Embodiment not weight as identity

N.B. It's rather strange that this is breaking about now, "Academic Grievance Studies and the Corruption of Scholarship". I wrote this piece yesterday before I heard anything.

A reminder to those going around claiming their "fat identity" is insufficiently possessed or recognised by others, i.e. lacking this fat identity is a main source of woe. 'Obesity' is all about creating and imposing a "fat identity" from the outside, in order to direct behaviour. 

This is that identity sold;

Obesity, we are told, is a personal failing that strains our health care system, shrinks our GDP and saps our military strength.

And this is that learnt;

the fear of becoming fat, or staying that way, drives Americans to spend more on dieting every year than we spend on video games or movies.

This too;

Forty-five percent of adults say they’re preoccupied with their weight some or all of the time

This especially;

......so many of my sources.......double- and triple-checked that I would not reveal their names

And this

One remembered kids singing “Baby Beluga” as she boarded the school bus

Unsurprisingly;

“I have this sense I’m fat and I shouldn’t be,” he says. “It feels like the worst kind of weakness.”

Arguably most of all this;

I waited to do things because I thought fat people couldn’t do them.”

This too sticks in the mind;

I avoided so many activities where I thought my weight would discredit me.”

The nature of the way-the "weight" is separated from-the "me" takes a lot of untangling.

Before anyone says anything on this, it's entirely possible to even hate your size if so inclined, without that having any real affect on your sense of self. Think, people who say-they, hate their hair-either how it looks or when it won't behave or style in the way they intended. Consider how little this defines their sense of self.

Weight as identity is the way your weight can take lumps out of your psyche. This includes slim people.

Weight as identity is not the answer, it's the problem. WAID started with slimness being seen as somehow, inherent to being human, rather than a size human beings come in.  

This affected the way anything outside this range was defined, driving a desire to confect an ID for higher weight to try and give meaning to the creation of humanness based exclusively in slimness.

That kind of slimness is the origins of weight identity. Fat people's indifference to perceiving weight as a subject for identity, plus learning an outer defined view of themselves- meant the grab to define this fat adjunct had nothing to contest it. Fatness belongs exclusively to slimness, becoming just more space to project whatever they disliked about themselves.  

People seem to see climbing into this "space" as the only thing to do, because there is no real fully formed normalcy of embodiment and because they seem to feel whatever slim people do must contribute to the sense that they humans living their best life.

'Obesity' cultists have little problem with it in essence with weight as ID, it makes their "war" feel to them "provoked", defending a rational non(proactively)-aggressive idea of themselves. They pick out and twist what is said under the banner of fat ID to re purpose their favoured themes. Fat people stigmatise themselves, rather than learn the same "grammar" of body size as everyone else.

An aspect of this fat ID has even turned up as a "cause" of staying fat; "You really identify as a big bear of a man and that's stopping your 'weight loss'" etc., Becoming something to pin the failure of calorie restriction induced weight loss.

What people lack is not ID, it's more a history of metaphysical embodiment. A sense that this body and the experience and history of it is inside out, not the other way around. That doesn't require you to bother with someone else's imposition of weight ID.

What's notable about the above examples, is the lack of anything present inside to counteract them. I don't mean argue, I mean the feeling that outer falsehood is hitting a real sense of (inner) perception. If someone claims you have stolen something, when you haven't, you don't feel pushed over by the accusation, you know what you have and haven't done. And you know that comes from inside you and doesn't require validation to even think or be aware of this. Regardless of external doubt.

Fat people learnt the same way one way of seeing as everyone else, except, it was them being seen by others and they learnt this, rather than seeing themselves from the inside out. 

We learnt the outside in one at the expense of awareness of our inside out one.

The rareness of this makes it harder to spot and counteract.

My term in place of embodiment was sentience, the awareness of your own unique existence. Constructing that-I don't know that it's ever been there, in this area-requires not simply a mental grasp that you know your life experience is yours, but an embodied feeling and sensibility.

There's no obvious route map, but the sense of your life being yours needs to get (a whole lot) stronger, more present and unspoken, the sense that others can wrongly contradict this needs to weaken to the dust that it really is. 

The Calories in/out Lens

Secret Habits of Anorexics.

Because we rarely hear this and when we do, it somehow doesn't seem to stick in people's minds,

Theroux meets one woman, Rosie, whose condition left her unable to walk at one point and led to her contemplating suicide.

Her parents reveal to Theroux that she spends hours scrolling through social media pictures of food on her phone.

This is the lens everyone is looking through; anorexia-calories in/out. This is coins, "eating disorders", why "binge eating", why 'obesity' comes from to devour/eat away, why fat people are seen as walking larders who have no legitimate hunger function, why food taxes, sugar phobia, food paranoia, clean eating, orthorexia, why everything is obsesses with food, controlling food, food is good, food is bad, eating is unhealthy, eating is healthy...........

It's even why anorexia/thinness is somehow seen as against left-wing /anti-capitalist and fatness as conservative/pro-capitalist.

My problem is I don't see sufficiently through this lens as others, including fat acceptance people.This leaves me cold. I don't care about food in this way because my notion of weight isn't based on calories in/out which as I've frequently said is incomplete. Nor is the focus of this point of view capable of properly defining or describing the hyperactive hunger function I experienced. It actually gets in the way.

Though both are about excessive hunger function, one comes from deficit, the other from attempts to impose deficit.

Communication problems are rooted in refusing to acknowledge not everyone sees as you see, nor wants to.

When Men Diet

"The Silicon Valley execs who don't eat for days: 'It's not dieting, it's biohacking'", course it is, *wink*. Biohacking would be to find the right way to reverse weight, our bodies already know how to regulate their own mass. They're doing it NOW.

Back in the day men hardly made a fuss of dieting, maybe they starved themselves occasionally till they dropped whatever weight they could and carried on.

Now this is purported a new thing because certain people are doing it. Mmmokay. The entry of men into committed dieting duties has thrown women for a loop,

San Francisco-based eating disorder specialist Shrein Bahrami was concerned that extended fasting was another fad that could be used as a cover for not eating.

Ha, ha, ha, you don't say?

“The hyper focus on tracking vital signs and food has become normalized, so it’s difficult to know when it’s become obsessive,” she said,

Normalized eh? Of course, the influence of the 'obesity' cult. And "trracking vital signs" is right, you'd better do that and more. 

....but people with eating disorders typically feel a lot of shame and other negative emotions around food and body image, which doesn’t tally with the experience of people like Libin and Woo.

You want (mucho/macho?) shame? The subtitle; "it's not dieting, it's biohacking." Reahlly?

“There’s a mild euphoria. I’m in a much better mood, my focus is better, and there’s a constant supply of energy. I just feel a lot healthier. It’s helping me be a better CEO,” he said over a cup of black coffee – one of many that day – at All Turtles’ Soma office. “Getting into fasting is definitely one of the top two or three most important things I’ve done in my life.”

Lols. 

He’s lost almost 90lbs and describes getting into fasting as “transformative”. 

Gettin' in! Some of us are getting out and staying out!

Libin is one of a growing number of Silicon Valley types experimenting with extended periods of fasting, claiming benefits including weight loss, fewer mood swings and improved productivity.

Ode to the familiar.

However, Libin and others like him are pushing that idea further and with a focus on performance over weight loss.

Yeah, it's nothing to do with weight loss, it's the emeaushun no wait, it's all about the performance, so if these guys were gaining weight, they'd still be doing it, for the performance. Sweet honey on the rock....(in a few days obvs.)

They aren't pushing anything, that's what it takes. 

It all started with intermittent fasting or 5:2 etc., but that wasn't enough, as shown by the paltry few fatz who can get into the acceptable crew after having their stomach amputated to merely to aide being close to this extent of non-eating.

Yes, the world of ED's is butchin' it up.

If you do not alter function, as I managed to somewhat accidentally, you will have to starve around the function that is in place, how behind the curve this all is to women. Not very Silicon Valley seeming, or is it?

Are they just really a bunch of follow-fashions dressed up as the cutting edge? I wouldn't be too surprised.

As for the health benefits, those countries where people go to bed hungry are not well known for their longevity. Look at the poor people of Venezuela, do they sound like they're reaping benefits from their "emotional" disentanglement with the (apparently) unnecessary outer energy supply?

Even if we accept that circumstances make a difference, we must consider that for half a century now, fat people have been told to starve themselves not in the midst of peace and positivity but of self eviscerating self loathing which is still being enforced today, including by a sidle of both sides of their mouths-talking MF claiming to be "sympathetic" whilst telling you to part with your healthy organs.

Fasting is most conducive [not saying much] rooted in positive circumstances of privilege, prestige and peace, not internal war, pathology and a surround of palpable hatred. That is why fat phobia hurts starvation efforts, not because fat hating boo boos make fatz eat emeaushunally.

Well, denial that starvation is the only way to make CRIWL do what its supposed to do-make us slim- is still in effect. That's a hell of shame right there.

Training Not Treatment [i.e. Drugs]

One of the totally out of the blue things I've learnt from the Internet is that endocrinologists are viewed as somewhat of a joke amongst their peers in the white coat peerage.

Harsh. There are so many more promising candidates. At least endocrinologists (purport to?) study tangible anatomy. The glands.

Yeah, you're feeling me.

I won't bother again explain how these apparent jokers could have gained the best kind of revenge, it's sort of obvious. This report, "Complex obesity causes require a new approach to research" is not going to help with that though. Subtitle, "Endocrine Society outlines mechanisms underlying obesity epidemic".

I swear I must live in hope 'cos I was genuinely looking forward to a good summation. Instead;

A growing body of research indicates that obesity is a disorder of the energy homoeostasis system, according to a new Endocrine Society scientific statement.

To be fair, chuckles, it's like, "Shyness is a disorder of relating socially". Blame the writer, after all the source material is not available and she doesn't appear to know what's going on.

...statement suggested that obesity is caused by two distinct processes: energy homoeostasis and energy imbalance -- specifically, energy intake greater than expenditure.

That'd be the greedy 'n' lazy reference. Well hidden MFs.

Energy homeostasis refers to the establishment of a new and higher body weight "set point" matching energy intake and expenditure, referred to as an "upward setting."

Well re-set it downward then genie-asses. No probs, no disorder, alter the function of the equipment, you know the stuff you're studying-your field.

This mechanism subsequently leads to sustained body weight over time, as well as regaining of weight after diet or lifestyle changes in many cases.

No, homoeostasis enables our bodies to restore ourselves. What you have there is the ideal tool for "weight maintenance". What you need to change the settled points, [geddit?] set points it restores. Look for the best way, not the drug way.

"Because of the body's energy balance adjustments, most individuals who successfully lose weight struggle to maintain weight loss over time,"  

Oh shut up. It's the wrong approach, self induced starvation violates the function of biology.

"To effectively treat obesity, we need to better understand the mechanisms that cause this phenomenon, and to devise interventions that specifically address them. Our therapeutic focus has traditionally been on achieving weight reduction. Most patients can do this; what they have the most trouble with is keeping the weight off."

The same mechanisms that 'cause' slim as you indicated already.

"Healthcare providers and patients need to view this tendency as the body's expected response to weight loss, rather than as a sign of a failed treatment regimen or noncompliance with treatment," he added.

We need to and are viewing it as your failure. Send your thoughts to any societies involving themselves in 'obesity', preferably copies of troll messages, they divise this kind of woo for. 

Nor have cal res wallahs had any "therapeutic focus"-it's not required anyway. Turning everyone around people into bullies and haters in order to make not starving less painful to currently ripping through the stomachs of hundreds of thousands is hardly therapeutic.

Nor is that necessary as weight does not require "treatment", i.e. another set of their toxic poison and useless drugs with alarming side effects.

See next post for suggestions

Sobriety

If there's one term that sums up the experience of being fat its sobriety. Fatness is sober.

There's no running away, no escape, no holiday from you. No heightened perception, no visual/auditory hallucination, no euphoria, no preternatural calm, no disruption of co-ordination, no nightmares, no bad trips, no supernatural energy, gurning, palsy, maniacal tics, no desire to fight, no dutch courage, no plummeting lows, no tremulous shakes, no paranoia, no river of sweats...........

...........Just being whatever and whomever you are.

Being fat isn't like drug addiction, it is not like alcoholism, it is not like anorexia either, it's where the body takes you, when its made its calculations. 

Food is not a drug. Food is a source of energy the body that it needs to maintain its existence.  Drugs are not. Starvation is not. Vomiting is not. Only alcohol is. It's the closest one can come to any notion of "food addiction" only because it is also an intoxicant.

Food could only said to be "a drug of choice" in the way that a duvet could become a pony of choice if a person choose to form theirs into a pony like shape and imagined riding it to glory in the Grand National.

In your imagination only. With one like that it's probably best you stay away from actual drugs.  

Those past the arbitrarily declared weight line have been denied a voice by a continuous effort of much trusted researchers and professionals to force them to act out the narrative construct they've conjured up.

This and the denial of actions and rejection of results-on the grounds that the latter did not match their holy hypothesis-has left a void within most fat/ter people where the unfettered sense memories of their experience should be.

That void is currently drawing a multi-pronged effort to fill it by getting people who aren't to see themselves as addicts/ alcoholics/anorexics.

Try to remember, professionals medicalisation along with hysterical pathologisation does not equal our lives. 

To define anything, one must describe it according to its own characteristics and features. As this is not being done with weight-it might accidentally reveal something of use and we can't have that-it is described purely as other things, things it is not.

Weight is the representation of humans as mass. It is not something happening to an ethereal non-material idea of self, such basis is a religious hangover.

Seeking euphoria or having a system that succumbs to proto-anorexia does not define the life or experience of merely fat/ter people. And just as those not taking themselves for small shit, have been free [more or less] to construct their own narratives; drug addict-started for fun/to manage bad feelings/get through bad times, until their system succumbed and boom, they needed drugs to function. Alcoholic-one sip and it was where have you been all my life?/all my friends drank like me until they stopped and I didn't-couldn't etc., etc.,

Have the grace to allow others to relay their own stories, such as they are, disregarding any attempt to switch one set of imposed falsehood for another.

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"

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.

What it is, is what it is

Tuppence-looking contraption Purge Assist has popped up this side of the pond cue predictable stupid.

The usual clueless double-think as people proclaim- "This is not the answer!" and pompously intone- "This is a symptom of quick fixism", seemingly unable to grasp dieting is a quack fix that turned into an open-ended fail due to the neurotic rejection of that fact. The latter is of course played off as long term commitment.

It's enough to make you puke.

Then there's the straw set up of this as an argument between willpower versus dietary indoctrination. [In what way does "eduction" alter the functioning of your metabolism?] The dim-wit pretension of, "Don't remove energy, you've got to find the cause of 'overeating'". Really? What happens if you don't Nancy Drew?

There's a "We've got to do something, so this is okay", pointing to the legacy of science-blockingand even as the powerful motivator of people's desperation and even a "This demonises food." Referencing CRIWL's attack on hunger. 

After that comes the eating disorders fraternity, terrified their citadel of flummery may be upset by the sunlight of unmanaged fact,

Dr Richard Sly, the medical advisor at the B-Eat eating disorder charity meanwhile warns that comparing the procedure to bulimia in an unhelpful stance.

It's not "comparison" it's observation. Voiding the contents of the stomach before food is fully digested is the purging part of bulimia nervosa. Hence purging with exercise is called exercise bulimia.

Like anorexia and other eating disorders, bulimia is a serious mental illness with physical manifestations.

They've also been the prescription for fat people for the last four decades, how long is it going to take the ED fraternity/sorority to absorb this? You don't own these and you cannot (any longer) get away with preventing people from observing fact. 

In and of itself, the equipment does not amount to medical bulimia, he says. On the contrary, the AspireAssist is a highly medicalised process.

The equipment is what is used to induce bulimia. Instead of sticking your finger down your throat, et al. It takes another direction to achieve the same ends, it is bulimia. If you don't like that, be sure to mention that to 'obesity' wallahs.

Whether bulimia is 'medicalised' or not makes no difference to what it is. Terms mean what they mean, not what you associate with them.

This would change if the person was using it to cope with psychological distress, he argues.

It's worth pointing out that the main means of trying to force fat people into proto-anorexia has been "psychological distress" and the threat of it. The extremes to which people will go to lose weight or merely avoid gain are testament to the distress involved.


Slim people are terribly ashamed of being seen to be too invested in calorie restriction dieting. Consider what it means for them to insist this should be what our lives should revolve around. 

Something of the Occult......

This sense is only getting stronger as increasingly people refuse to heed wise words;

Other people's opinion of me is none of my business.

Years ago, I mentioned that I come from a background where Black magic/witchcraft and such are seen as real forces. Growing up, I figured this was an anthropology of control and manipulation of self, of others and of one's environment.

What I never could feel was any sense about what it felt like internally to be under the influence of such. It felt totally outside my internal landscape, despite me knowing that wasn't plausible. I put it down to cultural disconnect.

The 'obesity' crusade has thoroughly changed that. It's now clearer how what you are constantly surrounded by seeps into you and (re)shapes your mind. Especially if there's little to counteract it. That is happening to people with 'obesity'. Nothing is really opposing it, so it just keeps rolling on, not because it has any inherent merit-it doesn't-but simply due to nothing really opposing its momentum.

I've seen people who are skeptical just succumb to it because it just keeps eroding anything that

Our sense that eating is a response to hunger has been undermined, if not severed in some cases. Our sense that weight is not a choice, we are not choosing not to be 900 pounds any more than we are choosing not to be 150, which for most of us is closer.

'Obesity' is really a cult concerned with gaining control of your mind, how you think, specifically to control how you live.  You can see this in its weird sociology-style presentation of contrived and dubious irrelevant statistics, Xtyx of % people are 'obese' compared with 5/10/40 years ago or hence.

'Obesity' increases risks for x, y and z, it's more associated (by us) with a,b, c, d, what has any of this got to do with a person reversing their weight? That's what this is supposed to be all about isn't it? Supposed to be, but not hardly.

If you point this out, people often struggle to grasp what you're saying. Of course statistics make you weight-manage your addiction, emotional problems, help you diet, lead to weight loss, leads you out of 'obese'. Despite that being the only strategy from before there was deemed to be a 'crsis'.

Any interruption of this, any questioning of this, any disinterest in such suspension of disbelief is spoiling it. Is why its not working. Those most voceferous and noisy in their complaining about extent of 'obese' are the ones insisting nothing but what has failed must be even looked for.

Yes, there's fun and profit in the mix, isn't there always? But there's undoubted collusion from the public. Who've found a deeper connection with these notions about weight than could have been predicted.

Fatness has come to be a reference point for mindless consumption and the wages of.

The real urge is to force fat people specifically to battle with hunger, representing unecessary acquiring of goods. Hence 'overeating' is the "cause" of overweighty. Eating is unmored, a mere habit acquired and gotten out of hand, like addiction.

Pointing out that hunger is generated by your body as a whole, and you either get denial of the role of hunger, or assertions that people eat without hunger. Despite that actually being the target of 'weight loss'. 

'Obesity' claims to be science, but it mostly uses that in the way ISIS or w/e it's called today, uses Islam, to enable it to do what it wants to do anyway, ultimately to gain power over others. Is Islam to blame for ISIS? Is science to blame for 'obesity'? Yes and no.

Both ideologies use their chosen doctrines or should I say, the appearance of them as a means to bypass not simply the critical faculties of others, but their own too, thus enabling a continuation of ideas and actions that conscience would derail.

How many times is the hold of these crusades broken by a person gaining a rational and truer understanding of what was being abused to scupper their critical faculties?

Even the grotesque practise of cutting a person's healthy stomach out feels oddly like an urge toward sacrificial appeasal of the unseen universal retribution people fear. The pretext of "making people feel fuller quicker" is risible, that's well within the functioning of hunger/ appetite. Think of the last time you were hungry and saw something disgusting and lost your appetite.

The hideous and wicked female genital mutilation has a similar underlying logic given for it, ultimately, it tries to put women off the feeling and pursuit of sexual gratification by using pain and discomfort. Rather than finding ways to reduce the sexual impulse, for either men or women.

The constant media reportage of 'obesity' is culiminating in an unwholesome media blitzkreig leading some people's minds to drift further away from the shores of reality. It can be quite disturbing to be around.

There can be something ugly, clawing and desperate about it.

The development of a compulsion diagnosis can be just like this. When thoughts or actions are made to mean or do more than they can deliver, the person can descend into compulsive repetition as the need for fulfilment continues to elude.

Increasingly people are being goaded into crossing the line-or thereabouts-where they are no longer in charge of their thoughts, instead their thoughts are in charge of and are leading them. Even before compulsion reaches this take-off stage, these urges can be at the helm of the person's mind doing the steering. That might explain how anyone could possibly think millions of stomachless people sounds anything approaching sane.

A sub-Frankenstein effort of epic delusion.

All one can say to fat people who are atheists when it comes to 'obesity' constructivism and its crusade is that if you know what it feels like to not share the faith of others, now's the time to let 'obesity' cultists have it, if they get too presumptuous. 

Stand back mentally and physically if necessary from their neurosis.  It's theirs and you are not responsible for it. You are not a cult-whisperer.

No matter who it is, do not feel any compunction about switching off and disconnecting when anyone tries to pull you into their mental orbit. You do not have to meet them halfway, flatter them, or tell them they're well meaning. Just establish clear boundaries on any nonsense, such as mindless litanies of future health and death threats.

No means no and doesn't have to be explained or justified.

Freedom of faith is also freedom from faith.

Idle 'Science'

I happened to be reading "Why stress can make you overweight" because I'm a glutton for punish... oh look, I've finally faced the truth, now I can take action against the terrible addiction to what humans cannot live without...

The article is about stress triggering release of a hormone called Adamts1, I don't know why that sounds cute to me. Apparently, this chemical is contained within fatty tissue sites and has the power to influence stem cells contained within- to become* new fat cells.

Now you may have noticed certain researchers are going around telling everyone within earshot that they now know fat cells aren't just handbags to keep your spare junk in, oh no, they're cells that interact with the brain, nervous system and metabolic function,

It was once believed that fat cells were just passive bags of calories, but recent research shows they send and receive important hormonal signals.

Note the phrasing "It was once believed..." More like assumed. It was once assumed, by scientists and researchers [they're the "it" bit], that fat cells were greedy and lazy, did nothing, because they were fat cells. I was even told this myself by a certain person on this site,

A lot of FA people seem to express they believe their fat is just there, a blob sitting on their body without consequence. This couldn't be further from the truth. Fat is metabolically active. It alters hormone levels, releases inflammatory cytokines, disrupts leptin signalling. The more fat you have, the more hormonal imbalance and inflammation, and the more likely to have diabetes, insulin resistance, and heart disease (from inflammation). 

I parked my suspicions there, though the scent of bull was on this. Fat people having embraced the notion that our bodies are whole not slim + and act in concert were ahead of a lot of these researchers. When this happens and your tormentors straw version of you allows no honour, they just lecture you with their new found sense of reality, as if you were insisting on the fibs they strenously advocate.

Any fat person who believed/s in the handbag cell would have got it from 'obesity' constructivism, same as the assumption that weight loss and CRIWL are one and the same. Anyway, I assumed the attempt expressed here to represent the fat cell as if it was some kind of rogue cell had enabled 'obesity' wallahs to finally let go of their silly emotional dependence on adipose handbags. Subsequently, it is clear that they haven't managed this at all, still, because of this Adamts1, I thought this might have been a new dawn for at least the duration of this article,

So when I read this, I was genuinely taken aback,

On anti-obesity treatment options, Dr Feldman said: 'That won't be a simple answer.

'If you block fat formation, extra calories have to go somewhere in the body, and sending them somewhere else outside fat cells could be more detrimental to metabolism.

Back to fat handbags again!!!!

That's not the half of what makes this shocking. Not only is has the research concerned already suggested you can block the formation of the fat cell by being less stressed. Formation of the fat cell has already been blocked and is out there.

* Correction: according to NHS Choices, "they had already started to become fat cells and the hormone [Adamts1] finished the maturation process."

BMI Reparations

Hands up if you think reparations-that's compensating Black people for the consistent open ended robbery that is systemic racism, colonialism, etc., is super unspeakably radical/militant? Well, in the words of our US bretheren, you can just sit your punk ass down.

I've just caught up with an attempt by certain outfits to construct another fatty reparations model.The inversion being fat people will end up paying to be discriminated against-discrimination is robbery- as usual. Few pay more for being than fat people. We've paid and continue to pay; mentally, psychologically, physically, financially, healthwise, socially, in terms of quality of our relationships, and with our own self esteem and so on and so on. We've enriched liars and grifters at every level of society, professional and charity, governmental and private sector to degrade, butcher, mutilate and starve and run us ragged, only then to be blamed for the failure of the noose around our necks.

That's not enough though, now we have the prospect of being traded as a sort of loss commodity through a proposed system of rating companies by certain purported health measures, majoring in BMI measurements. Specifically, how many employees are in the "at risk" category, given the agit-prop produced by "obesity researchers" associating fat/ter people with lowered productivity.

The consistency and unchallenged nature of this wretched cult and its complete failure of a strategy- CRIWL means increasing the avenues to monetise discrimination. A huffpo article states this move by the "wellness industry"-yet another industry created off our backs- taxes business but that will be passed on to fat people, it already has.

You get robbed, then you get taxed for being robbed because everyone supports the construct making this possible,

“It does inadvertently put a target on employees’s backs who are dealing with obesity,”

Always accidental isn't it? In fact it is the 'obesity' construct which put not only a target but imprisons people in discrimination-full stop. I'm sure you can tell from the "dealing with obesity" where that's coming from. Those who also support the construct causing these problems. It's a tribute to the barely challenged nature of 'obese' that you can present yourself as on the side of fat people, whilst upholding the basis used to royally fleece them.

Furthermore, if you're interested, this target is being painted on all our backs using this as the entry wound. Those fat people who claim to adore slimz need to start thinking very carefully about allowing themselves to be an instrument in their downfall,

[The]....federal government is already taking the first step towards endorsing this Fat Tax by allowing companies to require employees to hand over genetic information as part of wellness programs.

When I first got into the fatsphere, I made the observation that 'obesity' was a threat to all our civil liberties. Increasingly that poison is spreading. All fat people need to start taking this into account. It's not simply about you anymore. Similarly for slim people who feel immune to the discrimination they're supporting for others, its going to bite your acceptable behind too.

Anyhoo, reparations, eminently mainstream, until it comes to certain folk obvs......

Maximum Weight

Every now and again (well, actually all the time) certain unexpected anomalies are thrown up in the miasma of lies flying around fat 'n' slim wishful thinking.

I cannot pretend to speak for fat people in general, but I'm wondering how many fat people have a maximum weight. If that doesn't ring a bell, I'm referring to the way many slim people have some kind of weight limit above which they will reign their body's in via restriction, anything from outright (usually brief) fasting to cutting out certain food items for a little bit.

The reason I and I suspect many other head scratching fatties missed out on this joy is a side effect of our 'obese' role. This you may recall requires us to "admit/confess" we are failing to be slim-in order to change,  BAHUUUUTTTTTTT at the same time, demands we reject our weight as well, sort of unaccept it. Hence fa(c)t acceptance.


Oh my. Fat Acceptance =Fact acceptance, lmao.

 It's true though.

Only recently did the realisation of this difference kick in.

Some FA's may find this a bit unsavoury,  but I have wondered how many people would/could have stemmed or slowed an upward drift by employing this strategic defense of the status quo. I could only guess at how much this could have arrested any gain. I had a hunger disorder that was worsened by most aspects of living the 'obesity' canard lifepath. The one that ends with the removal of your stomach possibly along with some other weight loss dieting induced "obesity related disorder."

But I do know that at every point I found fasting piss easy in comparison with weight loss dieting. Number one, I was always "fasting" because my level of hunger was quite bestial and I was permanently trying to fight this. So I was spending a lot of time being hungry in this ferocious blizzard of urge overkill. 

This constant advance and reversal shows the failure of calorie restriction in slim people-or they'd be going backwards, not back and forth and back again. The bitterness of it informs their anger towards fat people and their game of zig-zag forms a lot of the basis of their model of how it is with fat people.

Fat People, not protected by secret lipophile cabal

Well, well, well. I had every intention of ignoring Nicole Arbour and her "satire"-fat shaming is not a thing, fat people just made that up. Fat shaming, what a brilliant idea, who came up with that?! Shaming people out of their bad habits, I'm okay with that, etc.,

Then I got to the bit where she claimed she'd been "censored" and that her youtube channel had been taken down after google had e-mailed her pointing to violation of terms of service. Automatically my brain activity went on a slight incline, who would have had the power to get google to act in such a manner? Few give much a shizz about acting on what fat people have to say, let's be candid.

So I went looking for who might be behind this, lo and behold I found nothing from the mainstream 'legit' media. On the other hand, these guys, calling themselves "Inquistr" seem to have come up trumps. They, in this case writer, Scott Hough, with the help of twitterers Boogie 2988 and (Rissa) @sandypear discovered some untoward activity. 

Seems La lipophobia "took down" her own channel- actually, she made it private. It was up the whole time. Censorship MFBA.

Fascinating that people want to press fat people into a typically braindead "PC gone mad" contrivance-that paedo "promoting" forum went straight for this as an assault on "free speech", without bothering to check. I'm sure their contrition will not only exist, but be as brave and as bold as their 'courage' in informing folks on the innate naturalness of seeking sexual relations with the underaged.

Not only is this denouement the real funny. It is the only way this works as a satire- on the continued assertion that fat people are protected by a fat apologist cabal, is this what Princess Punchdown meant? Yeah, you can have that excuse for free Nicole!

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.

Disappointed Researchers suggest Findings are Underweight

It's instructive to see weight research from another angle. Far more cautious, detailed and careful in  reporting. Its pronouncements, conclusions, assessments and speculations are a cut above bariatrics *ouch*.

It's refreshing. The study in question features 2 million people and uses GP's patient records of dementia diagnosis matched with BMI.

It found those with a bmi of under 20 [underweight is usually under 18.5] in middle age, have the greatest number of dementia diagnosis of all weight categories. That progressively lowers as you go up in size, the lowest have a bmi of 40 +.

Looking at the headline, "Underweight people face significantly higher risk of dementia, study suggests." Most if not all the familiar things occur, this time with an unusual distance. Comparative or relative rather than absolute risk, for each individual. 

You can't help noticing again what a blunt tool weight is as a way of assessing individual risk. Epidemiology is the start of science, not that itself, telling you what can look for, not necessarily what you're looking at.

What may be on your mind is the much touted previous insistence that fat people have the higher risk. That should tell you about the abuse of that term in this crusade. It continually uses theoretical risk collated from other theoretically heightened risk factors to produce its hypetastic endgame.

The use of research as thinspiration puts intolerable pressure on plain fact.

Authors responses should be noted by those usually snowed by @besity;

Prof Stuart Pocock, one of the authors, said: “Our results suggest that doctors, public health scientists, and policymakers need to rethink how to best identify who is at high risk of dementia. We also need to pay attention to the causes and public health consequences of the link between underweight and increased dementia risk which our research has established. 

The latter highlighted is especially telling, why not causes and treatments/cures? Public health consequences are fine, but that particular omission smacks of a pre-text to interfere in other people's lives. I hope that isn't the case. It does say this is an avenue for research, but what kind though?

When a frame is established, others can be framed by it. Precedent is used to legitimize.

On a lighter note, hur, hur, we're helpfully told this doesn't mean being fat is okay-we may not live long enough to avoid dementia given other risks. In addition, we're given an anti-dote to the logical fallacies we're usually expected to pretend aren't.

Some things you never hear- From lead author Dr Nawab Qizilbash;

We haven’t been able to find an explanation......We are left with this finding which overshadows all the previous studies put together. The question is whether there is another explanation for it. In epidemiology, you are always left with the question of whether there is another factor.

*Sob*

Usually that spot's filled with eat less, do more, healthy lifestyles blah, blah, blah.  Can you notice how stupid that makes them sound? In this they actually sound like they're thinking.

Dr Simon Ridley, from Alzheimer’s Research UK, said further work is needed. “This study doesn’t tell us that being underweight causes dementia, or that being overweight will prevent the condition,” he said.

The comments too are worth reading for the number of critiques of the same faulty logic usually advanced when the subject is fat. You'll see those same criticisms dismissed when we resume normal programming......

Rape Culture

Now this is interesting. I do not find the OP remotely convincing-in context [scroll down comments] or out. Why? How long have you got? I'm not really in the mood to play gumshoe, the whole thing has a rather unpleasant air.

There's something in the tone and style, the way the 'husband' is described especially sounds like a he wrote it, to expound on his own feelings. "She" isn't really there. The one time "she" mentions any feeling of her own is: " I just cant help but feel like I am the one who should change?"

All this rapiness would be over, if you would just change [change back from the change you changed from] and stick to the rule book. We can't do anything about the misogynist patriarchy, but we can do something about @besity.

Unless this is from c.1860, few contemporary women would speak this way about anything, not their husband-no matter how wonderful. And the explosion is out of place too;

I exploded at him, and he promised he will try to start having sex with me again.  He is getting a prescription filled to ensure arousal and we are setting up some counseling sessions.

You "exploded" with your complete absence of feelings did you? "....he promised he will try to start having sex with me again." ? "ensure arousal." Ugh, no. Why would a person wish to force intimacy with someone who doesn't wish to be intimate with them? What possible joy could it give you to know someone doesn't feel that way about you?

It makes me feel queasy just thinking about the idea of it. Frankly, if this woman was real, she'd sack anyone's desire.

It ends more oddly with;

I should go dust off my book of rules, or I should find someone else who doesnt consider making love to me, a chore.

The "husband" doesn't find "making love" a chore, he doesn't consider it at all!  Stick to your theme son! Or should I say sons, sounds like more than one little mind +  help-went into this.

There's a persistent urge among a certain kind of internet dwelling (male) fat phobe to try infiltrate-they love ze cloak and dagger- any space inhabited mainly by fat women. In their minds this espionage is personally fulfilling and attacks a great threat. It supposedly attacks the credibility of FA which should demoralize those attached to it.

It's one of the reasons why it can feel unfriendly to those new to it. People can be wary.

I was thinking this morning about how sockpuppety/astroturfy many discussions of 'obesity' tend to be. Seriously, there's too often a real scent of contrivance about the same old tedious non-discussions and ritualistic ranting. Other times there's just as much hate as ever but there's a reality and life there and real things get said by real people.

Whenever there are some remotely interesting findings...... tumbleweed. No comments. There's little real interest in 'obesity', there's little to keep the attentions-it's an intellectual cul-de-sac, over bar the shouting.

@besity has always called itself a "Cinderella" subject because of its obsolescence and bankrupt constructs. What gets people excited is someone in the position of Aunt Sally, plus the fact that many people restrict/ feel they should be restricting their intake. This creates a psychological or real hangry rage that can be re-directed into attacking others. Until calorie restriction was generalized as a weight and health regulator for all, 'obesity' didn't pick up steam.

Suffice to say, I do not think anyone should be coerced into sexual relations, end of story. No one should be taking drugs to replace a desire they don't feel not for anybody. In real case of loss of desire, for someone you adore. Time can make the difference, if you love someone that much it maybe a question of a period of adjustment.

But that must be in an atmosphere of accepting the person's feelings, or lack of.

Magic Fat

I am not currently ill. But I cannot say, I'm healthy-to mean I am not unwell, despite it being fact, because 'obesity' construct.  I am classed as disease, not diseased dis-ease. Diseased is when you a human or other being are affected/infected with disease, the idea of you is distinct and separate from the disease. People cannot be separated from themselves. Check out this story about extending the plain packaging from cigarettes to food:"Big Mac's make big children."

The distinction is unprecedented. No one else is classed as disease because no one else is subject to such uninterrupted stupidity-which I consider to be a hidden but prominent object of repression.s

Enforced stupidity.

For the sake of their integrity, I'd advise all fat people to consider developing the more arch slightly removed aspect of their personality. Such a notion should have been stopped before it could get off the ground. By any proposer's inner critic or by someone around them saying WTH?

Some are trying to do a "people first," that is, people with 'obesity', which is like "people with thin or slim." 

Being so bestowed, I cannot assert the objective truth. I am not ill. I also cannot assert that I am actually ill, in the fullest sense.

The unprecedented truth is that if you're dis-ease, you cannot become diseased. A disease cannot have a disease. You can only have a related outgrowth of the dis-ease of you.

I'm sure you've heard electronic scooter users-who are fat, are deemed not disabled, but sitting down. These cognitive errors are a product of cognitive errors (delusions) in definition, in construction of terms. And of refusal to stop before a term or even metaphor has utterly exhausted  itself.

Fat/ness fat people has/have become magic! Sort of uberuntermenchenfrauen-the demand is that we must play both-'cos this is about role play after all.  Weak  and sickly but somehow neither and both. Invincible and dead person walking, corrupt but pure and untouched by genetic lottery, hazard, eccentric function, accident or life itself.

Innocent, yet blah, blah, blah you get the picture, maaaaagic.

[It's only a matter of time before people touch a fatty for luck. I'll bet they already are. ]

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.

Shape Backlash

Since the beginning of the internet imprint of fat acceptance, a lot of slim/mer women seem to have struggled with an overwhelming bitch of a fact. Being caught out in their collusion with the official objectification of other women.

This has emphasized the objectification of all women.

They didn't care because they accepted their elevation by weight.  Being crowned with a (slim) halo obviously felt, feels uplifting.

Humans keep falling for this faux superiority elevation act. I suppose the hook is rooted in the optimist bias of our minds. Positive objectification feels positive, even when you are ultimately losing by buying into it as slim/mer people have.  

Witness spectacles such as women calling themselves feminist, insisting fat women we are "unscientific" by referring to the ways our bodies actually work in reality because that's not women's place. Men are the only one's qualified to decide that. How arrogant of us to "forget" [i.e. assume we were just self reporting].

Deviating from established fictions ballasted by male privilege has shown that women don't feel they have any real innate credibility in describing what it is to be human. We're more qualified in testing matters of the intellect like housework and crafts.

This has been one of those sneaky tests for women, one that has shown us up very badly indeed and no, I don't mean being competitive. Invoking banal misogynistic expectations of women under the guise of feminist analysis as distraction ain't cute. This is about women's conviction that reality is something outside us-something we receive, unless its fashion or something.

Proving our own unnecessary levels of disgust and contempt for ourselves as female human beings. Rather than worry about fat/thin shaming or what, let's just try and have the (feminine?) grace to end this farce shall we? It's dragged us all down.

And no, class-male is not to blame for this. This ones on us.

Nevermind, no-one's perfect right? Let she who's without sin cast the first stone and all that.

In the end, we all know: "Putting other women down doesn't lift you up." "Shaming thin bodies isn't helpful to fat women." We can see that now. What have slimz got out of this really? The media aimed at women is deluged with their multiple insecurities. They've not gotten away from their "internalized misogyny" by trying to dump that on lesser status women, it's just stirred it up. So why didn't they say any of this to themselves during their gathering enthusiasm for the crusade? Come on now.

We can see you!!!

And wouldn't you know who's currently fuelling this fire?

T/W: Contains lots of swears. 

 

spot any fat chicks up in this beatcch??!!

Enter Mz Minaj.

This piece of fluff is pretty crude in its erm storyline, featuring what Mz M's "anaconda" does and doesn't like.  But an aspect of its overall message touches on something quite interesting.

First at taste of the nontroversy;

Why are we publicly deemed "skinny BITCHES" if we're naturally smaller than sz 6? Horrified i'm considered a bitch for not being overweight
— NATALIA KILLS (@NataliaKills) August 27, 2014

Minaj actually raps; "Little in the middle but she got much back" "Yeah, this one is for my bitches with a fat ass in the f***ing club." "I said, where my fat ass big bitches in the club."[I'm being delicate tuhday.] Then she says "f*** skinny bitches.."

Inevitably;

Larger framed women need to stop bullying/victimizing girls with small frames, less voluptuous figures as if they're unattractive/anorexic
— NATALIA KILLS (@NataliaKills) August 27, 2014

Ouch to the [thin] anorexics. Minaj is mostly talking about shape and how having one associated with femaleness is totes the best. It's a bit like the idea that slim is the only way to be human, just without the backing of the medical machine.

This kind of shape has been deemed a liability in the feminist era. In the aura of FA, plus Black women's necessary self assertion, she's proclaims the integrity of having an outstanding tush-on a small frame.

One irony is her (supposed) current arch nemesis's most startling physical feature is her very prominent hips, on a small frame. 

Feeling duly inspired she squeals; "fat ass big bitches" and then eff "skinny bitches", managing to prod the genesis of fat phobia in the feminist movement. Before you pseud me.

The way that a female identifying shape; big bust, big butt, big hips, big thighs goes against feminism's much favoured straight up and down/ muscular androgyny. Downplaying anything seen as emphasizing femaleness.

What these lady features have in common is fat mass. This is how "fat" has become such a devastating put down to women. It is the humiliating reminder of woman=lesser. Hence feminist's problem with fat and why women are called fat merely for not being straight up and down AND thin. Whether conscious or not Minaj slips from fat arse to big bitches.

The combination of fat phobic misogyny, plus feminist androgyny means women "feel fat", for being anything more than a gender pranging beanpole. 

I noted the "Buns of Steel" era with confusion, 'til I worked out what was happening. Having an andro, though fat shape myself, I didn't get the hip / butt anguish. Women, many of whom did not even see themselves as feminist let me in on this via their actions.

All kinds of women are in on this shape trouble. Having a female identifying shape has been almost a faux pas for a while. Hip and thigh whittling dominates the slimming and fitness industries. In the era when the un corsetted stomach has been a seat of profound disgust, we have been deluged with slim your hips/ buns of steel, slim/tone those thighs.

I knew it was inevitable that there would be some swingback from such an extreme position. Just never thought FA would help create the spark for it.

Society's Cauldron

Here's how fatness inadvertently shines a light on things others were rather left shady;

Maybe – just maybe – telling women that they're making a mistake by not personally dealing better with public and social problems is just another way of selling – and materially benefiting from – our supposed shortcomings.

I always feel a slight outer body sensation when feminists do this. Say exactly why I expected them to instinctively have baulked at crusade and its construct.

Whatever people think about fatness, choosing food as the route to change weight-then individualising it, is exactly this. Forcing individual fat people to turn around the juggernaut of society's food system. Fat people's insides, mental and physical have been into the internal junction to re-route this against the will of other people's conflicting impulses. Whilst being accorded no social power or influence over either.

Hence the cutting. Cut fat people into acting as a place mat for everyone else.

Whether it's the medical profession's desire to maintain their extent of monopoly over healing via the unsustainably passive patient doctor 'relationship', their interesting professional structure, or the desire for their workspaces-that's you and me-to be "tidier."

Or trying to leave the slimstream out of a life built around restricting and expending calories, despite them choosing that way for us. Sadly, feminism breaks down without a sympathetic frame to draw it on. In this case white middle/upper class women.

Theoretically, that shouldn't be, but this is the reality.

This is the understanding that is sisterhood. Not, brown nosing women, but recognizing the devaluation of any woman via the route of misogyny, devalues all women.

Misogynoir, classism, homophobia, fat phobia etc., ultimately devalue all women, including those feeling insulated by the distance of assumed superiority.

So, what do these feminists really believe? That women should be torn to shreds by having to work out society's systemic grievance-against its own momentum and desires?

Or that they should not.

I think we know.

You Did Not Eat That

Same sureness of attack, same declamatory form. With a splotch of innervating pomposity. Feel your mouth open and the air mis-behaving in the back of your throat!

Calories in/out means fat people eat and thin and slim women don't. Strangely enough, the latter continued to  expect to be spared this. And for a while, they did.

Increasingly, not it seems.

This has been going on for a while. Especially since (anti) anorexia advocates decided to exhort people to confront those who were thin, as if they couldn't just be thin natural. i.e. that thinness was their equilibrium-not their achievement.

In the media, thin women, actresses and the like have felt the need to be seen to eat in public, especially foods that are deemed unlikely to pass the lips of those slender. Even worse pose with said foods.

The pressure is for women to do whatever it takes to be thin/slim yet go at food with gusto. Be easy to be around. I remember a woman complaining that she attracted a man with her figure. But when he experienced how much effort she put into it, which was constant. He left her citing that as a reason.

Oh well.

This is ironically leading to some thin/slim women replicating what was supposed to be the trait of hyperphagia [or compulsive eating/food addiction] secret eating. One of the reasons why I cannot abide the nonsense surrounding HN is that kind of boob.

There's nothing particularly disordered about not wishing to detonate the bomb that the same smeckperts have turned food into by insisting on it as the weight lever. It can get to the point of messing with your digestion.

It's a shame, I thought at least slimz could hold up the flag of uninterrupted normal eating. But it seems, eating neurosis is overunning them too. This is bad news for all women. Slimz helped me regain a sense of what healthy eating really meant after years of hyperphagic induced in part by an unwittingly orthorexic mindset.

To have a charming benign view of food, just by being, maybe no more. 

The title, feels like a companion to, "This is why you're fat." Plus the whole fat as a feeling. Thin is probably deemed one too now. When one is hungry presumably.