,is seriously sick to be doing the things she dose.what she is doing to her health,her kids..now and in the future,is so irrisponsable.Just so she can tody up to a bunch of guys who are about as sick as she is.I gess she is getting something out of all thais but she has a very low opinion of herself to be doing this,wich is another thing the kids will be liveing with when they get older..I wonder if this will haveing them doing the same thing?

Ummm.. why is this any different than any sex worker setting up a webcam and making her living letting people watch her?

Why is it sick? Just because I don't agree with a kink, doesn't mean it's sick...

[Rufusboi]

Originally Posted by Braedon

I don't know what to think of this story, but figured I'd share it with everyone to get your opinion on what this woman is doing to her body:


http://ca.lifestyle.yahoo.com/health...nd_weight_goal

Is this story true or an Internet hoax. My first thought it is a hoax, but I could be wrong.

Rufus

[Cyclopea]

Originally Posted by Bit

Sue, I think Cyclopea probably forgot the quotation marks... I think the name calling was the reference to the way the media has sensationalized the story--in other words, I think it was an attempt to say that this story is "news" only because the media is branding Donna with the equivalent of the name.

Thanks Bit! I thought it was clear and I'm glad you understood. A bit defeating when all the thoughts and ideas in a post are discarded because of poor punctuation! Oh well, that's the internetz! Or maybe nothing else was interesting in my posts.
Thank you for not only "getting" what I meant, but taking the time to explain it to those who were confused, and especially for then commenting on the meat of one of my posts.
Oh- and posting the link too!

[Rockinonahigh]

Let me rephrase that...to me its sick because it is just somethig her kids will see and beleave its normal.If mom wants to be kinky I could care less and if she dosent care what her kids see being harmfull to her health,wich in time eating like this will cause her more misery than she will ever know..sufocation by fat is a hellish way to die.I have seen people die from this because they just ate them selves to death.In case u may think im average weight ,no im not,I tip the scales at 259 and am 5'5"..I did weigh near 300 after being hurt in an accident and being unable to get around much,so I know how easy it is to pack on the pounds.. im loseing it a bit everyday so I will be hear for a long time and healthy to boot.
Btw, I have dated women who were stripers and not one of them stayed in it long..the $$$$ was good but puting up with the other draw backs of the trade wasnt worth it in the long run.THe others that I know who are still in it are looking for a way out ...

[Bit]

You're welcome, Cyclopea. Thanks for posting the article; I wouldn't have found on my own, wouldn't even have known to look for it.

[suebee]

Originally Posted by Cyclopea

Thanks Bit! I thought it was clear and I'm glad you understood. A bit defeating when all the thoughts and ideas in a post are discarded because of poor punctuation! Oh well, that's the internetz! Or maybe nothing else was interesting in my posts.
Thank you for not only "getting" what I meant, but taking the time to explain it to those who were confused, and especially for then commenting on the meat of one of my posts.
Oh- and posting the link too!

Just a suggestion: Perhaps instead being cryptic, and letting another member explain for you, and never really taking the responsibility for clarifying your post yourself, you could just explain, or use quotation marks the next time. Using the words you did without being clear on your intent - hateful destructive words - reeks of sizism. In fact, I'd rate it right up there with a number of other words we don't use on this site. A little sensitivity goes a long way.

[Gentle Tiger]

I've been thinking about this article. I must confess that my thoughts have been all over road which is why I wanted to think this through. No doubt I will think some more after this post. And of course being the nerd that I am I had to read everything I could find because I wanted to try and understand.This has been a good discussion. I apologize if I am being redundant.

My emotions have ranged from sad to angry to frustrated to convicted to stunned to compassion. I was sad because she was making a self destructive choice. It would be different if she remained healthy as she pushes to 1000lbs. But she is experiencing the negative consequences of her actions. She is having to battle with the health issues. However she remains determined to pursue her goal. My reaction is a natural one for me - Why? What is behind her decision? What is driving her to say screw the consequences, this is what I want? None of us truly knows that. And it's too easy to simply call her selfish. I'm not saying that we ignore bad behavior or not hold individuals accountable. But let's be consistent.

I was angry because I didn't hear much of an outcry directed at her fiancee. I didn't hear or read much about him being a bad father or limiting his exposure to the children. After all isn't he enabling the addiction or whatever is driving her decisions to bring harm to herself? I was angry with those who support her sites. They too are contributing to her journey to self harm. Will they be supporting her when she is on the negative side of this journey? How sad it is that we as a society often find ways to benefit from another person's destruction.

And here's another question - How many of us CHOOSE do things that we KNOW will bring negative consequences? Yet we do it over and over again. We ignore what the Surgeon General says. We ignore what the "experts" say. (who are they anyway?) We boldly say by our actions - screw whatever <fill in the blank> says, I'm going to live my life. Do we lessen the salt, do the exercise, cut the soda, put down the alcohol, drive when we know we shouldn't because of lack of sleep or too much alcohol, text/yack on phone while driving? And the list goes on. Do we do the healthy/right stuff or do we by our actions say not today, I'm doing whatever I feel like. It's my right. But the immediate reaction what she's doing is different. I have to ask why, how? Because we see actions, her choices as more extreme? Who are to judge her?

These were things that hit me. What also stung me was the part about her physical exercise. I wasn't exercising at all either. And the bottom line truth is that my lack of action was a choice. The excuses were just that - excuses! So am I just as irresponsible as she is being? The truth is yes. Should I be denied raising my children (if I had any) because of such poor choices? I don't think so. So if I shouldn't why should she? Removing the children does not deal with the root cause. I guess it's an occupational hazard but I have to do a root cause analysis on everything to make sure the right areas are being addressed.

I know this takes the discussion off point a bit but I think we need to be careful and look at this from different angles. And if there is one, you know I'll find it. Even though we engage in self destructive behaviors on a regular basis (for those who don't fall into this category - you read with one eye so you know when it's safe to read with both later) we feel it is our right whether we have children or not. And the same is true when we choose to engage in behaviors that others think are not natural and they pull out some statistic or some manual to show proof that we should change. Some don't eat meat and believe it is a poor choice and bad judgment. We're harming our bodies. (obviously I don't believe this as I at Fudruckers yesterday - lol).

We weigh all the data and then we choose. This woman has chosen. It may not be our choice. It may be an unwise choice. But it is her choice. With choice comes consequences. Donna will have to deal with the consequences of her actions. And unfortunately in one way or another so will her children and fiancee. Maybe it's the pastor's heart that was hit as I read what I could find about Donna. I just want to make sure we're also taking a hard look at ourselves before we are so quick to judge.

And the biggest reason I was saddened - it took an extreme situation like this to really make me look at me.

I'll sit down now.

[suebee]

Originally Posted by Gentle Tiger

I've been thinking about this article. I must confess that my thoughts have been all over road which is why I wanted to think this through. No doubt I will think some more after this post. And of course being the nerd that I am I had to read everything I could find because I wanted to try and understand.This has been a good discussion. I apologize if I am being redundant.

My emotions have ranged from sad to angry to frustrated to convicted to stunned to compassion. I was sad because she was making a self destructive choice. It would be different if she remained healthy as she pushes to 1000lbs. But she is experiencing the negative consequences of her actions. She is having to battle with the health issues. However she remains determined to pursue her goal. My reaction is a natural one for me - Why? What is behind her decision? What is driving her to say screw the consequences, this is what I want? None of us truly knows that. And it's too easy to simply call her selfish. I'm not saying that we ignore bad behavior or not hold individuals accountable. But let's be consistent.

I was angry because I didn't hear much of an outcry directed at her fiancee. I didn't hear or read much about him being a bad father or limiting his exposure to the children. After all isn't he enabling the addiction or whatever is driving her decisions to bring harm to herself? I was angry with those who support her sites. They too are contributing to her journey to self harm. Will they be supporting her when she is on the negative side of this journey? How sad it is that we as a society often find ways to benefit from another person's destruction.

And here's another question - How many of us CHOOSE do things that we KNOW will bring negative consequences? Yet we do it over and over again. We ignore what the Surgeon General says. We ignore what the "experts" say. (who are they anyway?) We boldly say by our actions - screw whatever <fill in the blank> says, I'm going to live my life. Do we lessen the salt, do the exercise, cut the soda, put down the alcohol, drive when we know we shouldn't because of lack of sleep or too much alcohol, text/yack on phone while driving? And the list goes on. Do we do the healthy/right stuff or do we by our actions say not today, I'm doing whatever I feel like. It's my right. But the immediate reaction what she's doing is different. I have to ask why, how? Because we see actions, her choices as more extreme? Who are to judge her?

These were things that hit me. What also stung me was the part about her physical exercise. I wasn't exercising at all either. And the bottom line truth is that my lack of action was a choice. The excuses were just that - excuses! So am I just as irresponsible as she is being? The truth is yes. Should I be denied raising my children (if I had any) because of such poor choices? I don't think so. So if I shouldn't why should she? Removing the children does not deal with the root cause. I guess it's an occupational hazard but I have to do a root cause analysis on everything to make sure the right areas are being addressed.

I know this takes the discussion off point a bit but I think we need to be careful and look at this from different angles. And if there is one, you know I'll find it. Even though we engage in self destructive behaviors on a regular basis (for those who don't fall into this category - you read with one eye so you know when it's safe to read with both later) we feel it is our right whether we have children or not. And the same is true when we choose to engage in behaviors that others think are not natural and they pull out some statistic or some manual to show proof that we should change. Some don't eat meat and believe it is a poor choice and bad judgment. We're harming our bodies. (obviously I don't believe this as I at Fudruckers yesterday - lol).

We weigh all the data and then we choose. This woman has chosen. It may not be our choice. It may be an unwise choice. But it is her choice. With choice comes consequences. Donna will have to deal with the consequences of her actions. And unfortunately in one way or another so will her children and fiancee. Maybe it's the pastor's heart that was hit as I read what I could find about Donna. I just want to make sure we're also taking a hard look at ourselves before we are so quick to judge.

And the biggest reason I was saddened - it took an extreme situation like this to really make me look at me.

I'll sit down now.

Wow. Just wow.

[hippieflowergirl]

* food addicts cant quit. they have to figure out how to get the fix without getting high.

* food addicts are starving. they're trying to feed something that cant be sated with food.

* this isnt "news". it's us buying a product...sensationalism. it's candy and (the general) we are gluttons. news is a rare commodity and we dont see much of it when all is said and done.

* we're all dying. some people just know how.

[Apocalipstic]

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.

[Selenay]

Originally Posted by apocalipstic

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 think apocalipstic is completely right.

If this headline was, instead, "87 pound woman starving herself to be thinnest woman alive" we'd be having a hugely different conversation--even though many of the health risks (heart attack, weakness, inability to move) are similar for being hugely over or underweight.

[Andrew, Jr.]

I have mixed feelings on this topic. I am heavy. I have Diabetes, and have had a heart attack. I also have glaucoma, & floaters in my eyes. I have struggled for the last 8 years with my weight. I am judged every single day I am in public. I hate it. I am perceived as a fat person, and not a human being. There is a difference. The next time you go out in public, look around at those around you. Look at how they are starring at you. That speaks volumes.

As for this woman aimming to gain weight...for publicity. And she has children. That is not sitting well with me.

[Random]

Originally Posted by apocalipstic

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...

[Rufusboi]

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

[Gemme]

Originally Posted by apocalipstic

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.

Originally Posted by Selenay

I think apocalipstic is completely right.

If this headline was, instead, "87 pound woman starving herself to be thinnest woman alive" we'd be having a hugely different conversation--even though many of the health risks (heart attack, weakness, inability to move) are similar for being hugely over or underweight.

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 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.