"Tess Holliday's Cosmo cover sends an important body positivity message", reactions appear mixed, but in reality, whether folks insist its great or whether they insist it should not be because its "promoting obesity", *it ends in the same place*- note that means taking a picture of a woman's body. So those of you who follow the established idiocy of thin women cause me to be anorexia so must be banned, need to recognise the arguments they're trading in. Rather than assuming it must be right because it comes from the slimstream.
You know who you are.
Bopo vs. promotion is another example of non- debate, of the Manufacturing Consent kind.
They both amount to the same thing. Do nothing. 'Obesity' cultists want to (continue) to do nothing, by pretending CRIWL via diet, drug or mutilation is the only possible way-it obviously isn't- are saying the same thing as "body diversity".
I've never been here for do nothing. I know that as long as the science remains undone, 'obesity' cultists will always be able to revive their mess, any time there's a lull or people get bored with plastering a smile at the fat person, amidst a continual hurricane of lipogeddon meltdown.
I'm not here for another 10 centuries of this. The buck has to stop here, the hell these acting under the influence of this have planned is too awful for their limited minds to imagine.
Holliday herself mentioned that she wishes she was as accepting of herself 120lbs ago, before she had her first pregnancy, as she is now. 50 years of study apparently could do nothing to merely stop a fat person getting fatter. Whilst I understand the sense of plausibility you may feel on that-when you contemplate 'obesity' operatives, however, even they are not this incapable.
If it wasn't for the fact that it was genuinely paradigm busting, these 'obesity' peddlers and their empty yapping sock puppets wouldn't be able to front. It's the lack of slimstream's need for science outside actual illness that builds the contextual surround for their continuous stream of falsehood.
I expect the likes of Piers Morgan to at last start contacting politicians and other persons of influence to advocate for proper science that produces something of value, instead of useless yet toxic and mutilating "obesity science", if they're so concerned.
*Edit*
Showing posts with label people. Show all posts
Showing posts with label people. Show all posts
Saturday, 1 September 2018
Wednesday, 5 July 2017
Hunger for a Change
Extracts from Roxane Gay's book Hunger featured in the guardian the other day. I admit I wasn't looking forward, I'm not her type of reader. "My body is a cage of my own making" turned out to be a different kettle of fish all together.
Beautifully written-so say those who know about these things. I'm kidding, even I could tell! At first I was wound up by that title-I doubt its anything of the sort, her own making that is. After some time I remembered the book is called Hunger. I began to sense a certain aggression-"I'm saying, I did it to myself, now you can stfu and listen for once."
Someone used to crowd control.
I even began to wonder whether I've been at fault for not being more prepared to accommodate what's required. For me though, it wouldn't be true. I know weight isn't conscious choice. I know a body demanding more energy than is about function not emotion.
Is weight an unconscious choice choice though? I've always tried to leave that open, but the more people claim it is, the less convincing that feels, esp. given their explanations. Why is the big question, why go to all that trouble?
And where does this wellspring of what-ob-means come from? Is it genetically influenced?
It's a case of only when proper means of reversing body mass is available, will it be easier to perceive just how mechanical this all is.
In some sense, the reaction of the readers was most peculiar. Never have so many 'nice' middle class people been so relieved and joyous about such monstrous violation. As long as you're working within the current favoured ob trope for those who think they're nice-Nice Guys [I'm using that pansexually]-"Food addiction", that is.
Though more rigorously moderated-to minimise the, "I was raped and still managed to maintain a hell-thay wait" type comments, the extent of collapse of the usual impenetrable gabble, you know it, I'm not even going to mention it, was quite alarming. As if the biggest problem people have with fat metaphysics is the lack of (perceived) brokenness on offer- that complaint undermined only by self-pitying whines about "self-pity".
Like, this is how to be a woman/ finally-a fat woman.
Slimness signifies woman in some way, the absence of it seems to equate to the absence of womanhood, with the knowledge that it is there. Which lends a sense of impertinence. The criticisms of fat activists are tendentious and strained.
Fat women it seems are perceived as impinging on the space usually assigned to masculinity- without the qualifications for it. Therefore we come across something like aggressive, but low (very) low status males. Notable are the reaction of women, who were just as relieved/happy that finally fatz had joined them and they could get behind a fatty-joy of joys.
Nothing new, but I'm still surprised it makes this much difference especially to the sort of women informed by feminism.
Though it is 2017 and not 18 or even 1717, it seems women cannot advocate through argument, or rely on reason they must emote, from a place of being breached. The more 'unsympathetic' the greater the impact needed to crack through the hard carapace of favoured delusion.
Four aspects spoke to me. How these types require you to talk about being, i.e. "I chose fat, using food" to do x. How people treat you as a fat person. The impotence imposed on any fat person who's ever tried to be slim/lose weight-the latter goal replaced the former when it became clear that this route had turned that into a pipe dream.
And the parts I enjoyed most, about playing your duty,
It's motivational.
Being multiply-raped at the age of 12 is so unthinkable that it was just as much so after I read it as before. Nothing can make that fit in my head, my imagination runs out. Yet I recognised parts;
If folks want a mythos about why people "choose" to be fat, why not that when you have a trauma or shock, your nervous system assumes the construction of that trauma, the head becomes dissonant. Being an ob thing is a good alignment.
Is that true? Not the point, its better than the ones made up by others.
As it is those assaults-and this is why the Internet feels strangely old-fashioned a lot of the time-seemed to reshape RG's nervous system, straining it. Around that goes gain, over time, especially if that doesn't retreat sufficiently. It depends on tendency as always.
Eating is taking in energy. It is the response to hunger and hunger increases when the systems that regulate and colate it are disturbed, and/or the body needs more energy. Few can sit and just eat and eat without hunger or energy misalignment.
She also seems to be a metabolic outlier. At the end of an interview she said that she'd grow 12 or so inches at around age 16, which seems extraordinary to me. Though not all tall people are fat obviously, it shows real potential toward growth.
Her top weight was 577lbs and if you still have to ask why she had to hit that, the answer is of course, no reason whatever....except, if you can stop a person's body from hitting 577, then you can stop them from hitting 200 or less.
The first rule of medicine is to stabilise. We are still waiting for the industry/field to manage that rather conservative target after all these decades due to it not being found in how much sugar is in digestive buscuits. All that despite their sniffiness at our lack of anorexia talent. Not to mention the increasing ability of others to stop all sorts of cells from proliferating.
Why would a girl want to tell the parents she has so much compassion for what had happened to their young daughter? Children often feel for their parents. For the responsibilities they have, their emotional/mental states, and what it would mean to them if they knew. Why should a child so utterly betrayed have go through another unthinkable thing? Another loss?
Many people cope by not telling those they love. They're hanging on to the view of themselves before.
She has so many symptoms of the kind of souped up traumatised system and if mercifully that could be made to return to a rest state, the relief she'd have gotten and would still get would probably be appreciable.
That's supposed to motivate research.
The fact that she loses a bit of weight every time she goes on a dietary regime is a possible sign that her body might respond rather readily to this in a way that would aid the reversal she desires.
We are told constantly we are sick, yet people are expressing surprise that Roxane is in pain, really? So they do know they're lying. Certainly 'obesity' wallahs know some are in pain, they just don't give a damn, they want to tell you you deserve it and there all, "We don't know nuttin' about nuttin'."
I have been wracking my brains for years as to why they've developed this hang 'em and flog 'em mentality when it comes to fat people. I don't claim to be perfect, but over and above umm ethics, the idea of other people's suffering doesn't interest. I don't get what makes this so compelling.
I doubt we'll find out any time soon, they don't want to be that in touch with their fee fees.
Getting people like Roxane's systems to return to a more normalised state would would be grand, but that would also interrupt the ob narrative of distress and sickness. So, many of those involved are just going to keep fucking around with nonsense like "food/eating addiction", whilst pretending to be doing science.
A reminder of what certain establishment scientists and medics wanted to do to gay men and AIDS, under the cover of science. One shudders to think what would have happened there if they'd got their way.
The thing that's saved fat people is that being fat is not disease or inherently a pathology in and of itself, though if it was, the sort of body count of the various opiate crises ironically would have jerked people out of this ugly stupor.
That doesn't mean there isn't a job to be done. I've made it plain that scientists/researchers owe people a debt of honour in this affair. And, that would open up a portal to greater achievement in various fields of physical and mental health.
Slander and lies have been told to hurt people who simply haven't deserved it. Whatever anyone thinks or says, the phony baloney attempts to cast weight as addiction/eating disorder/mental health problem won't work. The buck for this culture of false disease must stop somewhere and it has to be here.
This is going to have to be solved properly, nothing less will do.
Presumably that's the underlying source of rage.
Beautifully written-so say those who know about these things. I'm kidding, even I could tell! At first I was wound up by that title-I doubt its anything of the sort, her own making that is. After some time I remembered the book is called Hunger. I began to sense a certain aggression-"I'm saying, I did it to myself, now you can stfu and listen for once."
Someone used to crowd control.
I even began to wonder whether I've been at fault for not being more prepared to accommodate what's required. For me though, it wouldn't be true. I know weight isn't conscious choice. I know a body demanding more energy than is about function not emotion.
Is weight an unconscious choice choice though? I've always tried to leave that open, but the more people claim it is, the less convincing that feels, esp. given their explanations. Why is the big question, why go to all that trouble?
And where does this wellspring of what-ob-means come from? Is it genetically influenced?
It's a case of only when proper means of reversing body mass is available, will it be easier to perceive just how mechanical this all is.
In some sense, the reaction of the readers was most peculiar. Never have so many 'nice' middle class people been so relieved and joyous about such monstrous violation. As long as you're working within the current favoured ob trope for those who think they're nice-Nice Guys [I'm using that pansexually]-"Food addiction", that is.
Though more rigorously moderated-to minimise the, "I was raped and still managed to maintain a hell-thay wait" type comments, the extent of collapse of the usual impenetrable gabble, you know it, I'm not even going to mention it, was quite alarming. As if the biggest problem people have with fat metaphysics is the lack of (perceived) brokenness on offer- that complaint undermined only by self-pitying whines about "self-pity".
Like, this is how to be a woman/ finally-a fat woman.
Slimness signifies woman in some way, the absence of it seems to equate to the absence of womanhood, with the knowledge that it is there. Which lends a sense of impertinence. The criticisms of fat activists are tendentious and strained.
Fat women it seems are perceived as impinging on the space usually assigned to masculinity- without the qualifications for it. Therefore we come across something like aggressive, but low (very) low status males. Notable are the reaction of women, who were just as relieved/happy that finally fatz had joined them and they could get behind a fatty-joy of joys.
Nothing new, but I'm still surprised it makes this much difference especially to the sort of women informed by feminism.
Though it is 2017 and not 18 or even 1717, it seems women cannot advocate through argument, or rely on reason they must emote, from a place of being breached. The more 'unsympathetic' the greater the impact needed to crack through the hard carapace of favoured delusion.
----------------------------
Four aspects spoke to me. How these types require you to talk about being, i.e. "I chose fat, using food" to do x. How people treat you as a fat person. The impotence imposed on any fat person who's ever tried to be slim/lose weight-the latter goal replaced the former when it became clear that this route had turned that into a pipe dream.
And the parts I enjoyed most, about playing your duty,
I am, perhaps, self-obsessed beyond measure. No matter where I am, I wonder about where I stand and how I look. I think, I am the fattest person in this apartment building. I am the fattest person in this class. I am the fattest person at this university. I am the fattest person in this theatre. I am the fattest person on this aeroplane. I am the fattest person in this airport. I am the fattest person in this city. I am the fattest person at this conference. I am the fattest person in this restaurant. I am the fattest person in this shopping mall. I am the fattest person on this panel. I am the fattest person in this casino.The self absorption of neurosis, in this case imposed neurosis of the 'obese' characterisation, so true. It's this kind of crap that drove me to step out of dutiful portrayal of the 'obese' role, remembering you are doing baad. I know the comment is more about Roxane's awareness of her size, but its what you're supposed to say to yourself, remember you are fat.
It's motivational.
Being multiply-raped at the age of 12 is so unthinkable that it was just as much so after I read it as before. Nothing can make that fit in my head, my imagination runs out. Yet I recognised parts;
...no one but those boys could hear me scream.....the surprising strength in their limbs. I remember that they laughed a lot. I remember that they had nothing but disdain for me.At that moment I thought, how little has changed, I couldn't help myself. So much of being abused in general is like what people want the experience of fat to be. Not for their own personal satisfaction you understand, for the good of health. Of society.
If folks want a mythos about why people "choose" to be fat, why not that when you have a trauma or shock, your nervous system assumes the construction of that trauma, the head becomes dissonant. Being an ob thing is a good alignment.
Is that true? Not the point, its better than the ones made up by others.
As it is those assaults-and this is why the Internet feels strangely old-fashioned a lot of the time-seemed to reshape RG's nervous system, straining it. Around that goes gain, over time, especially if that doesn't retreat sufficiently. It depends on tendency as always.
Eating is taking in energy. It is the response to hunger and hunger increases when the systems that regulate and colate it are disturbed, and/or the body needs more energy. Few can sit and just eat and eat without hunger or energy misalignment.
She also seems to be a metabolic outlier. At the end of an interview she said that she'd grow 12 or so inches at around age 16, which seems extraordinary to me. Though not all tall people are fat obviously, it shows real potential toward growth.
Her top weight was 577lbs and if you still have to ask why she had to hit that, the answer is of course, no reason whatever....except, if you can stop a person's body from hitting 577, then you can stop them from hitting 200 or less.
The first rule of medicine is to stabilise. We are still waiting for the industry/field to manage that rather conservative target after all these decades due to it not being found in how much sugar is in digestive buscuits. All that despite their sniffiness at our lack of anorexia talent. Not to mention the increasing ability of others to stop all sorts of cells from proliferating.
I wish I had known I could talk to my parents and get help, and turn to something other than food.I must say I laughed out loud at the mention of "help" out there that would have stopped Roxane's body in its tracks. If proper investigation had lent itself to inducing a neural realignment, that would have taken something out of the trauma, make her more able to discuss it.
Why would a girl want to tell the parents she has so much compassion for what had happened to their young daughter? Children often feel for their parents. For the responsibilities they have, their emotional/mental states, and what it would mean to them if they knew. Why should a child so utterly betrayed have go through another unthinkable thing? Another loss?
Many people cope by not telling those they love. They're hanging on to the view of themselves before.
She has so many symptoms of the kind of souped up traumatised system and if mercifully that could be made to return to a rest state, the relief she'd have gotten and would still get would probably be appreciable.
That's supposed to motivate research.
The fact that she loses a bit of weight every time she goes on a dietary regime is a possible sign that her body might respond rather readily to this in a way that would aid the reversal she desires.
We are told constantly we are sick, yet people are expressing surprise that Roxane is in pain, really? So they do know they're lying. Certainly 'obesity' wallahs know some are in pain, they just don't give a damn, they want to tell you you deserve it and there all, "We don't know nuttin' about nuttin'."
I have been wracking my brains for years as to why they've developed this hang 'em and flog 'em mentality when it comes to fat people. I don't claim to be perfect, but over and above umm ethics, the idea of other people's suffering doesn't interest. I don't get what makes this so compelling.
I doubt we'll find out any time soon, they don't want to be that in touch with their fee fees.
Getting people like Roxane's systems to return to a more normalised state would would be grand, but that would also interrupt the ob narrative of distress and sickness. So, many of those involved are just going to keep fucking around with nonsense like "food/eating addiction", whilst pretending to be doing science.
A reminder of what certain establishment scientists and medics wanted to do to gay men and AIDS, under the cover of science. One shudders to think what would have happened there if they'd got their way.
The thing that's saved fat people is that being fat is not disease or inherently a pathology in and of itself, though if it was, the sort of body count of the various opiate crises ironically would have jerked people out of this ugly stupor.
That doesn't mean there isn't a job to be done. I've made it plain that scientists/researchers owe people a debt of honour in this affair. And, that would open up a portal to greater achievement in various fields of physical and mental health.
Slander and lies have been told to hurt people who simply haven't deserved it. Whatever anyone thinks or says, the phony baloney attempts to cast weight as addiction/eating disorder/mental health problem won't work. The buck for this culture of false disease must stop somewhere and it has to be here.
This is going to have to be solved properly, nothing less will do.
Presumably that's the underlying source of rage.
Thursday, 8 June 2017
Appropriating Addiction
I'm having a bit of a Diane Abbott interlude right now. The crude ambushing of an intelligent, highly accomplished Black woman, to put her in the place assigned for her by the British establishment and its hmv media has been as brutal as it is bracing. It's easy to forget yourself, getting caught up in making yourself a safe space for others, only to find that you suddenly cannot defend yourself against them, as effectively as you know you can.
Whether you are targeted and surrounded or no, it's not enough to be on your game. You've got to be on top of it at all times, one chink in the armour and you are a piñata.
Anyway, back to more trivial matters.
"A food addiction has defined my entire life. And it is slowly killing me"
In the case of calorie restriction, this basic rule is comprehensively rejected. The issue is weight-light or heavyweight- you apply the purported solution to it-calorie restriction dieting. Either you remain the same, or its temporary effects rescind themselves ending with you being back where you started. Ergo-this 'solution' has failed.
That's it, move on to a more righteous path.
But no, we aren't allowed to. We must not see this failure, we must only see ourselves or our bodies as having failed this godlike principle. This refusal leads puzzled indoctrinates to ask themselves; "Why can't I starve?"
The attempt to distance the professionals is palpable here but distinctly implausible. Since when do these give a damn about what fat people enough to attempt to illuminate their experience? Unless it can be twisted to fit their agenda- see this is in the number of their pointless and ill conceived rat studies.
Even if you employ metaphors, the comparisons you make must be apt enough to be worthwhile. There's no use in saying I think the term 'football' is "too narrow". It should be broadened to include round fruits like watermelons, later on, if not melons, why not oranges and apples etc., "You hurt me if you don't allow apples in, I like apples. It feels like a football to me, who are you to say otherwise? etc.,"
Subsequently football becomes things that aren't footballs. Rather like disease no longer has an agreed definition due to its promiscuous emotive misapplication.
Real addiction happens because exposure to an outer supply of chemical agents disrupts our body's inner production of chemicals with a similar structure. That inner supply is made totally within us and is sufficient for us, all things being equal.
Even if you ignore the debate ending fact that we have an innate physical dependence on food, addiction doesn't work as a replacement/ metaphor for dependence because our bodies do not make the energy we need to survive, internally.
On that basis, the notion of food as an addiction appears to fundamentally violate the laws of physics, lmfao.
Hunger is the thing ob wallahs are desperate to phase out, denial of fact doesn't end it. The basis of their empire of falsehood is eating is purely a conscious act, like taking drugs or alcohol. No matter how much they seek to reformulate that using different terms.
Making people feel like addicts not only demoralises, depresses and disempowers them-the opposite of what is claimed-it makes it easier to sell them drug abuse. Food is the gateway, we've got better drugs for you.
Like your average neighbourhood junk peddler-but without the honour of not pretending its concern for your health.
Ironically, a more apt example of the unbalancing of internal function, by the introduction of an outer dissembler appeared in that proto-anorexia/anorexia editorial of the other week,
Compulsion on the other hand refers to neural posture that has been assumed by the conjunction of nerves used to carry out various actions and behaviours, to the extent that the action/behaviour is not as voluntary as before. It has become compulsive or a compulsion. That posture requires dismantling.
Again, eating starts from being naturally compulsive. We all in the main, eat the same way, we respond to our body's calls for energy. Hunger is the body's demand for energy, eating is the response to that demand for energy. Notion of 'addiction' to responding to your body's energy demands is redundant. Needing to respond to you vital needs is a given.
The best way to reduce intake of course, is to reduce hunger, thereby reducing the need to respond to it.
As for Melanie Tait, what are we to make of her utterances?
To remind folk, I had a chronic disorder of hyperactive, hyper functioning hunger. When I first heard eating on your own was such a big deal I was genuinely stunned.
I had actually forgotten about eating alone, that's how much of an impression it made on me. If I was forced to name as many as 20 major bad things about hyper hunger function. I'd struggle with more than five obvious major ones, despite that, eating on my own wouldn't make the list.
And that ill conceived checklist consists mainly of, eating more than expected/wanted. So if you want to eat lettuce and you past the chippy and get a bag of chips, because you are hungry, that's supposedly a symptom of 'binge eating'.
But that's a 'symptom' of weight loss dieting. The reason you fail is not because you are 'out of control' its because your body is cleverer than dieting. You don't control your eating, that's a subjective interpretation of how you feel when your intake matches your outcome.
This is the norm, that's why people are so obsessed with telling fat people we're fat........ and greedy and lazy. We have to learn the harmony we feel is shameful and not acceptable. Yet this is the major symptom of 'binge eating'
The experience of genuinely hyper functioning hunger and nervous system was a real problem, not the imagined one fat hating puppet masters so desperately and strenuously want, sorry about that fat phobe Gippettos. There's something vain about this particular fixation.
This interaction is inherently abusive, with professionals seeking to gain such complete control of people that its easily to the extent of those relationship where one partner micromanages the other. What bugs these controllers is the notion that their handlee is doing anything independent.
The notion that you are eating away from their gaze is too suggestive of an inner life and will outside their control.
Fundamentally, the problem with all this the wish to impose their feelings on everyone else. The wish to pretend this is objective and universal. That this hasn't carried the day thus far is what's causing Ms. Tait's/her puppeteers "astonishment".
Binge eating disorder is a lot like 'obesity'. A construct that exists to be fashioned by the dominant fantasies of an already decided narrative. It appears to boil down to two things. Either the hunger generating aspect of weight loss dieting/calorie restriction-exercise bulimia disruption and blow back. It's still not routinely acknowledged that dieting deranges your metabolism and makes you feel like shit, not any "weight battle" with your greedy/lazy character.
When you keep dieting, and trying to diet, as fat people are more likely to, this can become a chronic disruption of its own. One that doesn't abate even between diets.
There's not enough genuine detail to say whether she's referring to that or actual hyperactive hunger function. It shouldn't be but sadly lies are not conducive to sorting through sometimes elusive symptoms.
Mel has got some issues though. She makes a lot of her seemingly unwilling solitariness and mentions a sort of arrested emotional development. Together with the fact that she does feel her hunger is ferocious suggests she could have a problem with the centre of her brain-where the hypothalamus et al reside. Sounds to me like they could be the same source.
Maybe this is her brain/nervous systems way of pointing to this.
Whether you are targeted and surrounded or no, it's not enough to be on your game. You've got to be on top of it at all times, one chink in the armour and you are a piñata.
Anyway, back to more trivial matters.
"A food addiction has defined my entire life. And it is slowly killing me"
Here’s a list of things I’ve done to try and fix my obsession with eating: four psychiatrists, nine psychologists, two hypnotherapists, three meditation workshops, one hospital stay, 10 dieticians, 18 personal trainers. I’ve moved house 28 times, countries twice, states six times, I changed schools four times. I’ve been on Weight Watchers so many times I’ve lost count, Jenny Craig three times, Dr Cohen’s diet twice, Atkins three times, Mayo Clinic diet once, vegan diet five times.This list displays a refreshingly direct grasp of efficacy for this area. You have a problem-real or perceived. You apply a solution to said issue, if said issue remains, you judge the [prospective] solution to have failed, end of story. You then move on.
In the case of calorie restriction, this basic rule is comprehensively rejected. The issue is weight-light or heavyweight- you apply the purported solution to it-calorie restriction dieting. Either you remain the same, or its temporary effects rescind themselves ending with you being back where you started. Ergo-this 'solution' has failed.
That's it, move on to a more righteous path.
But no, we aren't allowed to. We must not see this failure, we must only see ourselves or our bodies as having failed this godlike principle. This refusal leads puzzled indoctrinates to ask themselves; "Why can't I starve?"
About a decade ago, a group of American psychiatrists studying obesity decided to look into whether some people's anecdotal claims of food addiction could be proven.Answer; "[It's as if] we are physically dependent on food!!!" Round and round in the same circle. You simply cannot get away from a reality that stark and unyielding. Some of us aren't used to being told no, even by nature.
The attempt to distance the professionals is palpable here but distinctly implausible. Since when do these give a damn about what fat people enough to attempt to illuminate their experience? Unless it can be twisted to fit their agenda- see this is in the number of their pointless and ill conceived rat studies.
Even if you employ metaphors, the comparisons you make must be apt enough to be worthwhile. There's no use in saying I think the term 'football' is "too narrow". It should be broadened to include round fruits like watermelons, later on, if not melons, why not oranges and apples etc., "You hurt me if you don't allow apples in, I like apples. It feels like a football to me, who are you to say otherwise? etc.,"
Subsequently football becomes things that aren't footballs. Rather like disease no longer has an agreed definition due to its promiscuous emotive misapplication.
Real addiction happens because exposure to an outer supply of chemical agents disrupts our body's inner production of chemicals with a similar structure. That inner supply is made totally within us and is sufficient for us, all things being equal.
Even if you ignore the debate ending fact that we have an innate physical dependence on food, addiction doesn't work as a replacement/ metaphor for dependence because our bodies do not make the energy we need to survive, internally.
On that basis, the notion of food as an addiction appears to fundamentally violate the laws of physics, lmfao.
Hunger is the thing ob wallahs are desperate to phase out, denial of fact doesn't end it. The basis of their empire of falsehood is eating is purely a conscious act, like taking drugs or alcohol. No matter how much they seek to reformulate that using different terms.
Making people feel like addicts not only demoralises, depresses and disempowers them-the opposite of what is claimed-it makes it easier to sell them drug abuse. Food is the gateway, we've got better drugs for you.
Like your average neighbourhood junk peddler-but without the honour of not pretending its concern for your health.
Ironically, a more apt example of the unbalancing of internal function, by the introduction of an outer dissembler appeared in that proto-anorexia/anorexia editorial of the other week,
In their article, Gianini et al (2017) report that both individuals with anorexia nervosa and individuals on the NWCR:....Are physiologically primed for weight regain. Both groups have lower resting energy expenditure... than non-weight reduced BMI-matched controls.Lower expenditure is the product of disrupting your energy metabolism through the bolt-on of extra energy wastage. It's like you've sprung a leak and your body is finding ways to slow down the rate of [energy] loss.
Compulsion on the other hand refers to neural posture that has been assumed by the conjunction of nerves used to carry out various actions and behaviours, to the extent that the action/behaviour is not as voluntary as before. It has become compulsive or a compulsion. That posture requires dismantling.
Again, eating starts from being naturally compulsive. We all in the main, eat the same way, we respond to our body's calls for energy. Hunger is the body's demand for energy, eating is the response to that demand for energy. Notion of 'addiction' to responding to your body's energy demands is redundant. Needing to respond to you vital needs is a given.
The best way to reduce intake of course, is to reduce hunger, thereby reducing the need to respond to it.
As for Melanie Tait, what are we to make of her utterances?
Astonishingly, the jury is still out on food addiction.She expected this all to be a typical mindless phone-in that makes no sense but that we all submit to unquestioningly as if lies are the same as truth when it comes to certain quarters. What does she even think 'food addiction' means?
...“substance-use disorders”. Twelve-step programs say an addiction is a physical compulsion, coupled with a mental obsession. Whatever addiction is, an addiction to food has defined my entire life.How can a "whatever" define anything, let alone your life?
Food is killing me, slowly, clogging my arteries and raising my blood sugar. Increasing my risk of Alzheimer’s, cancer and diabetes. Still, I can’t stop.Um, you can feel 'obesity' agit-prop in your body can you? Food does not "clog arteries" that's biological myth, but this isn't really about Tait's experience. It's more about selling this to the impressionable.
They [her parents] don’t believe I have a food addiction. They think I’m weak. That I can’t control myself. That I’m lazy.This is an ignorant person's idea of what they think a drug addict would talk about their experience. She even tries the old part of the addict narrative of stealing to feed their habit. In this case, Mel says she stole food from her parents so many times, why?
Most of the time I think they’re right; they know me better than anyone else. Why can’t I just stop eating?All through this, she keeps clunkingly inserting aspects of the 'binge eating disorder' playbook, hilariously emphasising the ludicrous insistence on 'secret eating' and shame being the biggest telltale. Virtually every fat person feels ashamed to eat at some phase or other. Which calls to mind the desire in this to separate the failure of dieting in fat people from the failure of dieting in everyone else.
To remind folk, I had a chronic disorder of hyperactive, hyper functioning hunger. When I first heard eating on your own was such a big deal I was genuinely stunned.
I had actually forgotten about eating alone, that's how much of an impression it made on me. If I was forced to name as many as 20 major bad things about hyper hunger function. I'd struggle with more than five obvious major ones, despite that, eating on my own wouldn't make the list.
And that ill conceived checklist consists mainly of, eating more than expected/wanted. So if you want to eat lettuce and you past the chippy and get a bag of chips, because you are hungry, that's supposedly a symptom of 'binge eating'.
But that's a 'symptom' of weight loss dieting. The reason you fail is not because you are 'out of control' its because your body is cleverer than dieting. You don't control your eating, that's a subjective interpretation of how you feel when your intake matches your outcome.
This is the norm, that's why people are so obsessed with telling fat people we're fat........ and greedy and lazy. We have to learn the harmony we feel is shameful and not acceptable. Yet this is the major symptom of 'binge eating'
The experience of genuinely hyper functioning hunger and nervous system was a real problem, not the imagined one fat hating puppet masters so desperately and strenuously want, sorry about that fat phobe Gippettos. There's something vain about this particular fixation.
This interaction is inherently abusive, with professionals seeking to gain such complete control of people that its easily to the extent of those relationship where one partner micromanages the other. What bugs these controllers is the notion that their handlee is doing anything independent.
The notion that you are eating away from their gaze is too suggestive of an inner life and will outside their control.
Fundamentally, the problem with all this the wish to impose their feelings on everyone else. The wish to pretend this is objective and universal. That this hasn't carried the day thus far is what's causing Ms. Tait's/her puppeteers "astonishment".
Binge eating disorder is a lot like 'obesity'. A construct that exists to be fashioned by the dominant fantasies of an already decided narrative. It appears to boil down to two things. Either the hunger generating aspect of weight loss dieting/calorie restriction-exercise bulimia disruption and blow back. It's still not routinely acknowledged that dieting deranges your metabolism and makes you feel like shit, not any "weight battle" with your greedy/lazy character.
When you keep dieting, and trying to diet, as fat people are more likely to, this can become a chronic disruption of its own. One that doesn't abate even between diets.
There's not enough genuine detail to say whether she's referring to that or actual hyperactive hunger function. It shouldn't be but sadly lies are not conducive to sorting through sometimes elusive symptoms.
Mel has got some issues though. She makes a lot of her seemingly unwilling solitariness and mentions a sort of arrested emotional development. Together with the fact that she does feel her hunger is ferocious suggests she could have a problem with the centre of her brain-where the hypothalamus et al reside. Sounds to me like they could be the same source.
Maybe this is her brain/nervous systems way of pointing to this.
Saturday, 23 May 2015
Traci Mann's Secrets
It's usually worth reading the admirable Traci Mann on diets especially, as she's one of those rarities who has the moxie to just go with the truth about eating and weight. She has a new book out, "Secrets from the Eating Lab", I'd definitely have a look. This article and interview contains some telling details.
A few points first. Diet-as in what you eat-can have "types", weight loss dieting though is purely singular. It is one thing and one thing only-consuming too few calories for your body to sustain its [current] mass. Anyone who says otherwise is pulling your pin.
What we’re told are “types” of [weight loss] diet are mainly about desperate attempts to increase the body's tolerance of diets. For example by manipulating appetite- the ratio of macro and other nutrients you eat.
High-protein [weight loss] diets appeal to those whose appetites favour protein rich foods. High carb diets make use of those whose leanings are towards carbohydrate rich foods and so on. The aim is to increase moral. Dieting is very morale sapping due to it usually being so unpleasant.
Mann says something amusing “no one has any willpower”. I’m presuming that references dieting’s failure of everybody. Some favoured bull is spread around-that above a certain weight you’re unlikely to lose enough to become slim.
That's misleading, it's equally true of all weights, including thin people repeatedly shedding and re-shedding a few pounds. Obviously, if you're always thin/slim then that failure isn't apparent. The same mechanics in all of us is producing the same outcome, restoration of each size's starting mass or thereabouts.
Willful delusion forces such obvious failure to be cast elsewhere, in this case onto the dieter. That also distracts from questioning the principle of hunger-blocking as weight regulation.
Dieting becomes like god, it can never truly fail, only sinful humans fail it.
Actually, dieting via its inherent dysfunction demands and uses up tremendous amounts of will power, it's a-lead your horse to water but can’t make it drink-type situation. Merely leading [and holding] the horse, i.e. your body to starvation drains will power to little productive end.
Dieting is broken and pretty much unfixable, certainly as a general technique, its existence doesn't even make sense. If weight is all about conscious decision-making, then stop making that decision-the end. No need for a plan beyond that.
The plan reflects the fact that hunger is not generated in the conscious mind.
It’s worth remembering not to think in terms of [why] the body fails diets, when it’s the other way around. Diets fail the body. The primacy of the body over dieting needs to be reasserted. The body does not have to answer for it's failure.
You may also remember that this feature was identified as one of the problematic eater types in that BBC Horizon doc. And that I had this exact problem as one symptom of a hyperphagic eating disorder. I would be surprised if this wasn’t a facet of Georgia Davis’s metabolic problems-and others like her.
Mann describes this as increasing [eating’s] “reward value”. I disagree; it increases the imperative to eat. In other words, it’s like having the munchies when you smoke a blunt, or the action of an overactive bladder where the urge is overpowering, even when your bladder is empty.
It’s not that eating becomes more enjoyable-it doesn't necessarily at all-it’s that the urge continues to recruit more and more nervous circuits in your brain-in other words the urge takes it over. Your will is literally overpowered and it becomes too uncomfortable to the point of distressing not too go with it.
Relief of such discomfort is hardly about pleasure. It feels way more compelling than normal hunger. Though I get that's a difficult concept for many.
As for the hormones, I’m not hot on them, but that seems more a register of your depleted energy, framing them as cause. Iow, if I jumped out at you-shocking you, your feelings would be expressed by chemical release, that didn’t cause your fright; that’s how your body both signals and registers it.
These hormones don't stop diets working, they're signalling your body's defensive response to deprivation.
Energy conservation-the body adapting to less by using less energy to function-is yet another defense-they are multifarious, showing the body is really designed to resist starvation and why it so often succeeds. This is often put down to saving you from famine, it could just as well be a defense against anorexia too, as that is a build up of a compulsion to starve, which can also takes over a person's brain.
One of the things stopping anorexics perishing ever more quickly is this energy conservation.
“How could it [work]when you have to fight against all of that?”
Exactly. When we are this designed against proto-anorexia, it is definitely the wrong way, [not the only way].
There is absolutely no reason why reversal of weight must only occur through hunger blocking, unless that in itself is the true aim.
She makes a brilliant observation about the experience of dieting in a way that I hope becomes the norm.
Isn't that extraordinary?
Totally unexpected. This is what we want to happen when we are trying to master a skill! Who'd have thought it could ever spontaneously self-trigger toward such a devastating end?
That could explain why many PWA can get to feeling agonies of hunger, but somehow cannot act on that. Continual blocking builds a wall between the feeling and its response.
It’s like resisting the urge to sleep. No one feels it’s purely about self control to miss sleep to do other things. It’s recognized that there’s a trade off in terms of tiredness. The absence of a sense of consequence from thwarting hunger, produces unnecessary misunderstandings.
Nor is it "impossible" to reverse weight, this simply isn't the right channel.The assessment of dieting's efficacy [or lack of it] is probabilistic. The odds of achieving it via calorie restriction dieting is very thin [yea]. If people want better, they'll have to lobby for genuine ways and means which are entirely possible.
A few points first. Diet-as in what you eat-can have "types", weight loss dieting though is purely singular. It is one thing and one thing only-consuming too few calories for your body to sustain its [current] mass. Anyone who says otherwise is pulling your pin.
What we’re told are “types” of [weight loss] diet are mainly about desperate attempts to increase the body's tolerance of diets. For example by manipulating appetite- the ratio of macro and other nutrients you eat.
High-protein [weight loss] diets appeal to those whose appetites favour protein rich foods. High carb diets make use of those whose leanings are towards carbohydrate rich foods and so on. The aim is to increase moral. Dieting is very morale sapping due to it usually being so unpleasant.
Mann says something amusing “no one has any willpower”. I’m presuming that references dieting’s failure of everybody. Some favoured bull is spread around-that above a certain weight you’re unlikely to lose enough to become slim.
That's misleading, it's equally true of all weights, including thin people repeatedly shedding and re-shedding a few pounds. Obviously, if you're always thin/slim then that failure isn't apparent. The same mechanics in all of us is producing the same outcome, restoration of each size's starting mass or thereabouts.
Willful delusion forces such obvious failure to be cast elsewhere, in this case onto the dieter. That also distracts from questioning the principle of hunger-blocking as weight regulation.
Dieting becomes like god, it can never truly fail, only sinful humans fail it.
Actually, dieting via its inherent dysfunction demands and uses up tremendous amounts of will power, it's a-lead your horse to water but can’t make it drink-type situation. Merely leading [and holding] the horse, i.e. your body to starvation drains will power to little productive end.
Dieting is broken and pretty much unfixable, certainly as a general technique, its existence doesn't even make sense. If weight is all about conscious decision-making, then stop making that decision-the end. No need for a plan beyond that.
The plan reflects the fact that hunger is not generated in the conscious mind.
It’s worth remembering not to think in terms of [why] the body fails diets, when it’s the other way around. Diets fail the body. The primacy of the body over dieting needs to be reasserted. The body does not have to answer for it's failure.
When you are dieting.......your brain becomes overly responsive to food, and especially to tasty looking food. But you don't just notice it — it actually begins to look more appetizing and tempting.This is an action of your nervous system-your brain is the primary hub of that of course. People seem to find it hard to grasp that because all this activity operates through your own information superhighway-your nervous system-that the action of dieting, more specifically your body's response to it, can literally change the way you see, perceive and even seeming to put thoughts in your head.
You may also remember that this feature was identified as one of the problematic eater types in that BBC Horizon doc. And that I had this exact problem as one symptom of a hyperphagic eating disorder. I would be surprised if this wasn’t a facet of Georgia Davis’s metabolic problems-and others like her.
Mann describes this as increasing [eating’s] “reward value”. I disagree; it increases the imperative to eat. In other words, it’s like having the munchies when you smoke a blunt, or the action of an overactive bladder where the urge is overpowering, even when your bladder is empty.
It’s not that eating becomes more enjoyable-it doesn't necessarily at all-it’s that the urge continues to recruit more and more nervous circuits in your brain-in other words the urge takes it over. Your will is literally overpowered and it becomes too uncomfortable to the point of distressing not too go with it.
Relief of such discomfort is hardly about pleasure. It feels way more compelling than normal hunger. Though I get that's a difficult concept for many.
As for the hormones, I’m not hot on them, but that seems more a register of your depleted energy, framing them as cause. Iow, if I jumped out at you-shocking you, your feelings would be expressed by chemical release, that didn’t cause your fright; that’s how your body both signals and registers it.
These hormones don't stop diets working, they're signalling your body's defensive response to deprivation.
Energy conservation-the body adapting to less by using less energy to function-is yet another defense-they are multifarious, showing the body is really designed to resist starvation and why it so often succeeds. This is often put down to saving you from famine, it could just as well be a defense against anorexia too, as that is a build up of a compulsion to starve, which can also takes over a person's brain.
One of the things stopping anorexics perishing ever more quickly is this energy conservation.
“How could it [work]when you have to fight against all of that?”
Exactly. When we are this designed against proto-anorexia, it is definitely the wrong way, [not the only way].
There is absolutely no reason why reversal of weight must only occur through hunger blocking, unless that in itself is the true aim.
She makes a brilliant observation about the experience of dieting in a way that I hope becomes the norm.
Let's say you're in a meeting, and someone brings in a box of doughnuts. If you're dieting, now you need to resist a doughnut. That is going to take many, many acts of self-control. You don't just resist it when it comes into the room — you resist it when you look up and notice it, and that might happen 19 times, or 90 times. But if you eat it on the 20th time, it doesn't matter how good your willpower was. If you end up eating it, you don't get credit for having resisted it all those times. In virtually any other arena, that would be an A+, but in eating that's an F.Yes! Not only is this an acute representation of dieting’s flawed hypothesis, it helps tells us what anorexia is. You aren't simply saying no repeatedly, you are repeatedly blocking an impulse-that of hunger. At some point, this repetition becomes varying degrees of compulsive in certain subsets.
Isn't that extraordinary?
Totally unexpected. This is what we want to happen when we are trying to master a skill! Who'd have thought it could ever spontaneously self-trigger toward such a devastating end?
That could explain why many PWA can get to feeling agonies of hunger, but somehow cannot act on that. Continual blocking builds a wall between the feeling and its response.
It’s like resisting the urge to sleep. No one feels it’s purely about self control to miss sleep to do other things. It’s recognized that there’s a trade off in terms of tiredness. The absence of a sense of consequence from thwarting hunger, produces unnecessary misunderstandings.
Nor is it "impossible" to reverse weight, this simply isn't the right channel.The assessment of dieting's efficacy [or lack of it] is probabilistic. The odds of achieving it via calorie restriction dieting is very thin [yea]. If people want better, they'll have to lobby for genuine ways and means which are entirely possible.
Thursday, 30 April 2015
Farewell Jean Nidetch
The death of Jean Nidetch founder of weight watchers has been announced. It's a timely reminder of just how much fat people have been in the forefront of participating and advancing the slimming cult. Rather than the more familiar delusional assertion that slim people need to introduce fat people to the idea. Yes, if you cognitively erase the multi-billion $$$$ businesses that comprise the now worldwide slimming industry.
Nidetch went on to found weight watchers in 1963 after intuiting that the kind of group therapy style environment, usually used to do such as support the traumatized or maintain alcoholics and addicts in a state of abstinence would be required to support something as demanding and unnatural as starving your body down to a desired size.
WW, in existence before, during and after the famous 'ob' spike/s of the 1970's despite cleaning up financially has done little to prevent, reverse the overall drift of the weight spectrum to the right of the weight graph. Some say its further aided it. The white coat mafia are well aware of its failure. And always have been.
That has been key to the advance of slimming, the fanatical cult like belief in slimming regardless of outcome. Something about it becomes rooted in the consciousness and requires quite a sustained effort of disciplined will to overcome its cognitive distortion.
In terms of business though, Jean, was a pioneer managing to effectively flog a product that's somewhat imperceptible, if indeed it exists at all, by selling around it.
Take that i-net profiteers.
That she started this tranche of the slimming cult rolling as a result of seeking to reduce her own weight via calorie restriction is a hint that epigenetics is not simply there to whine about 'obesity'. Amongst other things, our bodies are getting cleverer at seeing off these crude and stupid attempts to use energy to manage weight after its fact.
Perhaps also the desire for greater safety has helped dieting to become even more ineffectual than it already was. If Nidetch had been born 50 years later and she had used her own company, it's far more doubtful that her body would have succumbed to quite the extent that it did.
Nidetch sold WW to Heinz in 1978 for apparently 71 million smackeroos and this useless but profitable industry is still going strong with extensive support, including a couple of doughty rescue missions from its friends in the white coat mafia.
But that's all by the by now for Jean. Goodbye formerly fat warrior against obesity, your race is run.
Nidetch went on to found weight watchers in 1963 after intuiting that the kind of group therapy style environment, usually used to do such as support the traumatized or maintain alcoholics and addicts in a state of abstinence would be required to support something as demanding and unnatural as starving your body down to a desired size.
WW, in existence before, during and after the famous 'ob' spike/s of the 1970's despite cleaning up financially has done little to prevent, reverse the overall drift of the weight spectrum to the right of the weight graph. Some say its further aided it. The white coat mafia are well aware of its failure. And always have been.
That has been key to the advance of slimming, the fanatical cult like belief in slimming regardless of outcome. Something about it becomes rooted in the consciousness and requires quite a sustained effort of disciplined will to overcome its cognitive distortion.
In terms of business though, Jean, was a pioneer managing to effectively flog a product that's somewhat imperceptible, if indeed it exists at all, by selling around it.
Take that i-net profiteers.
That she started this tranche of the slimming cult rolling as a result of seeking to reduce her own weight via calorie restriction is a hint that epigenetics is not simply there to whine about 'obesity'. Amongst other things, our bodies are getting cleverer at seeing off these crude and stupid attempts to use energy to manage weight after its fact.
Perhaps also the desire for greater safety has helped dieting to become even more ineffectual than it already was. If Nidetch had been born 50 years later and she had used her own company, it's far more doubtful that her body would have succumbed to quite the extent that it did.
Nidetch sold WW to Heinz in 1978 for apparently 71 million smackeroos and this useless but profitable industry is still going strong with extensive support, including a couple of doughty rescue missions from its friends in the white coat mafia.
But that's all by the by now for Jean. Goodbye formerly fat warrior against obesity, your race is run.
Tuesday, 3 March 2015
Discrimination is Theft
Well isn't it often the way that areas you'd not particularly warmed too would be the ones to take a stand. The burlesque (revival?) isn't my thing, but I must congratulate its denizens and supporters for giving what for on the club Lucky Pierre's decision to fire a performer called Ruby Rage, for being erm, voluptuous.
Ms Rage, who could hardly be classed as fat, given so many so called "slim" people in the west are pretty solid looking themselves, had been working at said club for a couple of months. During that time the curator (?) of the show Bella Blue, was told by the management that RR was not the sort of "image" they wished to portray and that she should find a slimmer woman instead.
She told them that RR was in the show because Blue felt she captured the true spirit of the form and replacing her with someone for their size might compromise the overall flavour of the show.
Despite this, management insisted and Blue had to let Rage go.
It was one too many times for Rage and she decided wasn't taking it this time. She fought back, made a fuss and social media picked it up and gave the club some blowback.
Excellent, no sark!
That sub-heading sneakily tries to trivializes this with some penny ante misogyny: "Never tell a lady she is not [the] right body type." Please, as if it's about female vanity. No, this is about people being able to earn a living at things they're able to do/are good at, without being impoverished by the body police using that as a pre-cusor for their open-ended fraud.
Increasingly, fat phobic hegemony carrying on its mostly unchecked momentum is seeking more ways to assault people's finances. Whether seeking to fine them, tax them through the healthcare system and perhaps more sinister still, undermining people's ability to earn an honest living.
Then bullshitting to deny unemployment/disability assistance to boot.This momentum will not stop itself, it has to be countered by people being prepared to say no to its wing-nut bratty demands.
The club management came out oblivious and a bit casual. They provided a list of star performers of history, which was supposed to justify their idea that only slim performances are worth employing, or something.
It must have been during an afternoon dip, because one of them was Mae West. Yeah, notorious Miss Bountiful, who was bigger than Rage in her Hollywood prime-she saved her studio- at a time when the world was (supposedly) slim. That's why the Spanish have siesta folks.
Anyway, the club stuck to its bone headed overture and Bella Blue-despite it being a major source of her income-resigned. The two have apparently teamed up with a view to putting on shows! That is what I call fellow feeling and solidarity. I'm looking at you, fat phobic sisterhood.
If I may put forward a suggestion to these excellent women. Turn your experience into a play/screenplay and even a burlesque theme! Stick it to those wooden ponies and make some compensation money, at their expense.
Ms Rage, who could hardly be classed as fat, given so many so called "slim" people in the west are pretty solid looking themselves, had been working at said club for a couple of months. During that time the curator (?) of the show Bella Blue, was told by the management that RR was not the sort of "image" they wished to portray and that she should find a slimmer woman instead.
She told them that RR was in the show because Blue felt she captured the true spirit of the form and replacing her with someone for their size might compromise the overall flavour of the show.
Despite this, management insisted and Blue had to let Rage go.
It was one too many times for Rage and she decided wasn't taking it this time. She fought back, made a fuss and social media picked it up and gave the club some blowback.
Excellent, no sark!
That sub-heading sneakily tries to trivializes this with some penny ante misogyny: "Never tell a lady she is not [the] right body type." Please, as if it's about female vanity. No, this is about people being able to earn a living at things they're able to do/are good at, without being impoverished by the body police using that as a pre-cusor for their open-ended fraud.
Increasingly, fat phobic hegemony carrying on its mostly unchecked momentum is seeking more ways to assault people's finances. Whether seeking to fine them, tax them through the healthcare system and perhaps more sinister still, undermining people's ability to earn an honest living.
Then bullshitting to deny unemployment/disability assistance to boot.This momentum will not stop itself, it has to be countered by people being prepared to say no to its wing-nut bratty demands.
The club management came out oblivious and a bit casual. They provided a list of star performers of history, which was supposed to justify their idea that only slim performances are worth employing, or something.
It must have been during an afternoon dip, because one of them was Mae West. Yeah, notorious Miss Bountiful, who was bigger than Rage in her Hollywood prime-she saved her studio- at a time when the world was (supposedly) slim. That's why the Spanish have siesta folks.
Anyway, the club stuck to its bone headed overture and Bella Blue-despite it being a major source of her income-resigned. The two have apparently teamed up with a view to putting on shows! That is what I call fellow feeling and solidarity. I'm looking at you, fat phobic sisterhood.
If I may put forward a suggestion to these excellent women. Turn your experience into a play/screenplay and even a burlesque theme! Stick it to those wooden ponies and make some compensation money, at their expense.
Wednesday, 28 May 2014
Manuel Uribe
As you may have heard. Manuel Uribe died on Monday aged 48. He once
had the distinction of being named "the world's heaviest man" weighing
over 1,200 pounds.
He worked as a technician, repairing machinery and married twice, eventually losing a third of his bodyweight. He had heart trouble and was suspected of having a liver complaint though his exact cause of death has not been reported.
He was always quite big, but unremarkably so in childhood. He was reputed to have described the process of his outstanding gain as feeling like-something taking over his body. No quotes though.
I'm pretty sure that represented something going awry with the functioning of his body. It's funny, people often tell fat people what they're feeling-incorrectly. Yet when they're offered real information, to make a start with, they're just not interested.
I'm thinking especially of those who claim to be making a specific study of fatness. That he could hope to have had that seriously investigated by anyone was as likely as "obesity science" is to produce anything worthwhile any time soon for those with real problems.
The lack of interest in weight outliers like Uribe has always been a bit of mystery. When a condition is most pronouncd, its usually easiest to trace its course. To see what its about. The lack of interest speaks to a knowledge that someone like him hasn't got a whole lot to do with the average fat person and that might be shown up if closely investigated.
That would be even worse, they might find something out. They'd be a danger of having to follow the course of that, rather than the 'obesity' ideology, then where would that be?
So, like everyone of us, Uribe had to live as best he could with the cards dealt him. He seemed to do a lot better than some who claim with soulful depths that "Being fat sux."
Not as much as being at the top of the weight tree with no objective study to maintain and assert and uphold your humanity.Yet he did that through living his life nontheless.
Braindead 'obesity' drunk hacks will tell you his is a modern story of "morbid obesitay" blah, blah, blah. The real story here is of a primitive and debased response to social change/ identity crises. They are so much a part of this mess.
People like Uribe who are at the top of the weight tree are the ones who pay for the worthless "obesity" construct. And the deranged cultism surrounding it.
It does little for people like him, who clearly have something wrong with them. Yet harasses and seeks to sicken and disable those who do not.
Uribe and others like the woman who died when firemen claimed to be unable to get her out of a burning building and more recently, the 12 girl who experienced tremendous weight gain in the wake of the removal of a brain tumour are the ones most marginalized and dehumanized by the rejection of objectivity.
That should be remembered more often.
Rest in peace Señor Uribe.
He worked as a technician, repairing machinery and married twice, eventually losing a third of his bodyweight. He had heart trouble and was suspected of having a liver complaint though his exact cause of death has not been reported.
He was always quite big, but unremarkably so in childhood. He was reputed to have described the process of his outstanding gain as feeling like-something taking over his body. No quotes though.
I'm pretty sure that represented something going awry with the functioning of his body. It's funny, people often tell fat people what they're feeling-incorrectly. Yet when they're offered real information, to make a start with, they're just not interested.
I'm thinking especially of those who claim to be making a specific study of fatness. That he could hope to have had that seriously investigated by anyone was as likely as "obesity science" is to produce anything worthwhile any time soon for those with real problems.
The lack of interest in weight outliers like Uribe has always been a bit of mystery. When a condition is most pronouncd, its usually easiest to trace its course. To see what its about. The lack of interest speaks to a knowledge that someone like him hasn't got a whole lot to do with the average fat person and that might be shown up if closely investigated.
That would be even worse, they might find something out. They'd be a danger of having to follow the course of that, rather than the 'obesity' ideology, then where would that be?
So, like everyone of us, Uribe had to live as best he could with the cards dealt him. He seemed to do a lot better than some who claim with soulful depths that "Being fat sux."
Not as much as being at the top of the weight tree with no objective study to maintain and assert and uphold your humanity.Yet he did that through living his life nontheless.
Braindead 'obesity' drunk hacks will tell you his is a modern story of "morbid obesitay" blah, blah, blah. The real story here is of a primitive and debased response to social change/ identity crises. They are so much a part of this mess.
People like Uribe who are at the top of the weight tree are the ones who pay for the worthless "obesity" construct. And the deranged cultism surrounding it.
It does little for people like him, who clearly have something wrong with them. Yet harasses and seeks to sicken and disable those who do not.
Uribe and others like the woman who died when firemen claimed to be unable to get her out of a burning building and more recently, the 12 girl who experienced tremendous weight gain in the wake of the removal of a brain tumour are the ones most marginalized and dehumanized by the rejection of objectivity.
That should be remembered more often.
Rest in peace Señor Uribe.
Friday, 17 January 2014
No Surrrender!
A man called Hiroo Onoda has just died. He was a solider from the second world war who was said not to have believed in surrender until 1974, 29 years later. That's when he was persuaded to surrender from his Philippine jungle hideout.
He was a man loyal to an ideal, to the end. And beyond.
When does persistence become fanaticism, derangement? It's admirable to persevere and necessary to achieve anything past the short term. But, when you refuse to see the signs that your effort is at an end, you can waste a whole heap of time just pressing on. Doing the same thing over and over again simply because it feels too bad to contemplate letting go.
What can add confusion is, a certain suspension of judgement is be required to keep the faith long enough to see an initiative through to success. But the moment will come when you just know against the weight of your internal dynamic that this is it; it's over. Anything more requires a willing state of delusion that can only be voluntary and heartfelt. And your heart isn't close to being in it anymore.
Mr Onoda went on to live to 91. He had other people to implore him sir, enough is enough. You've done your best, you've done your duty. In that way he was fortunate.
Sometimes you are the one that has to implore yourself to let it go, in the face of everyone insisting otherwise.
He was a man loyal to an ideal, to the end. And beyond.
When does persistence become fanaticism, derangement? It's admirable to persevere and necessary to achieve anything past the short term. But, when you refuse to see the signs that your effort is at an end, you can waste a whole heap of time just pressing on. Doing the same thing over and over again simply because it feels too bad to contemplate letting go.
What can add confusion is, a certain suspension of judgement is be required to keep the faith long enough to see an initiative through to success. But the moment will come when you just know against the weight of your internal dynamic that this is it; it's over. Anything more requires a willing state of delusion that can only be voluntary and heartfelt. And your heart isn't close to being in it anymore.
Mr Onoda went on to live to 91. He had other people to implore him sir, enough is enough. You've done your best, you've done your duty. In that way he was fortunate.
Sometimes you are the one that has to implore yourself to let it go, in the face of everyone insisting otherwise.
Monday, 2 December 2013
Speaking for himself
A too rare voice is welcome. Billi Gordon is a 500 lbs plus man, whose top weight was 970. He's a PhD in neuroscience who has compulsive overeating disorder (CED) as he might call it, or hyperphagia/polphagia nervosa (HN) as I probably would.
One of the many objectionable things about 'obesity' has been the way it attempts to formulate some kind of understanding, without the human angle. something that's unprecedented for something to do with human biology.
As has been proven again, the more you hear from fat people-of all types and states- the more fatness makes sense.
I wish him well.
One of the many objectionable things about 'obesity' has been the way it attempts to formulate some kind of understanding, without the human angle. something that's unprecedented for something to do with human biology.
As has been proven again, the more you hear from fat people-of all types and states- the more fatness makes sense.
I wish him well.
Monday, 13 May 2013
Losing the biscuit gambit
the plate of biscuits lands like a gauntlet on the table. If I decline to eat one, I am a calorie-phobic priss who's terrified of displaying weakness in public. If I eat one, I defy my burgeoning rep (thanks to the previous profiles) as an ascetic, and I am a liar: lose-lose.The cals in/out trap inevitably spreading its tentacles to slim people. We said it would didn't we? So many thought they'd be immune, due to the status of slim. Alas, overspill's a bitch.
Once you accept weight as the direct product of energy intake defined as conscious choice, all weight becomes a choice. Eating or non-eating act comes under scrutiny to a point where it becomes suffocating and curiously undermining of your self expression.
Having been used to at least the idea that judgement on you is somewhat affected by what you say and a clear reading of what you do. It's a strange reversal when the narrative assigned to your body get in first all the time. Acting as a slow growing barrier between what you would like to project and what others would project onto you. Skewering the balance against in their favour, silencing you without necessarily telling you to shut up.
The complete disassociation from fatness and fat people means other people become disconnected from what they are potentially accepting about themselves, through other human beings. The mechanics of divide and conquer.
Shriver herself has overlooked a hell of a lot to get to the point where this was the lightening rod for her to come to a greater realization about weight, because she felt it personally. That seems like a waste to me, especially for an artist.
My biscuit or cake gambit and a lot of others is the giving "permission" to eat one. Others assuming fatz must want to eat constantly, which then enables them to eat things they feel they should resist. What these people cannot do is to eat them in front of a fat person, if they aren't.
I got a death stare over that once from a slender woman this way. I'm not blaming her. But would she any more than I have thought the overspill of a crusade against fat people would cause her to stare at some fat woman rigid with rage?
Fat people's whole life have become LS's biscuit issue. The crumbs have been going down the wrong way for a long time now. That's why fat acceptance, debates around beauty don't mean diddly compared to this. So let's please stop defining people as disease, so we all can at least know what we're signing up for.
Friday, 25 May 2012
Georgia Davis update
T/W: actual weights and dieting referenced.
I've just clicked 'publish' for a post I completed yesterday. How bitterly ironic and so very predictable. It's just about the only kind of thing that is worse than "child obesity" epitomized by the wretched debacle of owned4life which thought it was appropriate to express their opinion of fat children by posing them as mug shots.
It's not unheard of for serial dieters to double their weight over the course of a long career of dieting, let alone a child who reached 33 stones (462 lbs: 1 stone=14 lbs) at age 15. Someone who's body has set itself on this course partly in reaction to life events.
It's important to note Georgia's body is not a meter of distress nor of "addiction". It's about the strength of its response, the interplay of genes and environment. If her body didn't have this capacity it wouldn't have happened. I suppose you could say, it's like being able to throw a ball father than everyone.
In every spectrum of human function there must be outliers, at both ends.
A lot of people will use (ha!) the worthless "food addict" metaphor, but having had similar problems myself I know it is your body's functioning that alters under you, whilst you just respond to its signals (of hunger and appetite) same as always.
It's how we all eat.
It's basically to do with your body's mood and stress regulation. The key to resolving it lies it getting the body to reverse that reaction, for the nervous system to be able to unravel this configuration. Not to block the endpoint of it, eating.
Those who told her to "lose 20 stones or die" were utterly reckless, as they were ignorant. Rather than fixating on food, they need to train the nervous system to calm down enough over time to release the pattern. Then the eating will either lessen on its own, or with a little conscious prompting.
All that is seen is fat, disconnected from a person. i.e as "overweight" instead of a person. A whole system functioning as a unit, not as a slim person wearing "overweight" as an all body fat suit.
We forget a body is where roiling emotions actually can affect the body as a whole, via its brain central/ peripheral nervous system. Rather than being sealed off in our heads as we tend to think-as they probably are in the main. Then there's the intimate link between the "second brain" and the first one. When your emotional balance is upset, it can upset the functioning of the gut. Often those who reach this size are very big around the middle, even if they're pear shaped.
I truly believe weight loss dieting has made Georgia's situation worse, not just physically but psychologically. She's had to be freed from her house-it had to be partially demolished-in order to treat her after collapse from a seizure.
Creating a culture of trying to stabilize weight and preserve mobility plus studying actual fat bodies could have actually helped prevent this. Instead the same do or die(t) rules are trotted out mechanically regardless of how utterly inappropriate it is.
It doesn't seem to matter how many people locked this open ended kind of metabolic state fall prey to this careless malpractice. No-one ever seems to learn enough to have the courage to put a stop to it.
If there was a culture of stabilization, physiotherapy, a holistic and humane attitude-what could Georgia have achieved with her life in the intervening years? The problem with people on the edge like this is they are stuck with no where to turn.
Their isolation and desperation is played upon by those who refuse to recognize that you cannot directly or predictably control your metabolic function. That's something that needs to be properly studied. So a map of options can be created.
And it's becoming clear to more and more people that those who've gotten used to knowing it all and giving orders like gods simply can't deal with the fact that in reality they know little and have got nothing. I would have thought was the norm for a lot of scientists until they do actual science.
That is the price of delusion and people like Georgia are the ones paying it.
Though comments on this type of story are filled with the usual foul effluent, I notice increasingly dotted in there are glimpses of people realizing that all cannot be as we've been told.
Guidelines need to be formulated, to stop this 'advice' being given to anyone who's body has opened out in this way. If someone has has gained a lot over a short space of time then dieting should simply not be an option. Others can make up their own minds. But those in this state should be directed to improvement. Rather than the fantasy of being thin.
It literally destabilizes metabolism further even when it seems to "work" as we can see. Dieting is a metabolic derail.
In a way this story shows up what a lot of fat people who've become desperate to lose weight face and can't seem to grasp when they lash out at people like those in FA as negative. Though it might have seemed as if Georgia's weight was problematic at 33 stones how does that look now?
Better than how she has been left. The sad thing is no one was there to explain that possibility to her. That given her history and metabolic history, the thing to do was to appreciate her body for what it was and see if things could be settled down. If that had been combined with all the efforts she's made in the cause of weight loss had been put in an HAES framework, improving her mobility and strength. That could have assisted her mood and palliated her diabetes.
At the same time deal with things that could improve her situation.
And believe me, it's about time someone said clearly, the culture of cultivating desperation about weight has to end. I'll say that again in another way. Stop encouraging people to become "desperate" about their weight, full stop.
No one should be forced to like the fact that they are fat, nor forced to be "fat positive". That said the cultivation of "desperation" about one's weight as an intrinsic part of performing the 'obese' role because we are told, "You've ruined yourself".
Most 'desperation' is about proving that "I'm taking my weight seriously". Its more a debt of honour, something you feel you should fuel in order to show how badly you feel about things. Often, it serves as the weight loss surgeon's number one ally.
I really wish Georgia well and hope she is able to know she doesn't have to feel bad about herself ever again.
* [I don't see the separate between appetite / hunger from metabolism, to me they are clearly part of it. Eating is usually a pleasure, but that isn't the point, it's a metabolic feature to ensure the maintenance of your existence]
I've just clicked 'publish' for a post I completed yesterday. How bitterly ironic and so very predictable. It's just about the only kind of thing that is worse than "child obesity" epitomized by the wretched debacle of owned4life which thought it was appropriate to express their opinion of fat children by posing them as mug shots.
It's not unheard of for serial dieters to double their weight over the course of a long career of dieting, let alone a child who reached 33 stones (462 lbs: 1 stone=14 lbs) at age 15. Someone who's body has set itself on this course partly in reaction to life events.
It's important to note Georgia's body is not a meter of distress nor of "addiction". It's about the strength of its response, the interplay of genes and environment. If her body didn't have this capacity it wouldn't have happened. I suppose you could say, it's like being able to throw a ball father than everyone.
In every spectrum of human function there must be outliers, at both ends.
A lot of people will use (ha!) the worthless "food addict" metaphor, but having had similar problems myself I know it is your body's functioning that alters under you, whilst you just respond to its signals (of hunger and appetite) same as always.
It's how we all eat.
It's basically to do with your body's mood and stress regulation. The key to resolving it lies it getting the body to reverse that reaction, for the nervous system to be able to unravel this configuration. Not to block the endpoint of it, eating.
Those who told her to "lose 20 stones or die" were utterly reckless, as they were ignorant. Rather than fixating on food, they need to train the nervous system to calm down enough over time to release the pattern. Then the eating will either lessen on its own, or with a little conscious prompting.
All that is seen is fat, disconnected from a person. i.e as "overweight" instead of a person. A whole system functioning as a unit, not as a slim person wearing "overweight" as an all body fat suit.
We forget a body is where roiling emotions actually can affect the body as a whole, via its brain central/ peripheral nervous system. Rather than being sealed off in our heads as we tend to think-as they probably are in the main. Then there's the intimate link between the "second brain" and the first one. When your emotional balance is upset, it can upset the functioning of the gut. Often those who reach this size are very big around the middle, even if they're pear shaped.
I truly believe weight loss dieting has made Georgia's situation worse, not just physically but psychologically. She's had to be freed from her house-it had to be partially demolished-in order to treat her after collapse from a seizure.
Creating a culture of trying to stabilize weight and preserve mobility plus studying actual fat bodies could have actually helped prevent this. Instead the same do or die(t) rules are trotted out mechanically regardless of how utterly inappropriate it is.
It doesn't seem to matter how many people locked this open ended kind of metabolic state fall prey to this careless malpractice. No-one ever seems to learn enough to have the courage to put a stop to it.
If there was a culture of stabilization, physiotherapy, a holistic and humane attitude-what could Georgia have achieved with her life in the intervening years? The problem with people on the edge like this is they are stuck with no where to turn.
Their isolation and desperation is played upon by those who refuse to recognize that you cannot directly or predictably control your metabolic function. That's something that needs to be properly studied. So a map of options can be created.
And it's becoming clear to more and more people that those who've gotten used to knowing it all and giving orders like gods simply can't deal with the fact that in reality they know little and have got nothing. I would have thought was the norm for a lot of scientists until they do actual science.
That is the price of delusion and people like Georgia are the ones paying it.
Though comments on this type of story are filled with the usual foul effluent, I notice increasingly dotted in there are glimpses of people realizing that all cannot be as we've been told.
Guidelines need to be formulated, to stop this 'advice' being given to anyone who's body has opened out in this way. If someone has has gained a lot over a short space of time then dieting should simply not be an option. Others can make up their own minds. But those in this state should be directed to improvement. Rather than the fantasy of being thin.
It literally destabilizes metabolism further even when it seems to "work" as we can see. Dieting is a metabolic derail.
In a way this story shows up what a lot of fat people who've become desperate to lose weight face and can't seem to grasp when they lash out at people like those in FA as negative. Though it might have seemed as if Georgia's weight was problematic at 33 stones how does that look now?
Better than how she has been left. The sad thing is no one was there to explain that possibility to her. That given her history and metabolic history, the thing to do was to appreciate her body for what it was and see if things could be settled down. If that had been combined with all the efforts she's made in the cause of weight loss had been put in an HAES framework, improving her mobility and strength. That could have assisted her mood and palliated her diabetes.
At the same time deal with things that could improve her situation.
And believe me, it's about time someone said clearly, the culture of cultivating desperation about weight has to end. I'll say that again in another way. Stop encouraging people to become "desperate" about their weight, full stop.
No one should be forced to like the fact that they are fat, nor forced to be "fat positive". That said the cultivation of "desperation" about one's weight as an intrinsic part of performing the 'obese' role because we are told, "You've ruined yourself".
Most 'desperation' is about proving that "I'm taking my weight seriously". Its more a debt of honour, something you feel you should fuel in order to show how badly you feel about things. Often, it serves as the weight loss surgeon's number one ally.
I really wish Georgia well and hope she is able to know she doesn't have to feel bad about herself ever again.
* [I don't see the separate between appetite / hunger from metabolism, to me they are clearly part of it. Eating is usually a pleasure, but that isn't the point, it's a metabolic feature to ensure the maintenance of your existence]
Thursday, 17 May 2012
Hurry up and Lose!
Yes it is true that Aishwarya Rai is known primarily for her outstanding beauty, but women like that are often criticized for seeking a return to their pre pregnancy weight at speed. Don't they know this puts pressure on all women, they are role models blah, blah, blah.
Take a look at this effort, from people admittedly seeking to live at the edge to see what just what they're avoiding;
Not fun.
She's said to be in no hurry to step on the diet merry go round wishing to "enjoy motherhood" instead. I wonder how much she's referring to WLD and how much to being seen as "the most beautiful woman in the world".
Take a look at this effort, from people admittedly seeking to live at the edge to see what just what they're avoiding;
Not fun.
She's said to be in no hurry to step on the diet merry go round wishing to "enjoy motherhood" instead. I wonder how much she's referring to WLD and how much to being seen as "the most beautiful woman in the world".
Monday, 21 March 2011
Bullying
I was surprised by my reaction to the Casey Heynes incident. The violent ending sickened me. As much as that was the sight of two youths stuck acting out a scene set up mainly by the wills of those not present.
One ended up being slammed very hard into the concrete reality of consequence unlike those who've helped set this up. Literally and metaphorically, his world was turned upside down as bully became victim and victim became avenger.
The only people who 'deserve' that more are those who think mob rule is just a part of the toolkit to pursue their own ends however deranged. Convincing themselves it is for the good of others to disconnecting the obstacle of conscience.
The one who found out that his quarry was as human as himself and could like himself be pushed to a point where the normal rules don't apply was of course Ritchard Gale, the smaller boy in the video. The other boy whose fear and fury he was unfortunate enough to detonate was Casey Heynes.
The games society plays often comes out in less conditioned minds, in this case children, but not only. We are oh so shocked of course and we utter some mindless defence about how "children are so cruel" etc.,
Children don't tend to know enough yet unseasoned (/deadened) by the acceptance of a critical mass of hurdles which obscure motives or finesse re/actions. The gaps they slip through and the ways they do, break through our sense of order.
They are still learning.
These two are the ones who got hurt both of them, Casey over a longer term and Ritchard over the shorter term, for now. Even if this was a private matter this will stay with him into the future would you swap with either?
The latter was lucky to escape with the damage he sustained, he looked very shaken, possibly concussed/winded if the wrong part of him bore the impact that would have written a more serious ending and who would have payed for that?
I don't think its too much to say this is a pretty accurate microcosm of what's going on with fat people generally. We can see who represents us but also who represents the common or garden folks on the 'other side. Both manipulated by the same distant hands and left to fight it out amongst and police each rather than either or together confronting those who would wish to set people against each other.
It illustrates some of the complexity part of it the way victim/victor are flipsides of one another and how the former can erase and reduce you. The shock that anyone could be 'angry' enough to taunt, hit or hurt you is something that is so inexplicable, that part of you can remain frozen in that initial shock for there on out.
What the bullied position can hide is your thinking as well as who you are, Casey clearly a bright and articulate boy didn't hit back before just out of fear, but out of awareness of his own growing strength and wariness/unsureness about that, in other words, ethics. Those who can't stand to be hurt often cannot stand to hurt others, equally.
That can place them in a position of withdrawing, which can draw out the bully in ourselves into advance, merely by the absence of a perceptible counter force. Often its a question of how soon that effect happens to us all. This cycle can continue its dynamic and only when the reasoning brain can be overcome by something more primeval and direct is it arrested.
Those who speak fatuously of the "time bomb of obesity" need to understand this is a real ticking time bomb they might want to consider when they insist laughably that its time to get tough with fat people. They might want to consider what reaction that leaves to having one too many boundaries overridden.
Because when you push beyond another then another this little vignette sums up your course. I don't necessarily mean violence, hopefully its more reassertion of selfhood after being inveigled into partial surrender of it.
Then too is the shakedown of all the feelings repressed in acquiescence to the crusade possibly along with any force that has liberated them. Something we all know phobes have a low tolerance for as it forces them into contact with their less noble qualities.
They resent both this and being encouraged to go this far by their 'betters', something fatz who assume any potential backlash against the crusade managers will come purely from fatz.
I think people are right consider whether the response was disproportionate, it's true, he could have assumed a more assertive stance and warned him to back off. But Casey himself has spoken perceptively about this, he knew things got ahead of him and mixed in with this explosive rebound reaction was the fear garnered along the way to it. Those seeking to test people's limits should factor that in under risk.
When you play with people beyond their capacity to tolerate it what you find may be as much of a shock to them as you and not wishing to find out may be what's keeping you 'safe' more than simple fear. Feelings remain unexplored for a reason. Beyond past abuses there was being hit squarely in the face, more threatening than being hit lower down somehow, even if if it is less painful.
The final straw was the little dance by the smaller boy, that complacency left an opportunity for a surprise counter attack. A person can tolerate in sadness what they cannot in being toyed with.
The balance of power shifts from one to the other, in an instant.
The reaction of hero of a revenge fantasy is fascinating. It confirms the suspicion that a lot of haters underneath their bluff and bluster are desperate for fat people to reassert boundaries that have been breached in different ways by all.
And problematic as the hero worshipping is aside, there is something repellent about a lonely person gaining 'friends' via that narrative.
Those who believe in constantly appealing to the pity of those who've willfully taken the bully route should remember that the fat boy became someone a lot of people could identify with. Because violence aside, he became present again when he re took his ground.
One ended up being slammed very hard into the concrete reality of consequence unlike those who've helped set this up. Literally and metaphorically, his world was turned upside down as bully became victim and victim became avenger.
The only people who 'deserve' that more are those who think mob rule is just a part of the toolkit to pursue their own ends however deranged. Convincing themselves it is for the good of others to disconnecting the obstacle of conscience.
The one who found out that his quarry was as human as himself and could like himself be pushed to a point where the normal rules don't apply was of course Ritchard Gale, the smaller boy in the video. The other boy whose fear and fury he was unfortunate enough to detonate was Casey Heynes.
The games society plays often comes out in less conditioned minds, in this case children, but not only. We are oh so shocked of course and we utter some mindless defence about how "children are so cruel" etc.,
Children don't tend to know enough yet unseasoned (/deadened) by the acceptance of a critical mass of hurdles which obscure motives or finesse re/actions. The gaps they slip through and the ways they do, break through our sense of order.
They are still learning.
These two are the ones who got hurt both of them, Casey over a longer term and Ritchard over the shorter term, for now. Even if this was a private matter this will stay with him into the future would you swap with either?
The latter was lucky to escape with the damage he sustained, he looked very shaken, possibly concussed/winded if the wrong part of him bore the impact that would have written a more serious ending and who would have payed for that?
I don't think its too much to say this is a pretty accurate microcosm of what's going on with fat people generally. We can see who represents us but also who represents the common or garden folks on the 'other side. Both manipulated by the same distant hands and left to fight it out amongst and police each rather than either or together confronting those who would wish to set people against each other.
It illustrates some of the complexity part of it the way victim/victor are flipsides of one another and how the former can erase and reduce you. The shock that anyone could be 'angry' enough to taunt, hit or hurt you is something that is so inexplicable, that part of you can remain frozen in that initial shock for there on out.
What the bullied position can hide is your thinking as well as who you are, Casey clearly a bright and articulate boy didn't hit back before just out of fear, but out of awareness of his own growing strength and wariness/unsureness about that, in other words, ethics. Those who can't stand to be hurt often cannot stand to hurt others, equally.
That can place them in a position of withdrawing, which can draw out the bully in ourselves into advance, merely by the absence of a perceptible counter force. Often its a question of how soon that effect happens to us all. This cycle can continue its dynamic and only when the reasoning brain can be overcome by something more primeval and direct is it arrested.
Those who speak fatuously of the "time bomb of obesity" need to understand this is a real ticking time bomb they might want to consider when they insist laughably that its time to get tough with fat people. They might want to consider what reaction that leaves to having one too many boundaries overridden.
Because when you push beyond another then another this little vignette sums up your course. I don't necessarily mean violence, hopefully its more reassertion of selfhood after being inveigled into partial surrender of it.
Then too is the shakedown of all the feelings repressed in acquiescence to the crusade possibly along with any force that has liberated them. Something we all know phobes have a low tolerance for as it forces them into contact with their less noble qualities.
They resent both this and being encouraged to go this far by their 'betters', something fatz who assume any potential backlash against the crusade managers will come purely from fatz.
I think people are right consider whether the response was disproportionate, it's true, he could have assumed a more assertive stance and warned him to back off. But Casey himself has spoken perceptively about this, he knew things got ahead of him and mixed in with this explosive rebound reaction was the fear garnered along the way to it. Those seeking to test people's limits should factor that in under risk.
When you play with people beyond their capacity to tolerate it what you find may be as much of a shock to them as you and not wishing to find out may be what's keeping you 'safe' more than simple fear. Feelings remain unexplored for a reason. Beyond past abuses there was being hit squarely in the face, more threatening than being hit lower down somehow, even if if it is less painful.
The final straw was the little dance by the smaller boy, that complacency left an opportunity for a surprise counter attack. A person can tolerate in sadness what they cannot in being toyed with.
The balance of power shifts from one to the other, in an instant.
The reaction of hero of a revenge fantasy is fascinating. It confirms the suspicion that a lot of haters underneath their bluff and bluster are desperate for fat people to reassert boundaries that have been breached in different ways by all.
And problematic as the hero worshipping is aside, there is something repellent about a lonely person gaining 'friends' via that narrative.
Those who believe in constantly appealing to the pity of those who've willfully taken the bully route should remember that the fat boy became someone a lot of people could identify with. Because violence aside, he became present again when he re took his ground.
Saturday, 15 January 2011
Link happy and laying low
Wow, life getting in the way plus access ish-yoos has turned a pause into a positive hiatus. Sorry to leave the last post dangling believe me it doesn't get much better. I've still got a few things I need to take time out to deal with but I did catch a watchable documentary in the early hours about the wonderful Sister Rosetta Tharpe.
I first stumbled upon her years ago among the libraries music stock. Between the enlightened world music style policy of the library, the diverse community surrounding it plus some judicious ordering from dedicated musos helped me to finally get hold of things like Big Mama Thornton's version of Leiber and Stoller's take on the blues. It was only then that I realised she wrote and recorded Ball and Chain popularized by Janis Joplin, (her influence on JJ is obvious).
I remember being electrified hearing her sing the definitive "Hound Dog" treatment on the radio it TOTALLY blew the famous Elvis version -which never really scanned lyrically- to smithereens. It irritated me after that I'm not hating, I never tire of Suspicious Minds.
When you hear Big Mama's magnificent growling and warbling meaning falls into place. Incidentally some reckon Elvis saw Sister Rosetta play and that her showmanship was an influence on his.
I remember being able to hear recordings by Edith Piaf who is a national institution in France apart from the usual La Vie En Rose, and Je ne Regrette Rien. I was intrigued after reading a biography of her by Margaret Crosland. I did not enjoy it at all! I was bordering on outraged in fact, yet as I had time before I had to return them and still having vague notions of trying to extend my school French into something approaching fluency (ha!) I figured I'd just learn the songs.
I did my chores with her in the background mais voilà ! I finally heard her, I can't even remember what why I took so against her at first. The things I've ended up liking the most were not always instant.
What I admire about Sister Rosetta like so many apart from her playing and singing is her overall performance. She started as a child hitting the road with her ever so religious mother, leaving her father behind in rural *Arkansas, they landed at a church in Chicago, her precocity and talent served to attract people.
She was the first female electric guitar player I saw who could really related to the instrument with their whole being, as an extension and expression of themselves. With most other female players I tend feel they are playing an instrument whereas Sister Rosetta had total command she dominated it unselfconsciously in a way we tend to take for granted in men.
I relate to the sense of her being both a pious and a libertine she was rebellious in the common sense way, she liked to find ways to do what she wanted even if it wasn't the done thing. She is an example of the way the highs of the sacred and the piety in the sexual coalesce in the same place, if you get deep enough.
Her switching from gospel to secular and back again outraged some of her church fans. She refused or was unable to let go of either and managed to win people round with the sheer force of her talent. People shocked by her recording the gospel ballard "Rock Me" substituting God for a mere mortal, using the same approach as she would the original it becomes thrillingly direct.
She was naughty but nice a lively indomitable character pansexual in her tastes the kind who got into scrapes and schemes which made her loving friends shake their heads, there goes Rosetta.
Apropos that aritistopia link for BMT, I've just stumbled on Big Maybelle, check out her (earlier) version of a rock and roll standard plus this.
I'll see you over the hump.
*Opps!
I first stumbled upon her years ago among the libraries music stock. Between the enlightened world music style policy of the library, the diverse community surrounding it plus some judicious ordering from dedicated musos helped me to finally get hold of things like Big Mama Thornton's version of Leiber and Stoller's take on the blues. It was only then that I realised she wrote and recorded Ball and Chain popularized by Janis Joplin, (her influence on JJ is obvious).
I remember being electrified hearing her sing the definitive "Hound Dog" treatment on the radio it TOTALLY blew the famous Elvis version -which never really scanned lyrically- to smithereens. It irritated me after that I'm not hating, I never tire of Suspicious Minds.
When you hear Big Mama's magnificent growling and warbling meaning falls into place. Incidentally some reckon Elvis saw Sister Rosetta play and that her showmanship was an influence on his.
I remember being able to hear recordings by Edith Piaf who is a national institution in France apart from the usual La Vie En Rose, and Je ne Regrette Rien. I was intrigued after reading a biography of her by Margaret Crosland. I did not enjoy it at all! I was bordering on outraged in fact, yet as I had time before I had to return them and still having vague notions of trying to extend my school French into something approaching fluency (ha!) I figured I'd just learn the songs.
I did my chores with her in the background mais voilà ! I finally heard her, I can't even remember what why I took so against her at first. The things I've ended up liking the most were not always instant.
What I admire about Sister Rosetta like so many apart from her playing and singing is her overall performance. She started as a child hitting the road with her ever so religious mother, leaving her father behind in rural *Arkansas, they landed at a church in Chicago, her precocity and talent served to attract people.
She was the first female electric guitar player I saw who could really related to the instrument with their whole being, as an extension and expression of themselves. With most other female players I tend feel they are playing an instrument whereas Sister Rosetta had total command she dominated it unselfconsciously in a way we tend to take for granted in men.
I relate to the sense of her being both a pious and a libertine she was rebellious in the common sense way, she liked to find ways to do what she wanted even if it wasn't the done thing. She is an example of the way the highs of the sacred and the piety in the sexual coalesce in the same place, if you get deep enough.
Her switching from gospel to secular and back again outraged some of her church fans. She refused or was unable to let go of either and managed to win people round with the sheer force of her talent. People shocked by her recording the gospel ballard "Rock Me" substituting God for a mere mortal, using the same approach as she would the original it becomes thrillingly direct.
She was naughty but nice a lively indomitable character pansexual in her tastes the kind who got into scrapes and schemes which made her loving friends shake their heads, there goes Rosetta.
Apropos that aritistopia link for BMT, I've just stumbled on Big Maybelle, check out her (earlier) version of a rock and roll standard plus this.
I'll see you over the hump.
*Opps!
Monday, 22 November 2010
I'm glad to say....
I can stop feeling badly disposed to raging bully du fatz * LINK WARNING: weight loss hokum masquerading as healthy lifestyles( or vice versa) Gillian Mckeith, she appears to be suffering for her misdemeanours.
Whatever possessed her to put herself at the mercy of the public in this way? Though they may enjoy fat hating themselves, tend have a strong urge to see if those who can dish it, can take it themselves.
And they can be as merciless as Mz.M is with uz fatz when they come upon someone who clearly cannot.
That's the problem with folks who spend time uncovering the purportedly unique reactions of fattiez to demeaning and invasive assaults on our sense of self, those reactions, are no different than any other humans. The central thesis that fat people are in some way lesser than others, is utterly false, attacking that falsehood means attacking the person.
All this may well lull the more underlyingly decent and earnest hater into a false sense of their own stoicism because they read the reaction of fat people to being mis-used as not the reacting like any one would to that but as the inner degeneracy that got us fat rearing it's ugly head.
In that sense they tend to be at a disadvantage to bona fide trolls who are likely to have less need to pretend this fat hating power trip is out of selfless concern for fat people. No they're aware that its just quarry and they do not give a damn about any such thing as 'morality' or the whys and wherefores, it's just (blood) sport to them. Don't get me wrong, that doesn't make them admirable, just that a more compromised moral centre doesn't always make you the most amoral.
I came upon the reality TV fluff she was involved in just at the right time. I've ignored it so I have to put it down to serendipity that I happened upon it yesterday and didn't switch over fast enough to avoid the preamble, which sold it for me.
I saw her give way to a swoon when given none of the room for manoeuvre that just an ounce of fellow feeling-from your tormentors-can give. Good for her, when you've taken all you can take, time for a strategic exit, hopefully on your feet, but hey, on your knees if necessary.
Sorry if I sound unsympathetic, but I've endured a few hair straightening times myself ignoring my own signals of distress too persuaded by what she represents that distress was actually my own moral incontinence. Call it gallows indifference.
Good news for her is I was betraying myself, whereas Mz Mackeith has the comfort of knowing that it is others who are getting at her to fulfil their own needs. Something she is more than familiar with herself. In fact, I'd say she lives by it.
Never mind Gillian, you dry your tears with the money they pay you for it, even taking into account any PTSD therapy, your likely to be ahead. At least you are getting paid for it hopefully you learn a lesson and sin no more.
I wouldn't hold my breath though.
Whatever possessed her to put herself at the mercy of the public in this way? Though they may enjoy fat hating themselves, tend have a strong urge to see if those who can dish it, can take it themselves.
And they can be as merciless as Mz.M is with uz fatz when they come upon someone who clearly cannot.
That's the problem with folks who spend time uncovering the purportedly unique reactions of fattiez to demeaning and invasive assaults on our sense of self, those reactions, are no different than any other humans. The central thesis that fat people are in some way lesser than others, is utterly false, attacking that falsehood means attacking the person.
All this may well lull the more underlyingly decent and earnest hater into a false sense of their own stoicism because they read the reaction of fat people to being mis-used as not the reacting like any one would to that but as the inner degeneracy that got us fat rearing it's ugly head.
In that sense they tend to be at a disadvantage to bona fide trolls who are likely to have less need to pretend this fat hating power trip is out of selfless concern for fat people. No they're aware that its just quarry and they do not give a damn about any such thing as 'morality' or the whys and wherefores, it's just (blood) sport to them. Don't get me wrong, that doesn't make them admirable, just that a more compromised moral centre doesn't always make you the most amoral.
I came upon the reality TV fluff she was involved in just at the right time. I've ignored it so I have to put it down to serendipity that I happened upon it yesterday and didn't switch over fast enough to avoid the preamble, which sold it for me.
I saw her give way to a swoon when given none of the room for manoeuvre that just an ounce of fellow feeling-from your tormentors-can give. Good for her, when you've taken all you can take, time for a strategic exit, hopefully on your feet, but hey, on your knees if necessary.
Sorry if I sound unsympathetic, but I've endured a few hair straightening times myself ignoring my own signals of distress too persuaded by what she represents that distress was actually my own moral incontinence. Call it gallows indifference.
Good news for her is I was betraying myself, whereas Mz Mackeith has the comfort of knowing that it is others who are getting at her to fulfil their own needs. Something she is more than familiar with herself. In fact, I'd say she lives by it.
Never mind Gillian, you dry your tears with the money they pay you for it, even taking into account any PTSD therapy, your likely to be ahead. At least you are getting paid for it hopefully you learn a lesson and sin no more.
I wouldn't hold my breath though.
Wednesday, 10 November 2010
Where's this Michelle Obama?
Just a little request from an outsider. Can US fat children have this Michelle Obama please?
Courtesy of Colorlines.
Courtesy of Colorlines.
Wednesday, 3 November 2010
Ha, ha Stephen Fry!
What larks, Fry, flogging some product or other, no doubt has deigned to reveal that (straight) women-sorry lesbians, you've been overlooked-are not as keen on straight sex as gay men appear to be on gay sex, if you take his rather compulsive standard.
Women it seems only permit males to sheath their swords in order to have a 'relationship' with them. That doesn't sound right to me, I've found that if a straight identified woman doesn't want to have sex with men, she doesn't tend to want a relationship with them either.
I used to hold Stephen Fry in some esteem through a fondness for the idealism he channelled into his alter ego Donald Trefusis. That eroded significantly over the years, but held steady at respect for his undoubted intelligence, until I ran smack into his base fat phobia of the “no fatties in concentration camps" kind on Nigella’s brief incarnation as a chat show host.
That would be bad enough on its own, but given that some of his relatives perished in the Holocaust, hard to believe. That point is not why I went off him it's just that I would have expected him to be disgusted by this kind of trivialisation. I thought he would add a rare intelligence and rationality to the discussion of weight. This was the end of my belief in his ‘genius’, he was utterly shown up in my eyes and I remembered the unpleasantness of that for a long time.
A lot of folk talk about fatness flushing out the objectionable, it also flushes out those who think for themselves, as opposed to those who merely absorb and parrot what they are told. Fat phobia exposes things about people that they're used to hiding. I cannot think of anyone who's ever not been lowered in my eyes by fat hating, and the greater the expectation, the greater that effect.
I can't find much kinship with feminists’ cries of; how could he? He's usually so nice. Oh sista(hood) puhr-lease, some of us could have alerted you to his act but you had to wait until he’s up in your face. I am a bit surprised by the easily released homophobia, rather than just making the case for or against.
He didn't mention male negativity toward heterosex he said hetero guys think women feel disgusted by them, but men go along with the idea that a woman who has pranged more than a few of them is sullied and demeaned by it. Slut shaming degrades women, sure, but what does it say about men? That they despoil the clean and the good?
This is not a WATM; it’s that the rage about this injury can be taken out on others, including women. There is a definite tang of condescension towards straight men too which seems political, almost as if he's saying; "try gay men, we really love doing it with guys, women don't!" I’ve heard it before, I suppose there’s an inevitable subterranean rivalry between groups.
I know they’ve suffered and been persecuted hugely, however, I think their relationship with women is more ambivalent than is alluded to. Clearly that's the case for some women too, judging by their responses.
Include some of us women in that because having been trained to be, excuse the French, f***bags. It can sometimes become obscured from us too, this misunderstanding can cause a libido to turn unexpectedly to ashes. It’s always supposed to be about shame or female trouble, but we ignore the possibility that it’s more about the way anatomy and sexuality is described to us.
Laurie Penny talks about lack of safety being an issue for women, but that’s supposed to be what sex is all about, risk and danger, certainly for some men that is part of the attraction of this kind of free range open air sex. That smacks of trying to inject some energy into something that is not as potent as its supposed to be. And really, just how convincing is this kind of enjoyment of sex? Some men seem to pursue the possibility of sex at every opportunity as an ideal, which they claim as their own and can get very defensive about. But honestly, it often seems too pat and unconvincing, a little too ideological.
The way that it no amount of access or availability ever seems to be enough, the scent underlying panic, seem to be more than about pleasure, which is not just about frequency or amount. Its a process with some kind of start and end. There's something about this picture that doesn't quite hang together, like a jigsaw with all the right pieces but some are jammed together meaning the whole view is skewered.
Compulsion is about pursuing a pleasure deficit or trying to pursue satisfaction and/or closure. If you cannot achieve this, you can end up chasing it and if that develops a momentum of its own you end up with much chasing, sometimes manically so.
If women had this level of compulsion they would be questioned, heck, they’d question themselves. Fry's offensiveness is his misogynistic assumption that all men as the standard for human sexuality and women the offcut which all problems reside, so old fashioned it is a joke.
It is clear that many women adore sex, I’d doubt that if men could end up potentially with a baby on board every time he had sex could manage more of the absolute abandon many women do. Don't assume men personify or set the standard for human sexuality Mr Fry.
Women it seems only permit males to sheath their swords in order to have a 'relationship' with them. That doesn't sound right to me, I've found that if a straight identified woman doesn't want to have sex with men, she doesn't tend to want a relationship with them either.
I used to hold Stephen Fry in some esteem through a fondness for the idealism he channelled into his alter ego Donald Trefusis. That eroded significantly over the years, but held steady at respect for his undoubted intelligence, until I ran smack into his base fat phobia of the “no fatties in concentration camps" kind on Nigella’s brief incarnation as a chat show host.
That would be bad enough on its own, but given that some of his relatives perished in the Holocaust, hard to believe. That point is not why I went off him it's just that I would have expected him to be disgusted by this kind of trivialisation. I thought he would add a rare intelligence and rationality to the discussion of weight. This was the end of my belief in his ‘genius’, he was utterly shown up in my eyes and I remembered the unpleasantness of that for a long time.
A lot of folk talk about fatness flushing out the objectionable, it also flushes out those who think for themselves, as opposed to those who merely absorb and parrot what they are told. Fat phobia exposes things about people that they're used to hiding. I cannot think of anyone who's ever not been lowered in my eyes by fat hating, and the greater the expectation, the greater that effect.
I can't find much kinship with feminists’ cries of; how could he? He's usually so nice. Oh sista(hood) puhr-lease, some of us could have alerted you to his act but you had to wait until he’s up in your face. I am a bit surprised by the easily released homophobia, rather than just making the case for or against.
He didn't mention male negativity toward heterosex he said hetero guys think women feel disgusted by them, but men go along with the idea that a woman who has pranged more than a few of them is sullied and demeaned by it. Slut shaming degrades women, sure, but what does it say about men? That they despoil the clean and the good?
This is not a WATM; it’s that the rage about this injury can be taken out on others, including women. There is a definite tang of condescension towards straight men too which seems political, almost as if he's saying; "try gay men, we really love doing it with guys, women don't!" I’ve heard it before, I suppose there’s an inevitable subterranean rivalry between groups.
Instead of solidarity in the face of a heteronormative patriarchy that oppresses all of us, there remains a chasm of suspicion and misunderstanding that obstructs genuine solidarity between women and gay men.I simply can’t feel that rationale, are gay men necessarily allies of women and vice versa anymore than straight men? It ignores the way lesbians are shunted aside within the gay community at times. I think that gay men can and have often shown themselves to be allies of many outsiders and marginalized people, through empathy, however some haven't, just like any other men. Plenty of straight men supported full female humanity and liberation throughout the ages, sexual attraction does not preclude the self respect not to wish or need to demean others, even if they are potential lovers. And if some or all of those who are complaining would bracket themselves 'pro-sex' we have to ask why they assume it does?
I know they’ve suffered and been persecuted hugely, however, I think their relationship with women is more ambivalent than is alluded to. Clearly that's the case for some women too, judging by their responses.
“female sexuality is still a mystery to many men, gay and straight”
Include some of us women in that because having been trained to be, excuse the French, f***bags. It can sometimes become obscured from us too, this misunderstanding can cause a libido to turn unexpectedly to ashes. It’s always supposed to be about shame or female trouble, but we ignore the possibility that it’s more about the way anatomy and sexuality is described to us.
Laurie Penny talks about lack of safety being an issue for women, but that’s supposed to be what sex is all about, risk and danger, certainly for some men that is part of the attraction of this kind of free range open air sex. That smacks of trying to inject some energy into something that is not as potent as its supposed to be. And really, just how convincing is this kind of enjoyment of sex? Some men seem to pursue the possibility of sex at every opportunity as an ideal, which they claim as their own and can get very defensive about. But honestly, it often seems too pat and unconvincing, a little too ideological.
The way that it no amount of access or availability ever seems to be enough, the scent underlying panic, seem to be more than about pleasure, which is not just about frequency or amount. Its a process with some kind of start and end. There's something about this picture that doesn't quite hang together, like a jigsaw with all the right pieces but some are jammed together meaning the whole view is skewered.
Compulsion is about pursuing a pleasure deficit or trying to pursue satisfaction and/or closure. If you cannot achieve this, you can end up chasing it and if that develops a momentum of its own you end up with much chasing, sometimes manically so.
If women had this level of compulsion they would be questioned, heck, they’d question themselves. Fry's offensiveness is his misogynistic assumption that all men as the standard for human sexuality and women the offcut which all problems reside, so old fashioned it is a joke.
It is clear that many women adore sex, I’d doubt that if men could end up potentially with a baby on board every time he had sex could manage more of the absolute abandon many women do. Don't assume men personify or set the standard for human sexuality Mr Fry.
Friday, 17 September 2010
Going Gaga
I can't pretend that I get Gaga.
She's over my head. Notice I say that, not, 'I've seen it all before' yes and no, I prefer, she seems familiar and yet not so, which of course is inevitable. No one transcends their era if you doubt it, a cursory study of the most extremist rebels you can find throughout history and how much you can see they are of their era, will, not catch me in arrogance. Today follows yesterday, which is history, you'd think some people would've noticed.
It's not even that I know nothing about her, I was initially interested in her, from when she came over to the UK and was rather low key in terms of popularity building herself up to her current heights.
I was strangely drawn, by her name Germanotta, I'll bet there's some interesting hidden history there, although one should avoid racial stereotyping like the plague, it seems to kind of some her spirit up in some way. The industry of the Germans own self identity with that of the Italians artistic heritage sorry, what can I say?
Her music did not draw me in particularly, it seemed to be strangely out of keeping with her image to the point where I half thought she was being ironic. It's only when she released other records that I realised.
Nope, that is her sound.
I saw her being interviewed and I thought she came across well, although it was an early one in this country and she was definitely very nervous. It's easy to forget that she's only 24 at times, even though she doesn't look or seem older, particularly.
My opinion of her music, so far as entertaining me changed briefly when I came across her performing let's dance live.
I was taken aback, she really put an almost preternatural amount of focus and energy into it, and could sing really well, that i couldn't resist. I still listen to just dance, purely to help summon up the association with that performance, so I enjoy it, but it doesn't match the space that performance allotted for it so it's a strangely distanced pleasure.
The more recent kerfuffle around Lady G has been stoked by Camille Paglia, silent Z, with an article portentously entitled.
Lady Gaga and the death of sex
Well blow me.
It is a while since I heard something as ridiculous, and hanging out where I do on the nets, that's genuinely saying something.
Inexplicable Madonna lover, don't get me wrong, there are things about her that are impressive, but the fact that she sings like pebbles being dropped in a bucket of water has only recently stopped annoying me very hard.
The thing that struck me about Paglia's opininings was the accusation that Lady Ms G is not sexy.
I'm not kidding you when I say I was stunned.
That had never occurred to me once.
Don't get me wrong, I'd noticed that she was no Scarlett Johansson, but I find her attractive and when she is deliberately not ringing those bells, she's interesting in the way that more beautiful people often aren't.
As I'm often quick to say what I have noticed, it's only fair that I say, it hadn't occurred to me that straight men mightn't find her sexy.
AT ALL.
Whilst I don't feel bad about that, I have a certain reticence about investigating why.
Either way, I cannot see her as unsexy at all, that's what I find so fascinating, when I heard unsexy, my immediate reaction was no, no, no.
So how can I have not notice that she is not sexy to straights (I was going to say, straight men, but let's face it, straight sexuality is their sexuality or what fits around what it's supposed to be). I wonder if this is one of the reasons I feel averse to this fashion for calling yourself queer as a hetero woman. All women's sexuality is in a sense 'queer' in that it's hard for it to make an appearance at all, whatever it is. A suggestion of this is the fact that some are claiming Gaga is supposed to be totally non sexual.
Sexual would be channelling it into some depersonalized alter ego presentation that is supposedly for men until the centre cannot hold and it all falls through the bottom into the odious dirtframing of 'female sexual dysfunction'.
I'll overlook that one for now.
No wonder even men treat women who present their sexuality thus as devoid of any intelligence. It's like they're saying, if you're stupid enough to fall for that, you must be brain dead.
No, just well trained.
And indeed, that's the point, Gaga, is not unsexy, she is not even restrained in her sexuality.
It is integrated and contained.
That means, it is part of the whole of her, not out there de contextualized from her being.
I never thought about it before, but at least for white women, the case of black women is different through all sorts of things that have nothing to do with our actual sexualities, Gaga represents what female sexuality looks like when it is not for what men are supposed to want. Women seem to dig her, the wonderful Rhianna finds her (look) interesting.
And although women do think certain women are pretty and attractive to them, but less to straights. I often don't find them too hot either, but Gaga gives off a sense that she enjoys, if you know what I mean. Whereas Paglia's muse M, I've never felt her sex appeal. Which is interesting, it's never occured, but maybe I didn't find all her writhings convincing. There's a sense that she probably had other things on her mind.
So yeah, maybe she does represent a new generation of women who have a more integrated sexuality. I've noticed around and about that there are a lot more women around who craft a look that is more boyish/garçonne than previously. They are often very attractive, they are at ease with the way they look and compel the attention and those who are into men don't seem to forgo their interest either, so certain media men, perhaps a little defensively should not assume their rejection of part of what Gaga represents is shared by all men.
Why shouldn't a man want a woman who is whole and not just a parody of what a man is supposed to want? In my experience, by no means all men wish to be pandered too by that sort of thing. They'll go with it, but if it's not there they not necessarily missing it.
I say this not because it's something to be said if men like it, or not, it's more, if men are not necessarily demanding a certain kind of sexuality/sexual presentation from women, who/what is?
It's those men who make a show of speaking of their aversion that seem a little off the pace. A bit like Paglia herself.
Speaking of Ms Johansson, she made me laugh a while back when she called her breasts "my girls". I know this is an old one, but I'd either not heard it or forgotten it. Yet, it isn't that funny in repose to describe bits of you as having a separate and distinct existence from yourself.
I'd bet Gaga calls her breasts; breasts.
Wednesday, 20 January 2010
Ms Sidibe, I'm charmed
I really enjoyed reading this article featuring Gabourey Sidibe she's a much needed breath of fresh air.
Her charm and grace, the fact that she comes from New York and yet sounds, to my ears like she a native of California. I've hesitated about saying it, probably I shouldn't have, but I don't want to put this mantle of totally cool (fat) person on her, when what's great about her comes out of her self acceptance. I feel that she'd be like this whatever she looked like.
It comes from the essence of her and it should do. That is what I like, her self willed poise. It makes me feel good that she's around, although I don't feel she has any duty to represent me. I think she should just represent the sorted people of the earth really.
It's the chance we all have, to love ourselves and allow the charm of that to raise the question of us all.
If Sidibe, why not you?
I'm not saying glibly, if she can you can, I'm saying we can ask ourselves once in a while, why rather than getting bogged down in the reasons we just can't like ourselves an ickle bit.
Apparently lots of people, including those in the film industry-actually that doesn't surprise me at all- think she is Precious, that it was some kind of documentary as Sidibe says, featuring Lenny Kravitz as her nurse and Mariah Carey as her social worker.
I love this bit of the interview;
But what about the hunched and truculent way Precious carries herself – so very different from the way beaming Gabourey Sidibe swept into the room an hour ago? "I channelled her anger and her daunting disposition. She walks into the room and her shoulders are hunched. She disappears into her own world. It's called acting, sweetie," she says.
OK, rearrange this; him in put she place his.
Friday, 11 December 2009
Catch a tiger by the tail
One thing shocked that no one has anything to say about his ordeal. No one.
Don't like golf.
Don't like people who are ashamed of their humanity in general, their blackness specifically. It's not even necessary.
I do not care for Tiger Woods, or how he comes across, but his existence does not offend me. On an animal level, a cursory look at him in action marks him out as special. He has an intense free and yet contained physicality that is present in so many how are gifted athletically, whether dancers or heck just movers.
Imagine if Tiger had been the woman. As far as we can tell, he was struck inside his own home fled to his car. Pursued by his spouse brandishing what could be a lethal weapon, which she allegedly proceeded to use to hit the car. This caused him to become, understandably distracted and crash into something hard and unyielding-at speed enough to injure/ concuss him apparently. Is this an acceptable pursuit, regardless of the so called provocation?
I get the impression that he was absolutely terrified. Some people may find that amusing, that he was terrified of his wife's anger, That it's somehow OK, for a man to be in this position, but unconscionable if reversed. I don't think so.
The extent of his fear meant that he could have sustained greater injury. This from a woman who apparently on finding out of previous infractions was moved to re negotiate her pre-nup. Classy. It's interesting that one of the ladies Tiger dallied with, apologized to his wife, as if she's a big chief that must be palliated and paid tribute too. Extraordinary.
I do not care for Tiger Woods, or how he comes across, but his existence does not offend me. On an animal level, a cursory look at him in action marks him out as special. He has an intense free and yet contained physicality that is present in so many how are gifted athletically, whether dancers or heck just movers.
Imagine if Tiger had been the woman. As far as we can tell, he was struck inside his own home fled to his car. Pursued by his spouse brandishing what could be a lethal weapon, which she allegedly proceeded to use to hit the car. This caused him to become, understandably distracted and crash into something hard and unyielding-at speed enough to injure/ concuss him apparently. Is this an acceptable pursuit, regardless of the so called provocation?
I get the impression that he was absolutely terrified. Some people may find that amusing, that he was terrified of his wife's anger, That it's somehow OK, for a man to be in this position, but unconscionable if reversed. I don't think so.
The extent of his fear meant that he could have sustained greater injury. This from a woman who apparently on finding out of previous infractions was moved to re negotiate her pre-nup. Classy. It's interesting that one of the ladies Tiger dallied with, apologized to his wife, as if she's a big chief that must be palliated and paid tribute too. Extraordinary.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)