what i wanna know is when i get to stop being an ex-fat chick.
i bumped into two people today. these are people i see on, say a monthly basis. my weight stabilised to within about a 7 pound margin a year ago and im still getting 'you look so good! youve lost so much weight! well done!' what am i supposed to say? its supposed to be a compliment, but its so not! for a start, losing weight really isnt fucking rocket science. you just stop eating lard. okay, thats a massive oversimplification, because if it was that easy, i wouldnt have been overweight for so long; noone would be. but still, its like, for fucks sake. i have not discovered the aids vaccine here. i just lost weight. please save your excitement for something worthy! and its so totally buying into this concept that your weight is what you are, and that there is merit in being thin, and none in not being so. and i want to say so, but i cant.
one of the major problems i have always had was seperating my size from my worth as a person. and im finally, slowly, like a tiny little snail on ketamine,
g e t t i n g t h e r e. and this constant, never ending reinforcement of the idea that i have achieved, and done well, and struggled to fit in with the idea that overweight= satan... its playing with my cocking equilibrium.
its lovely hearing that you look good. and i believe it! but when its still, endlessly, tied into the fact that i shed a load- and therefore by extension, looked shit before, lets not forget that bit- its not happening. its an uncompliment, and a really boring topic of conversation, besides. i dont want to talk about my weight any more. how do i politely start saying to people, 'dude. its not really that big a deal. i just. lost. weight'?
[ 17 August 2003: Message edited by: discodamage ]
quote:
Originally posted by discodamage:
how do i politely start saying to people, 'dude. its not really that big a deal. i just. lost. weight'?
You've never really struck me as a woman who has trouble saying what she feels.
see? now i feel bad cos i can remember how many times ive had the exact same conversation im talking about with people on here. its a compliment! i should take it as such! but its a compliment that works on some really fucked up levels, is all.
[ 17 August 2003: Message edited by: discodamage ]
"You look well" ....and normally I'm consumptive?
"You look slim"....ditto porcine?
"You look tanned"...etc
I dunno. I find it hard to take compliments too, but could it be the fact that you're still overly aware of your previous weight?
FWIW, you looked cracking last Friday. Feel free to slap me.
I also got 'do you feel better for it?' - well no, I got fat slowly, I got thinner slowly, I didn't actually feel that bad (health-wise or emotionally, or whatever way I was supposed to feel not-good) about it in the first place, I just thought it'd be better for my long term health if I lost weight. Grr, there is no fucking way of dealing with it with out looking ungracious.
And I'm going for my gym induction tomorrow, lol.
quote:
Originally posted by Carter:I dunno. I find it hard to take compliments too, but could it be the fact that you're still overly aware of your previous weight?
oh, yes, thats certainly part of it. but not all, and this is my point. its only when the connection between past and present is overt that that it fucks me off, and only when its from people who have seen me on a fairly regular basis and keep on and on about it regardless. compliments are nice. compliments that are repeatedly tied into the opposite of what youre complimenting about are... kind of, not.
and yeah, gail, 'do you feel better for it?' well, duh, i can buy nicer clothes, i can walk up hills quicker. am i happier because of it? fuck off. its that whole 'i lost 19 stone and it changed my life!' bullshit. this is completely upside down- the weight loss may be symptomatic or resultant of a change in your life, but it is not the cause of that change. so much weird, pervasive shit that goes on- just because you stop eating chips for six months. am i necessarily happier, fitter, more productive? no. i can buy skirts from boxfresh. yippee.
but really, apart from changing my patterns of conspicous consumption, losing weight has not changed my life a jot. im the same person, just a thinner version. it is the assumption that losing weight = a marked improvement in your being that fucks me off.
quote:
FWIW, you looked cracking last Friday. Feel free to slap me.
thankyou.
edited because i forgot these-
[handbag]and also a smiley in a gym costume.[/handbag]
[ 18 August 2003: Message edited by: discodamage ]
i didnt just slag handbag by the way. you imagined that.
[ 18 August 2003: Message edited by: discodamage ]
Net result: I've lost nine of your English pounds in just three weeks! Me! Amazing! That was me, Barry Bethel etc...
Did anyone say anything at the MoskvaMeat? Did they fuck as like. Not even after they were prompted. In fact, certain people even made "reassuring" comments about how my big fat fucking beergut was "actually quite sexy". 
I can't win!
quote:
Originally posted by ben:
[QB]big fat fucking beergut was "actually quite sexy". [QB]
i'll tell the truth. i hate beerguts. i am currently trying to shed a couple of kilos. due to inactivity due to work related work. and being fed to mr creosote levels.
quote:
Originally posted by Boy Racer:
But our western obession with fat is a societal thing that is all consuming, and until we can get past general notions of uberslim as attractive then we are always going to be faced with this kind of thing.
It's annoying, but hardly the end of the world.
I find it a bit perverse that two people who explicitly lost weight in order to be more attractive, I'm sure partly to yourselves and also to other people, are the two people who are complaining most vocally about the fact that slim = more socially desirable than fat.
You and Disco have perpetuated this idea. Are you saying you were an unwilling victim of a social syndrome, ie. you didn't want to lose weight but felt pressured to do it? I just don't see where you're coming from in losing weight for what seem "cosmetic" reasons, talking about the process in public then suggesting that "society" talks too much about how laudable it is to lose weight? You really seem to be having it both ways -- subscribing to the ideal, then moaning about it.
I am aware that I sound a bit harsh so I'd like to make it clear that I don't mean any personal criticism -- I mean to attack your argument not you.
I'm the sort of fellow who, when he mentions "going on a diet", "doing some exercise" or "losing my belly" to anyone, gets told "you don't have to do any of that, you skinny runt". Being 6'1 with what seems a natural predisposition to slimness, I almost seem to offend people when I try to get in better shape. Luckily for you though, you don't see me slumping topless in a chair with a bicycle inner-tube cushioning and concealing the lower two segments of my nascent six-pack.
So yes, I certainly subscribe to beauty myths and spend a fair amount of time and money trying to cling onto what looks I had in my 20s -- "tae bo", mail-order chest expanders, Anti-Wrinkle Q10 Plus with CoEnzymes plus R.
The difference is between that and the attitude I'm puzzling about and criticising -- and this also includes McAndrew's approach of why do I have to live up to crippling societal conformity, my hair looks gorgeous today I'm such a god-boy -- is that I'm not complaining about the "pressures" that encourage me to make these efforts.
I don't feel I'm being forced to do sit-ups, even though the truth is I wouldn't have thought of it unless I was exposed to Calvin Klein underwear boxes with rock-face stomachs, and fitsters walking around town topless with their abs on parade. I know I'm sacrificing time, or money, to attempt to achieve an effect, and that it's a conscious decision. And to be honest, I'm not at all sorry that these "pressures" do prompt me to put in some effort and make myself look a bit better.
Anyway, I'm off for a manicure -- a "mani", as I saw it called on Will and Grace -- so I think my point is proven.
For the record, I am not talking from a skinny person perspective, or an 'if I did it, so can you' perspective. Weight control (or rather '%Body Mass = fat' control) issues pretty much since the age of ten (I'm 32). I weigh sixteen and a half stone - but have a 34 inch waist with no overhang!
Anyway, to business. I would always seperate the worth of a person from their appearance, but why do we all seem so scared to say that, on balance, FAT IS BAD. That's not 'fat people are bad' but that 'being fat is an inherently bad thing'.
Let's examine the evidence. You are generally putting increased strain on heart, lungs, circulation, joints. It increases your chances of any number of nasties; strokes, coronary heart disease, diabetes, a range of cancers. The list goes on. Being fat reduces your life expectancy and has the power to impact upon your quality of life. It's one of the few western diseases which could be effectively cured (as Disco said, it's not rocket science). Yet, many people will die prematurely today, tomorrow and the day after that because they were too fat for too long.That's nothing short of a tragedy. That's not to ignore the psychological roots of why many people overeat; I genuinely believe that the relationship some overweight (and indeed, chronically underweight) people have with food is akin to the relationship an addict has with drugs, or an alchoholic to booze.
None of the above mitigates the negative treatment and portrayal of the overweight, but I think that's a whole different area.
So, well done on your weight-loss, Disco.
Kovacs, you have missed the point entirely. Which is a shame, as DD had already made it very concisely. The improvement (by current cultural standards) in appearance is often the result of positive changes in a person's well-being (let's not get too psychobabbledetailed here).
Not the result of a desperate struggle to achieve a happy life through weight loss, FFS! Like that really happens ....
As a slightly relevant aside, you know those champion slimmers: the ones who get their pictures in the press? You know how happy they always are? Well, they are happy. They have spend their miserable, chubby lives hating skinny people, and hating themselves, and they think that being slim and sexy is the only key to power. Male photographers & stylists love working those shoots, because the champion slimmers shag them (and everyone else!).
Something like 80% of them get divorced (the slimmers, not the photographers, who are already divorced). Slimming experts like to say this is because hubby couldn't face up the "confident, new" missus. Whereas in reality, he couldn't stand the self-centred, power-crazy unfaithful bitch his cuddly wife had become.
Anyway ... When I was thin, I h8ed the fact that people had so obviously been mainly perceiving me as fat before I lost the weight. Yeah, thanks a lot!!!
It's quite funny now: people say "You look well!"
Which is exactly what my granny used to say when she meant "You look fat!"
DD, assuming you don't want to lumber everyone with a socio-feminist diatribe on the politics of body image, I don't think there's much you can do. Just say thanks & move swiftly on.
However - when people insisted on pursuing the "How did you do it? You've done so well!" line of interrogation, I did tell them I don't think it's interesting. Just do more and eat less.
I may have lost a couple of friends, but if they care that much about that shit, hey. I don't miss them!
Well done, by the way! 
Cxx
(2 kilos down and counting .... in a non-committal way, of course)
quote:
Originally posted by Cherry:
Something like 80% of them get divorced (the slimmers, not the photographers, who are already divorced). Slimming experts like to say this is because hubby couldn't face up the "confident, new" missus. Whereas in reality, he couldn't stand the self-centred, power-crazy unfaithful bitch his cuddly wife had become.
This is a massive generalisation and isn't really reflected in the experience of the people I've met who have been through this.
quote:
Originally posted by ben:
This is a massive generalisation and isn't really reflected in the experience of the people I've met who have been through this.
I should have made it even clearer that I was repeating gossip in order to support the general point about a widespread assumption that [a] being slim makes you happy, and [b] slim=sexy=power for women.
I don't have any empirical evidence of how widespread that assumption is, btw!
I have tediously strong views about all this shit. I'm glad you have happy slimmer friends, but I'd appreciate it if you don't get me started on this particular hobby horse .....
Cx
quote:
Originally posted by Cherry:Kovacs, you have missed the point entirely. Which is a shame, as DD had already made it very concisely.
I'm not convinced that there can be "the point" about something subjective like personal satisfaction related to exercise and weight loss, so it's daft of you to act as though there is one concrete truth here that can be missed or summarised.
quote:
The improvement (by current cultural standards) in appearance is often the result of positive changes in a person's well-being (let's not get too psychobabbledetailed here).
By stopping short of any detailed psychological explanation, probably because you don't have one, you've only managed to produce a rash generalisation.
I didn't say that changes in "well-being" resulted in changes to physical shape, perhaps because I don't know how I would measure "well-being" in other people -- although you seem to have a method.
quote:
Not the result of a desperate struggle to achieve a happy life through weight loss, FFS! Like that really happens ....
You can rail against this idea all you like, but I didn't say it. What I did say was that I presumed Disco and BR had decided to lose weight to be more attractive to themselves and other people. OK, so Boy Racer tells me this wasn't his reason. I accept that I judged wrongly in his case, but that doesn't mean my idea was absurd.
I didn't say people struggled all their lives to lose weight in order to be happy. What I did assume is that people lost weight, in part, because they considered they would be more physically attractive to themselves/to others if they lost weight. This still doesn't seem an off-the-wall theory to me. As I said, it's why I want to lose weight, and it's why I exercise and go through other health & beauty routines -- because I will look better to myself as a result, and because I would like to be as physically attractive as I can reasonably be.
quote:
You know how happy they always are? Well, they are happy. They have spend their miserable, chubby lives hating skinny people, and hating themselves, and they think that being slim and sexy is the only key to power. Male photographers & stylists love working those shoots, because the champion slimmers shag them (and everyone else!).Something like 80% of them get divorced (the slimmers, not the photographers, who are already divorced). Slimming experts like to say this is because hubby couldn't face up the "confident, new" missus. Whereas in reality, he couldn't stand the self-centred, power-crazy unfaithful bitch his cuddly wife had become.
Where
do
you
get
all
this
shit.
[ 18 August 2003: Message edited by: kovacs ]
quote:
Originally posted by kovacs:
finished off
Lol.
Amiably yours soft-lips.
Erm like, where in Catford specifically, and at what times and stuff does the kicking happen. Not that I wish to stalk you or anything but I'm semi-serious about the excercise thing again and wouldn't mind giving this a go?
quote:
Originally posted by kovacs:
Where
do
you
get
all
this
shit.
Hello, Kovacs.
Re: slimmers of the year/ photographers/ etc: I confessed to repeating gossip! Such tales are rife amongst those whose work includes the photo shoots in question. They may be apocryphal, but I believe them.
Re: everything else:
Since I seem to have developed a talent for pissing people off just lately, I want to preface what follows with a clear, unambiguous statement that these are my opinions, based on my experiences. They are not the result of my academic studies, nor do I profess to know what other TMO members think ....
In my opinion, social pressure to fit in with our currently accepted norms of beauty is real and damaging. I believe that pressure to be thin is increasing - and there is, in fact, plenty of evidence of this: anorexia amongst small children has become a cause for concern, and it is now common amongst young men.
As ever, beauty equates to sexiness. If only thin is beautiful, then only thin is sexy. I believe that's balderdash but - in that - I'm well out od step with the majority of our society and the media that inform us.
If only thin is sexy, then being not-thin calls into question a large & important part of a person's worth and identity: their sexuality.
I consider that extremely damaging. It gets worse, however, because being not-thin is also presented to us as a sign of physical malfunction, poor health, disorganisation, incompetence and unintelligence along with other, irrationally detrimental, prejudices. I'm not talking about obesity, which is a health threat - although the other prejudices also apply in spades to obese people.
My view is that to judge a person's worth by their waist size is not only ludicrous but it causes a great deal of unhappiness, psychological damage and, of course, malnutrition and death amongst those who take it all to heart. Therefore, I intensely dislike any such pressures - and, most particularly, the way they are unthinkingly reinforced in fairly normal conversation.
I don't think anyone in our culture(s) is immune to those pressures. Kovacs, I was shocked to hear that you felt you needed to be thinner (because you are already very slim, and you are fit) - that you equate thinner with better-looking, and that you feel a strong desire to "look better" (because you are already good-looking). Your comments lead me to think that you have succumbed heavily to "lookist" ideals!
Any woman who's been down that road will be able to tell you there is no end to it .... once you start believing you need constant improvement, you will always be unhappy with your appearance. As you have attached high importance to your appearance, you will thus never be happy with yourself.
Reading beauty magazines makes you think you're ugly!
I probably need to repeat, here, that I'm not saying obese people don't need to diet, nor that we don't all benefit from basic levels of grooming. I'm talking about a potent form of social tyranny and I'm sure you are aware that I'm far from alone in my concerns.
It doesn't take a genius to work out that I had anorexia in my teens. I managed not to starve myself too badly, but battled with ongoing eating and body-image disorders until my thirties. I'm very proud of having overcome the problem so completely: in order achieve that, I had to do a hell of a lot of hard thinking and to formulate very firm views which go against our accepted cultural norms. I'm trying to express some of those views, concisely, here.
By the time I shifted the last of my (IMO) distorted ideas, I was 3 stone above my preferred weight. Over the next year - this is important - I lost the extra weight and became much fitter. This was not the result of dieting. It was the result of much-improved self-esteem and confidence.
The last paragraph is the start of the psychobabbledetail that you suppose I don't know anything about. I could go on for hours and this posts's already too long!
My point, for which I will not apologise, is that being thin doesn't make you happy! People think it does, but that is a lie they have been brainwashed into believing.
On the other hand, being happy does improve your personal confidence. The happier you are the better you will look, the better your body will function and so, if you needed to lose weight, you probably will.
I hope that clarifies things somewhat. My previous post was a bit of a burble, for which I apologise, but I don't think I deserved that amount of derision.
Cheers.
Cherry
I do think I have subscribed to lookist ideals with regard to my own appearance. However, this doesn't mean I can never be happy, I don't think. Just because you'd always like to improve something in some way, doesn't mean you're not happy. My parents, for instance, seem to take a great deal of pleasure in moving into houses, doing them up over five years and then moving out just when they've got it perfect. It's fun and pleasurable to feel you are improving something, surely? Yes, it does mean that I don't feel I'm physically "perfect", but does anyone feel this?
quote:
Originally posted by kovacs:
I don't feel I'm physically "perfect", but does anyone feel this?
Just a quick one - thanks for the reply, K - I feel the concept of good enough is sorely undervalued in our society!
It's a very useful way to be happy .... Just be good enough.
Next time your parents are bored, could you send 'em round here to finish this place off please? It's nowhere near good enough!
C 
I'm not aiming this at anyone in particular you understand, its just something that personally I find is too often misunderstood/overlooked/whatever, by those who rail against the unreasonable body-image ideals we, as a society, seem to set ourselves..
hope that made sense...
Am I the only person in this country who, whenever he chooses to buy a glossy magazine packed with aspirational images, isn't immediately afflicted with a poisonous sweat of self-loathing? I just don't accept this thing of we the public being spongelike, passive consumers having our personalities warped by the bollocks we see in magazines.
Tyranny? What the hell is tyrannical about walking into WHSmith and picking up a copy of Vogue? I think a bit of perspective is needed. No-one's getting shot in the back of the head after a kangaroo trial here - keep on abusing words in this manner and eventually they start to haemorrhage meaning.
The impulse to pay a compliment is generally a pretty innocent and well-meaning one - not a steely-eyed reinforcement of what The Man wants us all to think. Having myself recently received a public dressing-down for making as vile and creepy an insinuation as "You look great! You've lost weight, haven't you?", I'm coming to the conclusion that if a simple compliment is going to cause so much wailing and gnashing it probably isn't worth the hassle of making it.
quote:
Originally posted by Physic:
I don't go to the gym because I feel I have to, I don't watch my beer intake because I have to, I do it because I want to look after my body ...hope that made sense...
Physic, you've just described a happy man who likes his body
quote:
Originally posted by ben:
Women!Am I the only person in this country who, whenever he chooses to buy a glossy magazine packed with aspirational images, isn't immediately afflicted with a poisonous sweat of self-loathing?
I'll ignore your sexist, cross smiley because you probably have pmt.
quote:
What the hell is tyrannical about walking into WHSmith and picking up a copy of Vogue?
It's not picking up a magazine that causes problems: it's an unrelenting stream of images & exhortations. You know that's what I was talking about, I'm sure.
quote:
The impulse to pay a compliment is generally a pretty innocent and well-meaning one - not a steely-eyed reinforcement of what The Man wants us all to think.
quote:
Having myself recently received a public dressing-down for making as vile and creepy an insinuation as "You look great! You've lost weight, haven't you?"
Well, how rude to tell you off in public.
I retain a slender hope that my post/s might help indicate why "You look great!" is a more effective compliment without the rider.
How am I doing? Should I give up?
quote:
I'm coming to the conclusion that if a simple compliment is going to cause so much wailing and gnashing it probably isn't worth the hassle of making it.
Just stop at "You look great!"
It might be worth noting that until quite recently .... ummm, while I was growing up, so maybe not that recently! .... it was considered very poor manners to comment on a person's physicality at all. You could say they looked good, or well, or that a garment suited them. But nothing specific. I sometimes wish we would go back to that - people were far less neurotic about appearances then.
Cx
Ben, I hope I have made sense.
quote:
Originally posted by Cherry:
It's a very useful way to be happy .... Just be good enough.
Well, we can't generalise, because I'm happy when I make some useful progress towards what I think is improvement on imperfection. Like today I walked for 90 mins, had a manicure and did an hour of that now-notorious "tae bo". I still think I've got a cushion of fat but I feel happy that I did those things.
quote:
Originally posted by kovacs:
I still think I've got a cushion of fat but I feel happy
The "good enough" thing is a worthwhile thought, though. My belief (gosh, I'm prefacing like mad in this thread! Shows it's a thorny topic - maybe) is that human nature always drives us to improve ... however we perceive improvement. As a result, we will continue to improve, in our own ways, along our own paths, throughout our lives.
That's a given. Another of my beliefs (and prefaces!) is that we have a tendency to be driven by ideals imposed on us from outside sources. It's relatively easy to capitalise on the natural human urge towards self-improvement by introducing a construct that claims to offer a ready route to ... perfection. I'd bet my life that you've made a similar comment in a thread about self-improvement books, or some such.
To revive the concept of "good enough" is a fantastic way to regain your self confidence, critical faculties and your chosen personal ideals of improvement.
This has been said over and over by many of the more durable religions, philosophers et al. I believe that's so because it's fundamental common sense!
Kovacs, how do you feel about collaborating on a book called "You're good enough!" ?
[need a dollar-sign smiley here]
Cx
edited because being a great typist was never on my list of personal objectives 
[ 18 August 2003: Message edited by: Cherry ]
quote:
Originally posted by Cherry:
Aw, babes!!!!!
Misquote! I didn't say "I feel happy" ie. with my "cushion of fat"; I was happy to have done something I could see as improvement.
quote:
To revive the concept of "good enough" is a fantastic way to regain your self confidence, critical faculties and your chosen personal ideals of improvement.This has been said over and over by many of the more durable religions, philosophers et al. I believe that's so because it's fundamental common sense!
It's a fantastic way to excuse yourself for leaving everything the way it is, surely? Let's visit some everyday examples.
1. The Homeowner. This wall needs repainting. Ah, no, it's good enough for me! I'll leave it looking like damp dogshit.
2. The Student. This essay's a bit rough, it could use a redraft. Nope, it's good enough! I'll go and have a wank over my PS2.
3. The Kovacs. I do sit-ups and can't see my six-pack for fat. Still, that's good enough! I'll forget exercise and bury my face in a bowl of Jaffa Cakes.
quote:
Kovacs, how do you feel about collaborating on a book called "You're good enough!" ?
I don't think I'm good enough for your book, Cherry.
As for the rest - the good-enough stuff:
That's black-and-white thinking. The assumption there is only Good and Bad. Frexample:
1. A hacky, damp & peeling wall isn't good enough for anyone who values their surroundings. A fixed, but imperfectly painted wall may well be good enough. It's easy to become obsessed by colour variations, but a happy person will choose a suitable shade & be happy with it .... that's good enough.
2. Essay's a bit rough - needs a rewrite (it's not good enough!). Might have to sacrifice a wank over the PS2, never mind, I can do that on Thursday.
3. Kovacian self-doubt. There is no way you're fat!
If I thought you were trying to reject my ideas because they threaten your personal dependence on an "I'm not good enough" precept, I'd be as flattered as hell. I would also consider it worth persisting, because I hate to see perfectly good people tearing themselves down.
But I dunno.
quote:
I don't think I'm good enough for your book, Cherry.
Whichever; if in doubt, I'll always go for the positive viewpoint. You're good enough. Ask Modge; she should know!
G'night or g'day!
Cx
[ 19 August 2003: Message edited by: Cherry ]
I *do* remember our conversation about the countryside, tho'.
quote:
Originally posted by kovacs:
Let's do this by email when you give me your email address.
You about Kovacs so I can do this quickly and then delete, or could you just give me yours?
quote:
Originally posted by Cherry:
The impulse to pay a compliment is innocent & well-meant, yes. My -er, proposal is as follows: "You've lost weight!" is thought to be, in itself, a compliment. That indicates that weight loss is desirable (and was, at least by implication, necessary in the individual case). Also that weight loss is a laudable achievement in itself. I query the automatic assumption that weight loss is all that bloody clever, and - even more so - that thinness is a highly desirable target.
It's an assumption, certainly - but the sentiment behind "you've lost weight" is not "well done for conforming to our fucked-up norms of thinness". It comes from the fact that when - in our society - most people lose weight it's as a result of a conscious decision to do something about a state of affairs they aren't particularly happy with.
The comment is made in admiration for someone having the determination and self-discipline to achieve their goal - or make progress towards it - in a culture where most work is sedentary and a lot of the food is jam-packed with sugar, fat, salt etc etc... powerful factors mitigating against a person eating and living healthily.
I don't buy your scenario of individuals being shoved around helplessly by societal pressures - people do have the capacity to make choices for themselves. Similarly, I don't think the issue of body image can be explained entirely in terms of the operation of - and resentment felt against - a form of social tyranny when a lot of what's at stake here is old fashioned stuff like wounded vanity.
quote:
Originally posted by Boy Racer:
You about Kovacs
I'm about.
quote:
Originally posted by Astromariner:
I've left my email in several places on TMO, in the hope that I might get some interesting net-stalkers, wanting me to send them my smalls, and such: no-one seemed that interested, sadly.
It's depressing isn't it? I've done the same, to no avail. Shall we swap emails and just send each other sinister messages? Then we could post on Handbag saying OMG! I've got An Internet Stalker! and judging by the who gets the most hysterical reactions we can guage how successful our individual campaigns have been.
forgot to put my own email: astromariner@hotmail.com. Let's stalk.
[ 19 August 2003: Message edited by: Astromariner ]
Now deleted
I cannot check it at work however, so won't see it until later this afternoon.
Info I'd like about the Tae-bo stuff is when, where, and how often is it on?
[ 19 August 2003: Message edited by: Boy Racer ]
quote:
It's an assumption, certainly - but the sentiment behind "you've lost weight" is not "well done for conforming to our fucked-up norms of thinness". It comes from the fact that when - in our society - most people lose weight it's as a result of a conscious decision to do something about a state of affairs they aren't particularly happy with.The comment is made in admiration for someone having the determination and self-discipline to achieve their goal - or make progress towards it - in a culture where most work is sedentary and a lot of the food is jam-packed with sugar, fat, salt etc etc... powerful factors mitigating against a person eating and living healthily.
I just spent about half an hour trying to write exactly what Ben said.
So, what Ben said.
At the moment I am restricted to shopping in either Evans or M&S. I don't actually give two shits how big or small I am (for the record I'm a 15st something, size 20), I'd just really, really like to be able to buy nice clothes.
It just - I don't know... if I close my eyes and repeat the words you've just typed... it's almost as if I'm gently touching the tender area under your jaw, where the pulse beats close to surface of the skin - or perhaps brushing the very tips of my fingers against an earlobe as I push back a stray lock of hair.
Hope this helps.
quote:
Originally posted by ben:
In fact, certain people even made "reassuring" comments about how my big fat fucking beergut was "actually quite sexy".
Did I say this? I'm writing an article about Fat People at this very second and I need to know right now.
quote:
Originally posted by London:
Did I say this?
Yes - you even made a little "framing" motion with your hands, as though measuring its diameter first from one side to the other, then from top to bottom.
quote:
Originally posted by ben:
Sidney, I always touch your name - you know, whenever it appears on a thread?It just - I don't know... if I close my eyes and repeat the words you've just typed... it's almost as if I'm gently touching the tender area under your jaw, where the pulse beats close to surface of the skin - or perhaps brushing the very tips of my fingers against an earlobe as I push back a stray lock of hair.
Hope this helps.
That'll do.
quote:
Originally posted by ben:
The comment is made in admiration for someone having the determination and self-discipline to achieve their goal - or make progress towards it
Sure, if you know they've committed to a diet and are keen to report on their progress.
If you're assuming that's the scenario, though, then - to me - it does have overtones of "well done for conforming to our fucked-up norms of thinness".
quote:
I don't buy your scenario of individuals being shoved around helplessly by societal pressures - people do have the capacity to make choices for themselves. Similarly, I don't think the issue of body image can be explained entirely in terms of the operation of - and resentment felt against - a form of social tyranny when a lot of what's at stake here is old fashioned stuff like wounded vanity.
That these pressures exist is proven, for me, by the facts that anorexia is on the increase; that it now affects young children; that diet clinics, liposuction and other invasive treatments are booming business, and even the fact that you can't buy nice clothes in a size 20! (Unless you buy them in America, I'm told, Choc.)
And - surely body size is only a matter of vanity if you have already bought into the whole thin-is-beautiful ideal?
Anyway. I don't want to become known as Ben's Fat Stalker, so I'd better leave it now!
Cheers,
Cx
quote:
Originally posted by ben:
Yes - you even made a little "framing" motion with your hands, as though measuring its diameter first from one side to the other, then from top to bottom.
Rubby tummy?
quote:
Originally posted by Cherry:
Well, evidently you don't buy into it!That these pressures exist is proven, for me, by the facts that anorexia is on the increase; that it now affects young children; that diet clinics, liposuction and other invasive treatments are booming business, and even the fact that you can't buy nice clothes in a size 20! (Unless you buy them in America, I'm told, Choc.)
You're yoking together a bunch of diverse things that I'm not sure are really too closely related. The increase in anorexia - particularly among children - is closely related to changes in eating habits and attitudes to food, not solely an issue of "body image". All of this stuff is mixed up with how you were brought up and how you choose to live your life now - not just the propaganda that's being blasted into your head by the media.
Liposuction etc is more a question of people wanting to spend their money on stupid and inessential crap; making out that these people are "victims" of societal pressure devalues the concept of the victim, in my view.
I'm not saying that "pressures" of some description don't exist - I just can't accept that we're as much at their mercy as fallen leaves in a tornado.
quote:
Originally posted by Cherry:
Yes .... It's well-meant!
Sure, if you know they've committed to a diet and are keen to report on their progress.If you're assuming that's the scenario, though, then - to me - it does have overtones of "well done for conforming to our fucked-up norms of thinness".
These "overtones" are in your head!!!
Men - never pay a woman a compliment! They will only twist it round to prove that you're a child abuser.
quote:
Originally posted by ben:
You're yoking together a bunch of diverse things that I'm not sure are really too closely related. The increase in anorexia - particularly among children - is closely related to changes in eating habits and attitudes to food, not solely an issue of "body image". All of this stuff is mixed up with how you were brought up and how you choose to live your life now - not just the propaganda that's being blasted into your head by the media.
quote:
Liposuction etc is more a question of people wanting to spend their money on stupid and inessential crap
quote:Much as I love your similie, I fear we pretty much are - unless, perhaps, we're lucky enough to have developed rock-solid powers of independent thought at an early age.
I'm not saying that "pressures" of some description don't exist - I just can't accept that we're as much at their mercy as fallen leaves in a tornado.
As I said, I fell prey to all that bollocks myself and so I have a vested interest in the topic. It's also quite likely that, as a man, you have felt less "pressured" to buy into the -er, beauty myth. I missed your tummy comment so I don't know what that was all about, but the fact you can find part of your own body repulsive suggests you're not completely immune 
It saddens me that so many of us dislike ourselves in this way.
Love from your fat stalker!
(Better watch that, or it'll be my tag ...)
Cx
[edited for UBB and misquoting Ben]
[ 19 August 2003: Message edited by: Cherry ]
quote:
Originally posted by Harlequin:
Men - never pay a woman a compliment! They will only twist it round to prove that you're a child abuser.
quote:
Originally posted by discodamage:
okay. so i lost like, 2 stone in weight last year. last year i was fat. this year i am not fat. yay me.what i wanna know is when i get to stop being an ex-fat chick.
I don't know much about weight, imperial or metric, but can I just clear this up: is 2 stone the difference between "fat" and "not fat" for most people? I didn't think it was a huge amount. It would seem plausibly the difference between overweight and the right weight, but does it shift you into a different binary category like this?
edit to elaborate. Like, 9 stone is quite average and "slim" for women, isn't it? Is 11 stone "fat", then?
[ 19 August 2003: Message edited by: kovacs ]
quote:
Originally posted by London:
I'm writing an article about Fat People at this very second and I need to know right now.
Care to expand? I saw that you were looking for 'facts and anecdotes' but wasn't sure what angle you were coming from...
quote:
Originally posted by Cherry:
Ben, anorexia is a mental illness, not an eating habit or an attitude to food!
Isn't it a mental illness related to eating habits and attitudes to food, then?
quote:
Originally posted by Kovacs:
...is 2 stone the difference between "fat" and "not fat" for most people?
No, it's more about percentage, surely? Two stone for me would be the difference between very fat and fat.
Personally, I've never realy looked at it in terms of weight, rather body shape.
quote:
Originally posted by discodamage:
three stone is the diffence between fat and not-fat. size 18 to size a size 10.
I didn't realise that. It seems a lot in those terms.
quote:
Originally posted by kovacs:
Isn't it a mental illness related to eating habits and attitudes to food, then?
Anorexia is related to eating food - or, more precisely, to not eating food! - in as much as starving is the way to control your body size and, some say, your environment.
It is not a dietary quirk, and it's not about food. It's about perceived body shape. If you ask someone to show you the width of their hips by holding their hands apart, most people will get it right or slightly underestimate. Most anorexics will overestimate, often by several inches.
I read an interview, earlier today, with the girl who plays Moe in East Enders. She developed anorexia at the age of nine, having decided that "thin=successful". At 23, she weighed six stone. [Information: 6 stone is very very thin]. She bought kids' clothes, a size 6 being too large for her, and her periods stopped for two years.
Admittedly, actresses are subject to even more appearance-related pressure than most of us, but I feel her story makes the point fairly well. Quote: "thin=successful".
It's weird, all right I got down to six and a half stone (I'm 5'8"), no periods for a year - and people kept complimenting me on how slim I was!
Bonkers.
Heh, I don't have that problem now ....
AG
[edited for qualifiers & typos]
[ 19 August 2003: Message edited by: Cherry ]
My sister can't buy the clothes that she likes at the Gap because they don't sell her size. Well, why not? Not everyone is a perfect size 8 (i've no idea what that is on your side of the pond).
When I was about 15, runway models were all a size 8, now models have to be a size 0-2. Why? Apparently one designer said it was so that the clothes looked like they were still on the hanger. That's sick. So, if you have these models who are all a size 1, then all the Hollywood actresses want to be that size as well, because otherwise they won't get the designers dresses for whatever gala they're going to. Then you have all the young girls watching tv or reading magazines who see these other women who are barely there and they want to emulate them. It drives me nuts.
People are all different sizes. Thats just the way the world is. But the problem with society is the fact that skinny = beautiful. And it doesn't always. Sure, being obese is bad for you, so you lose weight and eat healthier, but you don't have to be a toothpick. Super skinny (when it's unnatural) isn't healthy either. I think women look much more beautiful when they don't look like a stick figure, but everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
As for the stalking thing. No one stalks me either. I can stalk you guys if you want to stalk me?
Damo: don't you owe me a disc as well? or you can wait til you move to this side of the pond.
Speaking of which: froopy, now we can maybe have a 3 person meet
edit: and you know what else? even after losing 10lbs and keeping it off, i'd still like to lose about 20lbs.
[ 19 August 2003: Message edited by: Amy ]
quote:
Originally posted by Amy:
I have to agree with CB, if you are a certain weight, you're definitely not going to fit into certain things, even if you're not nec. fat. I know that when i was at my heaviest, I couldn't wear certain stores clothes. Now I can. (Although, I still have problems with button down shirts. Why do they always open inbetween buttons? If you buy a larger shirt, it's too big everywhere else. Drives me mad)
Hola Amy!
Button-down shirts do that to me too: It's a right bugger. I remember a very very early post of mine which commiserated with you about your mammary issues: I have similarly annoying boobs, which I detest and loathe, and which don't match up with the rest of me, and which I might have hacked off by a medically qualified person, if I can save up the several thousand pounds needed to make this so.
Mr A is trying to be supportive and open-minded about the idea, but he's obviously a bit alarmed by it. I don't blame him; I'm a bit alarmed myself. I mean, what sort of choice is that? Comedy breasts, or invasive 4 hour surgery and post-operative pain for three months, repositioned nipples (yes, actually removed and then stitched back on somewhere else) and potentially massive and life-long scars.
Otherwise, I am starting to quite like my body, and be comfortable with the way I look: a difficult and oddly shaped concept for me. I've been doing lots of exercise during the last few months, and have started to notice lean bits where once there was wobble; clean lines where once my silhouette resembled the outside of a cartoon cloud. I like feeling fit. I like endorphins: they are free.
I know an element of justification and explanation is probably asked for when you go private: but I suspect there's more of a show-me-the-money mentality, whereby I can be wooshed in, deliver a 30 second precis of my predicament, and be in and out of the operating theatre before you can say string bikini.
Edit to avoid sounding foreign.
[ 19 August 2003: Message edited by: Astromariner ]
quote:
Originally posted by Cherry:
...anorexia is a mental illness, not an eating habit or an attitude to food! People die of it. It is totally about body image. Anorexics look at their skinny ribs and see fat.
I think this is a little general. You are right that anorexia is a mental illness, but I think to say that it is entirely about body image is wrong. Yes, some anorexia sufferers look at their bodies and see fat where there isn't, but this is a form of body dysmorphia, which is something slightly different, so far as I understand it. I think that something that is often not considered is that anorexia (and bulimia) are forms of control. For young (interestingly middle class) girls especially, who may feel that they have a fair amount of pressure and expectations laid upon them, eating becomes one thing that they are able to control, and while they may not start off with the intention of developing an eating disorder, the pleasure gained from the sense of self-control can often be a factor in these types of illnesses.
[ 19 August 2003: Message edited by: Modge ]
I did say that - er, somewhere shortly after the bit you quoted. Can't say I'd choose "pleasure" as the appropriate word, but, while I was diligently sticking to 400 calories a day max and fucking up my reproductive system for ever, I felt strangely clean. Well, I suppose a really sick person could say I was on a year-long fast
I felt it necessary to generalise. Eating/body-dysmorphic disorders are poorly understood - in general - and I was trying my damnedest to explain things in reasonably appropriate terms.
Maybe I laboured the point somewhat(!), having been very successfully goaded. I'm inexpressibly grateful to Amy for having posted a normal & unhysterical version of what I've been trying to say!
Phew.
I'll stalk you, if you like. I'll send you chips & milky Starbucks! And all those new-fangled Galaxy bars
Cx
PS: I have that button problem, too, but it's not caused by huge tits Bloody swimmer's back, grr!
[edited: got my stalking the wrong way round! No natural talent for it, clearly.]
[ 20 August 2003: Message edited by: Cherry ]
Apologies if this advice is unwelcome / intrusive / obvious / gay / all of the above.
It's not really just a question of clothes, although that is a part of it, as is the back pain; it's more about feeling fundamentally at odds with the way I look. It took a long time for me to go from actively loathing my body to the sort of benign ambivalence I feel about it now, but I've always felt like my breasts were alien things (da! da! attack of the killer mammaries) that, since they magically appeared in the space of a single week when I was 15, have just felt wrong.
quote:
Originally posted by ben:
especially when compared to the one garment you're going to be wearing 24/7 for the rest of your life and which I'd urge you to think twice about getting altered in the way you're planning.
Surely if you have to wear a garment for the rest of your life, that's exactly why you'd want it to feel "right" for you. I can certainly...well, not empathise I suppose as I'm not a woman, but see why Astro is saying what she is, and I don't think it's such a bad idea if she can change something that she feels so unhappy about.
quote:
Originally posted by Boy Racer:
It seems quite sad to me that you find any part of your body, especially something as part of you as your breasts Astro, as wrong. It's not like they're a beer gut/love handles.
If you had, for example carpal tunnel syndrome in your hands, and surgery could relieve pain and give you a change at relatively normal use of your hand, I assume the majority of people would choose to have the surgery.
In a similar fashion, many people who actually go through with a breast reduction, don't do it just because they would like to fit into smaller clothes. It is a medical procedure, often done to reduced strain on shoulders, neck and back.
Like you say, its not like having a beer gut/love handles, more like the proverbial millstone.
[ 20 August 2003: Message edited by: Boy Racer ]
It’s a respectable theory that socialising is one of our species strategies for survival, and the urge to conform is one of the impulses that the species is hard-wired for. That isn’t to say we can’t then apply our intellect to any such impulses and make alternative decisions; assuming we recognise when we are being influenced. It is to say that that the two forces are there in human nature and asserting such influence happens does not mean that either one holds a simplistic and reductive view of human nature, or that people who are wittingly or otherwise influenced by social pressures, are weak-minded.
As people have said here, though, not every decision about looking good or feeling good with your body is made under undue influence, and influenced or not, surely its a bit 'thought-police' to question the right of a compis mentis adult to do with their body what they wish.
quote:
Originally posted by ziggy:
As people have said here, though, not every decision about looking good or feeling good with your body is made under undue influence, and influenced or not, surely its a bit 'thought-police' to question the right of a compis mentis adult to do with their body what they wish.
Where exactly was anyone doing this?
quote:
Originally posted by ziggy:
It is a well accepted fact that peoples’ body image is affected by media representations, surely? What is the advertising industry about if not about that?
"Accepted facts" should perhaps be questioned. Certainly, the idea that body image is "affected" by "media representations" is too broad to be very meaningful. It's like saying that viewers are "affected" by "media violence". How are they affected, what do you mean by the category "media representations" or "violence" -- this contains any number of variations, all of which will be received and responded to differently by people in different social categories and different contexts, usw.
Of course, this is opening up issues that take media scholars books to debate, and we do have to have simpler, shorter formulae for purposes such as this: it would be ridiculous to demand that everyone who talked about media and audience was well-read in the history of such debates.
Still, I don't think "people are affected by media representations" is specific enough to be useful. As for advertising, arguably its purpose is to encourage the consumer to choose between brands, not to create a need that was absolutely not there before. Although I'm sure such a need has been encouraged and prompted by advertising at certain points, eg. perhaps Lifebuoy soap and "B.O." I'm not sure if B.O. was a widely-used term before that, or if it was something people worried unduly about.
Anyway, to summarise, I don't think we can generalise about the extent to which different people are affected by the multitude of very different "media representations" in a diverse range of different social contexts.
quote:
Originally posted by ziggy:
It is a well accepted fact that peoples’ body image is affected by media representations, surely? What is the advertising industry about if not about that?
1) I think it's a common myth perpetuated by people looking for someone else to blame for problems. The fact that a number of people here have dismissed that idea rather undoes the possibility that it's a commonly accepted fact.
2) What else is the advertising industry for? How about generating awareness of products so that people can make a decision. Obviously they use semiotic devices to suggest "Buy this car and your life will be full of adventure", but only the worst kind of deluded spastic would actually believe these claims. So. In answer to your question advertising is about raising awareness of a product or a brand.
quote:
Originally posted by Thorn Davis:
In answer to your question advertising is about raising awareness of a product or a brand.
I'm glad you said that.
After I posted I thought of many examples of research indicating that "people" are "affected" by "media representations", but the fact remains that these are specific studies of specific people affected in specific ways by specific media representations. So although the notion of "affect" is true, it doesn't mean much in itself unless you focus on specific examples. It's like saying "people are affected by life-incidents".
Thought-police wasn’t the best expression to use, but I couldn’t think of another term. I hope I suggested it tentatively as I meant is as a comment, not a personal accusation against anyone in particular. I was trying to take the point beyond the personal to a more general point.
What crossed my mind is that any comments that suggest the person doesn’t need a cosmetic operation automatically suggests some sort of value judgement. I was thinking of the general ideas behind how we see our bodies and what we do to them. People often make a distinction between need and want in discussing decisions about changes to our bodies. That distinction surely implies a form of value judgement?
If you are thinking I was getting at you, I have to say your post made it clear you were not saying anything nasty or pejorative to Astromariner. OK?
quote:
Originally posted by ziggy:
Thought-police wasn’t the best expression to use, but I couldn’t think of another term. I hope I suggested it tentatively as I meant is as a comment, not a personal accusation against anyone in particular. I was trying to take the point beyond the personal to a more general point.What crossed my mind is that any comments that suggest the person doesn’t need a cosmetic operation automatically suggests some sort of value judgement.
Ziggy you have won - I am so angry now that it is impossible for me to post anything coherent. Well done.
quote:
Originally posted by kovacs:
"Accepted facts" should perhaps be questioned. Certainly, the idea that body image is "affected" by "media representations" is too broad to be very meaningful. It's like saying that viewers are "affected" by "media violence". How are they affected, what do you mean by the category "media representations" or "violence" -- this contains any number of variations, all of which will be received and responded to differently by people in different social categories and different contexts, usw.Of course, this is opening up issues that take media scholars books to debate, and we do have to have simpler, shorter formulae for purposes such as this: it would be ridiculous to demand that everyone who talked about media and audience was well-read in the history of such debates.
Still, I don't think "people are affected by media representations" is specific enough to be useful. As for advertising, arguably its purpose is to encourage the consumer to choose between brands, not to create a need that was absolutely not there before. Although I'm sure such a need has been encouraged and prompted by advertising at certain points, eg. perhaps Lifebuoy soap and "B.O." I'm not sure if B.O. was a widely-used term before that, or if it was something people worried unduly about.
Anyway, to summarise, I don't think we can generalise about the extent to which different people are affected by the multitude of very different "media representations" in a diverse range of different social contexts.
I didn’t express myself overly clearly. If I edited the post I would rewrite it to make it more general and not ‘body image’ specifically. But having said that, I personally do believe that body image is affected by media images, along with other sources, too, of course (though media is now almost a blanket term for everything we read and here as we move about’). I do not believe that the media, as if it is some sort of autonomous entity, is responsible for the sins of the world, by any means. I cannot quote you my sources, but I have read a fair bit about it over the years; albeit in popular science magazines and popular physiology books, which I know are flawed and can gloss data to their own needs.
However, the general tenor of what I have read is that advertising does influence people; that it is a bit more than helping people make informed choices between brands. As to the ‘create a need’, again I cannot remember exactly what I read on that, but product placement and that business of repeating and using new names until they become so familiar that punters think they have always known that brand, is a practice of advertisers, which would imply they expect it to work since they are spending millions on doing it.
I also know that studies over the last few decades have shown that advertising is not as powerful as it was once thought to be, and as the population becomes ever more sophisticated and knowledgeable, its influence is diminishing. But I used just that one area of the media as an example that suggested people are influenced by what they see around them to some extent and that it can’t be dismissed out of hand.
I think violence is a different issue. Whilst I recall reading studies which suggested real evidence of the influence of advertising; I have to say that I what I have read about the media and violence has always pointed out that there is no evidence that stands up either for or against its influence.
I have probably reached the limit of my knowledge about this now, as gleaned from popular science. I also know that your understanding of the media, at least in some facets, is going to be very much more informed and developed than mine. I am happy to learn more about it; especially as a lot of my reading is outdated.
Also my common sense leads me to agree that we cannot move from a generalised acceptance that some influence is exerted over people by the media to specifics about who and by what and by how much. But I wanted to make the point that if some instances of the media can have a demonstrable influence, then perhaps we shouldn’t dismiss such external influences out of hand in the discussion about body image.
quote:
Originally posted by ben:
Ziggy you have won - I am so angry now that it is impossible for me to post anything coherent. Well done.
Yup. I'm out too, now.
quote:
Originally posted by Thorn Davis:
1) I think it's a common myth perpetuated by people looking for someone else to blame for problems. The fact that a number of people here have dismissed that idea rather undoes the possibility that it's a commonly accepted fact.
I agree that it is very easy to find an ‘excuse’ for poor behaviour and bad decisions and so avoid responsibility for one’s own actions, and that it does seem a very modern trend to do so. It is not helped by the growth in popular psychology which gives people the vocabulary and apparent justification to carry on making excuses for themselves.
Having said that, there are some clear cases, such as teenage anorexia, where it would be unjust to accuse someone that young of deliberately and consciously looking to avoid responsibility for their own actions.
I wonder, though, whether admitting someone has been influenced by something into unwise/poor behaviour means we are accepting that they don’t have to do anything about it, or grow out of it? The two are not exclusive. When I say I agree that poor body image can be influenced by continued representations of slim as beautiful; that does not mean I am also saying the people concerned don’t have to take responsibility at some point for themselves and the way they feel.
I also wouldn’t use the word victim, which was mentioned elsewhere, for this. I think it makes people sound powerless and just increases the sense they don’t have to do anything about any of it.
quote:
Originally posted by ziggy:
there are some clear cases, such as teenage anorexia, where it would be unjust to accuse someone that young of deliberately and consciously looking to avoid responsibility for their own actions.
I don't think anyone's saying that about anoroxics - teenage or adult.
Modge has made some good points about the "control" element of the disorder and the way that food plays into the anorexic's sense of personal agency. In other words, for many sufferers, the disorder is a way of "taking responsibility" - not of their body (in accordance with the whims of culture), but over their entire lives.
My personal comment to you was: I have to say your post made it clear you were not saying anything nasty or pejorative to Astromariner.
I meant it.
I also meant that I wasn’t going to get into a slanging match.
Thorn, truly, it’s the way I said it. I wasn’t picking on anyone.
I wasn’t suggesting that anyone here personally was making a value judgement, just that it is always implied, in the nature of things, when anyone comments about someone else’s body or decisions they are making about their bodies. I think it is because we are such a body-obsessed society it is hard not to imply something. Someone else made a similar point in the discussion about saying someone looked good and whether to mention weight or not. They were just a lot clearer than I was.
I apologise for my clumsy way of putting things and I repeat, I WAS NOT SAYING THAT ANYONE HERE WAS PERSONALLY MAKING A NEGATIVE VALUE JUDGEMENT.
quote:
Originally posted by Lauren:
I don't think anyone's saying that about anoroxics - teenage or adult.Modge has made some good points about the "control" element of the disorder and the way that food plays into the anorexic's sense of personal agency. In other words, for many sufferers, the disorder is a way of "taking responsibility" - not of their body (in accordance with the whims of culture), but over their entire lives.
The general point, if I read it right, seemed to be that claims such as external influence are used as an excuse to avoid responsibility for one's own actions. I disagreed that such a generalisation stands up across the board and used teenage anorexics as an example to suggest that that is not always the case because in their case, it very obviously isn't, if you see what I mean.
I have also read about the control element in anorexia; perhaps the outside influence of the slim body-image may be that it prompts these girls to use eating and slimness as their control mechanism?
That is a genuine question as I have no direct experience.
Edited for clarity (I hope!!)
[ 20 August 2003: Message edited by: ziggy ]
I meant the rest of it, where I suggested excercising the region might help reduce size without resorting to an actual reduction and then went on to mention the fact that an ex of mine ex had had a reduction and was happy with the results. I didn't mention that she had it for precisely the reasons you state, back and shoulder pain and that she felt they got in her way, which perhaps I should have.
My concern was not that Astro wanted to have the op for these reasons but that she felt an intrinsic part of her anatomy was "wrong".
I thought i's made that clear.
Also I think ben's stuff about your name was, like, a joke. And quite a funny one I thought.
Ziggy, I think your points about the influence of media representations of the female form are valid, particularly with regard in anorexia, or other eating disorders such as bulimia, which are indictative of the wider culture.
I think these are the more extreme examples of the attitudes that prevade a western culture obsessed with fat and weight and body image to a ridiculous extent.
For an example of what I mean look at the success of the deeply unhealthy Atkins diet and it's high protean / fat / low carbs variations.
Of course anorexics are ill, but as you say would their illness display itself through extreme dieting if it were not for the notion of ultra-thin as good?
Which is I think what you were trying to say? But don't let me put words into your mouth if it wasn't.
quote:
Originally posted by Honeybaby:
It has surprised me that on a thread about bettering yourself (in your or anyone else's eyes) body image, dysmorphic disorders, surgery etc, has included criticism of my user name.
It is a pity, to me, that this debate has been quite persistently reduced to slanging matches, when, surely, the issues touch us all and are way too complex to ever reach a right vs wrong solution?
Several posters, notably Kovacs, have pointed out that we're skating over vast funds of research. In a forum like this, that's what we have to do - and, in order to do so, some basic precepts have to be generally accepted.
It's either shockingly naive or hilariously arrogant to suppose that anyone here can remain untouched by media messages, social imperatives or peer pressures.
Since that, in itself, has been repeatedly queried, we're not going to get very far with a discussion on how those influences affect us and what we can do about it, are we?
I don't understand why some of you seem so unwilling to accept that .... fact. It could have turned into a really bloody interesting thread about the ways each of us feel our own behaviours & beliefs are, and have been, influenced against our conscious will. Or it could have become a more intelligently argued discussion around our perceptions of ourselves and our bodies, and maybe we could all have learned something.
But, no. It has to keep being dragged down by flaming raids and reductive sideswipes about using the word "people" (in quotes) to refer to ... people! And other, equally cheap shots.
My own suspicion is there are many amongst us who are scared to admit that they themselves fall prey to doubts & insecurities prompted by received opinion. Which is daft, really. We all are.
Hrrrmph!
C
quote:
Originally posted by Cherry:
My own suspicion is there are many amongst us who are scared to admit that they themselves fall prey to doubts & insecurities prompted by received opinion. Which is daft, really. We all are.Hrrrmph!
C
Right on Sister!
quote:
Originally posted by StevieX:
Since you're here Cherry, what the heck did you mean about me having to explain myself to a jury/magistrate?
Eh?
quote:
Originally posted by Cherry:
It's either shockingly naive or hilariously arrogant to suppose that anyone here can remain untouched by media messages, social imperatives or peer pressures.
I'm not saying that one remains untouched by media messages: I wet my pants when I see film trailers, for example. I just won't concede that I'm at the mercy of media messaging. I can honestly say that for the most part I don't give much of a fuck what the media suggests I look like. I can see why, given your career, you'd like to believe that something like advertising is massively powerful, but it isn't.
Also, when you actually get down to it there's an awful lot in the media that contradicts the message you're accusing it of perpertuating. For example, Victoria Beckham is frequently featured in the media for being unhealthily thin, with the nick name 'Skeletal Spice' and so on. Where does this fit in your canon of media influence. What about people like Dawn French and Sophie Dahl who are applauded for being attractive and fat, and in the case of Sophie Dahl actually publicly lambasted when they lose weight.
You're talking as though 'the meeja' sends out blimps that float over cities with messages like "Thin = Beautiful", but that's not the case. The argument you're presenting fails to take into account that the media presents diverse and frequently conflicting messages. The meaning you draw from this miasma of imagery is really more about you than it is about the media.
quote:
Originally posted by Cherry:
Eh?
This:
quote:
Originally posted by Cherry:
Stevie, I'm boring myself immensely tonight, on a personal, one-woman mission to have everything translated into Normal English!
I understood about a third of what you posted. I suspect you may have been saying something I agree with - but how can I tell???F'renuff, you may not care what I think. Dare I presume, though, that you might one day care what a jury or a magistrate thinks?
Eugh. Boring myself with my "Speak English!" bollocks ... You go ahead and speak gobbledegook. It's probably a professional requirement,or something.
Regards,
Cx
From here. It's just that I already requested clarification...
Not to have a go, but I've now been wondering what you meant for a day and a half.
quote:
Originally posted by Boy Racer:
Which is I think what you were trying to say? But don't let me put words into your mouth if it wasn't.
No, please do put words into my mouth! I could do with some help since I seem to manage to make everything I say sound so much worse than anyone else can.
Seriously, though, yes, I was trying to say that. I also wanted to challenge what seemed to be an idea that we are not influenced by external factors, but Cherry has put that so much better than I too, in her last post.
I am interested in this topic on two levels. I was rake thin until I was thirty-eight and didn't know how 'good' I had it until after that. I never understood my over-weight sister and her weight issues until then. I can't believe how much people's attitude towards me changed because my external body shape did. I say that, not because I feel a 'victim', but just because I have a point of comparison as the weight gain was rapid and I still work with people who remember me as thin, and still refer to it as if I ought to be sorry, twelve years later.
Funnily enough, a colleague at work who was over 20 stone and is now down to 13 is suffering depression because after she lost weight, she gained so many 'friends' of both genders that she can feels she can barely trust anyone she didn't know from before.
I also teach anorexics, as you would imagine in a large secondary school; so although I am not involved in their pastoral care, I do sometimes wonder, feeling as I now do from personal experience that weight is as much a social issue as a medical one, how much social pressures about weight actually relates to them and their condition.
quote:
Originally posted by Thorn Davis:
Also, when you actually get down to it there's an awful lot in the media that contradicts the message you're accusing it of perpertuating. For example, Victoria Beckham is frequently featured in the media for being unhealthily thin, with the nick name 'Skeletal Spice' and so on. Where does this fit in your canon of media influence. What about people like Dawn French and Sophie Dahl who are applauded for being attractive and fat, and in the case of Sophie Dahl actually publicly lambasted when they lose weight.
I think the Becks are suffering from 'Tall poppy' syndrome, and not some media insight into social issues surrounding fat.
Even if that were not the case, there was a recent news story about Jay Lo and her famous bum. It is so lauded because it is NOT razor thin that in a set of publicity shots for her latest film, the studio air-brushed it smaller.
It is not so clear-cut or black and white as you are insisting here. So the media (the aspects of it which deal with the 'stars') may be beginning to respond to public pressure not to constantly laud that thin is beautiful (though I dispute that), but it by no means a won battle; the message is at best a confused one; the whispered message that round is sound is still drowned out by thin in in.
quote:
Originally posted by Thorn Davis:
The meaning you draw from this miasma of imagery is really more about you than it is about the media.
I refer you to: The Beauty Myth by Naomi Wolf (and many other such books)
Flawed, but nonetheless, evidence that it is not just Cherry who draws such meaning.
quote:
Originally posted by Thorn Davis:
The meaning you draw from this miasma of imagery is really more about you than it is about the media.
I said, very early on, that I imagine it is possible for a child to grow up with rock-solid confidence and highly developed critical powers. Such a child would be far less prey to the adverse influences we've been discussing.
I don't hink many of us are like that, though. Plainly, I wasn't - and, equally plainly - nor are the legions of children, women and men who suffer from body-dysmorphic-stroke-eating disorders. A vulnerability to such influences may be a weakness, and is probably undesirable, but that doesn't make it wrong and it doesn't make it go away.
If it weren't a common human tendency (or, as Ziggy said, even an inborn human characteristic) there wouldn't be a vast media industry. It is funded by zillions of dollars spent on the demonstrable basis that we can be influenced by the messages we receive!
With regard to mass-media influence: you are right that there is concern about skinny celebrities, et al, and your examples are good ones. There's also a great deal more content - and openness - about anorexia, bulimia and self-harm. IMO this is A Good Thing because it will, hopefully, help those who are vulnerable to said disorders develop the necessary powers to avoid or overcome the problem.
In itself, though, that implies these media do have such influence, doesn't it?
Sorry, my PC's gone funny. it's gonn a crash in a minute ....
Stevie X, I don't recall that. When did i say it?
Cx
quote:
Originally posted by ziggy:
It is not so clear-cut or black and white as you are insisting here.
Sorry, if I've confused you, but where I've written
quote:
the media presents diverse and frequently conflicting messages
I think I've pretty explicitly stated that I don't think it's black and white. I don't know how much clearer I could have phrased it.
My entire point was that the media presentation of fat issues is far from black and white, which is what casts into doubt the possibility that it can be held to task for affecting people's body image. Your example of J-Lo's ass is a good one. Sometimes it's represented as good because it's big-ish. Sometimes it's represented as bad for the same reason. The two messages cancel each other out and the conclusion one draws from this is entirely their own.
quote:
Originally posted by StevieX:
From here. It's just that I already requested clarification...Not to have a go, but I've now been wondering what you meant for a day and a half.
God, Stevie, I'm afraid i don't know! Seeing that I posted at half past three in the morning, there was probably some half-cut conversation going on in my head that leached out into my post. I really shouldn't do that.
I certainly didn't mean that I foresee you up before the beak on heinous charges or anything! Probably something like "Might I suggest that clearer
& simpler english is useful in many important situations"
As, indeed is a computer that responds
to moouse-clicks & key presses!
Sorry for the stupid remark.
Cx
quote:
Originally posted by Cherry:
Sorry for the stupid remark.Cx
Not at all - it was all a little cryptic that night.
Clear English - cool. I was going to read that post; took me a long time to type, but the words just moved around too much on screen!
quote:
Originally posted by Thorn Davis:
I think I've pretty explicitly stated that I don't think it's black and white. I don't know how much clearer I could have phrased it.My entire point was that the media presentation of fat issues is far from black and white, which is what casts into doubt the possibility that it can be held to task for affecting people's body image. Your example of J-Lo's ass is a good one. Sometimes it's represented as good because it's big-ish. Sometimes it's represented as bad for the same reason. The two messages cancel each other out and the conclusion one draws from this is entirely their own.
Point taken. However, in my defence, you do seem to be coming across as arguing (until the last post, which I mis-read) that the media's influence is not, well, influential.
I seem to be mis-reading you and so maybe you are trying to say it isn't the only factor? And maybe also that we are making a scape-goat out of it?
I agree with you on the wrongness of this idea that the media is some sort of autonomous beast, or at least a monster which is driven by a load of cynical exploiters of our weak and easily -led society. That simply is not on. I guess it is in the same vein as talking of science as evil simply because some discoveries by scientists are then used for evil by non-scientists, and people over-simplify by talking of the science as evil.
I don't think, though, that people here really do think of 'meeja' as this. I think they just use the blanket term for ease of reference.
I guess I at least, am using it incorrectly since there are whole tracts of media which say nothing at all about this or any other social issue. Perhaps I should say 'popular media' as I think I mean our tabloids, popular magazines, adverts and 'gossip' shows', which are designed to feed the 'lowest common denominator', after all.
But it is this sort of 'popular media' that most people read and see as media, and it is this form of it which influences us unduly; even though, in the end, it is a reflection of the society it portrays. But its makers do make choices about which parts it portrays and then reflects them back at society; then society takes the images on board and is further influenced by them, so feeds back into it, and so, it would appear, ad infinitum.
All of which is beginning to make it (as in 'meeja') sound as if it is some beast after all, but I trust you to know I am referring to the cyclic nature of the interchange between the media representation of society and the society that it does not merely represent, but recreates through its images.
Oddly it makes me think of Oscar Wilde and bis question about art copying life, or life copying art. (And he said that years before mass media.)
quote:
Originally posted by ziggy:
Point taken. However, in my defence, you do seem to be coming across as arguing (until the last post, which I mis-read) that the media's influence is not, well, influential.
Again, I think clearly suggested this wasn't my position when I wrote this...
quote:
Originally posted by Thorn Davis:
I'm not saying that one remains untouched by media messages
But yes, I think people grossly overestimate that effect and yes I do think it is used as a scapegoat.
I also contest the notion that Oscar Wilde was writing before mass media. Plays pamphlets and religion were the mass media of their time. Shakespeare wrote for the masses, and the church reached the masses. It's wrong to assume that mass media is a 20th Century invention, and to be honest the diversity of messages that one is able to pick up today suggests that the element of control or influence this media can exert should be more diluted than its ever been.
quote:
Originally posted by Thorn Davis:
I also contest the notion that Oscar Wilde was writing before mass media. Plays pamphlets and religion were the mass media of their time. Shakespeare wrote for the masses, and the church reached the masses.
I knew you were going to say that.
The fact is that I haven't kovacs facility for precise use of English. Or yours, for that matter. Or Ben’s ability to express a range of emotions and concepts in such an apparently seamless way (Note; ben, I said apparently seamless – I recognise your skill/craft, I do.)
I came back to this site in spite of my history in part because of the level of debate and the sheer expressiveness of the posters. I like to be challenged (as opposed to attacked). However, I do reach my limit.
I know you know what I meant – I have read my history and social anthropology - and I will leave it at that. I will just point out your own words: of their own time. Hardly a world, or even the entirety of their own localised society’s ‘media’.
quote:
Originally posted by Thorn Davis:
……….. to be honest the diversity of messages that one is able to pick up today suggests that the element of control or influence this media can exert should be more diluted than its ever been.
In the spirit of genuine debate, how do you work this out? You assume that one message cancels another. As if all were equally weighted.
.
.
PS The ‘Church’ is another one of those blanket terms like ‘media’. It did not reach all of society for many, many decades. The local priests in Shakespeare’s time were often not always be able to read Latin (for the Bible and basic services), never mind English, and they were their congregation’s only recourse to ‘the Church’s’ edicts. It was quite a scandal for its time and was part (note I said part) of the reason why Henry VIII was able to ‘reform’ it without a major war and why the protestant revolution was able to happen.
quote:
Originally posted by Thorn Davis:
........... the element of control or influence this media can exert should be more diluted than its ever been.
I am picking myself up on a point here, Thorn.
Yes, I agree - I think I said in an earlier post to kovacs that people are more sophisticated and informed than ever before so the influence of the media is diminishing.
But that does not mean to say it is still not pretty powerful.
You say you don't feel affected, well great, but then you're a scrawny wee thing aren't you Thorn. And from the examples of VP and Rose, you're not exactly into the fuller figured woman either (not that they aren't both very attractive young ladies).
And of course you aren't a woman so you aren't bombarded with images of beauty that apply to you in the same way. Many of the male body ideals we see (eg on the cover of Men's Health) are so laughable they don't bother any of us. But that's easy for us to do because these are relatively recent things that men have had to deal with, and we haven't been worrying about our six packs or whatever since our early teens in the same way that girl's are encouraged to worry about their bodies by our culture.
[ 20 August 2003: Message edited by: Boy Racer ]
“The power of Wolf's observations leads one to hope that someone will do similar research concerning the media's impact on men. Our culture teaches women they can't be happy unless they are "beautiful," but it also teaches men they can't be happy unless they are rich and/or powerful. Men have gotten off somewhat easy so far because there is no generic rich and powerful "look" to portray in the media--rich and powerful men come in all shapes, sizes, and ages. The only way to portray it is to put a man in rich and powerful-looking surroundings and hope the connection is made. However, now that the baby-boom generation is growing into middle age, I believe we'll see men being targeted more and more to look a certain way. We're already seeing ads for men's hair coloring and hair replacement.”
Although I would change the words above that I(not the author)have put in bold to ‘ought not to feel’ instead of ‘can’t be’ (a shift in emphasis) I have to say the statement feels, at gut level, overall, right.
quote:
Originally posted by ziggy:
In the spirit of genuine debate, how do you work this out? You assume that one message cancels another. As if all were equally weighted.
Yeah.
Which is not to say that us men being bombarded with the rich / powerful = happy, images is a good thing either, though. But to a certain degree a backlash against this has already started in the form of the men's movement and the kind of ideas about masculinity represented in 'Fight Club', see Tyler's "we were told we'd grow up to be millionaire's and movie gods" etc, and by the anti-capitalist movement in general.
Your tag is about being skinny. Maybe I should ask Darryn (when the dosh gets there) to put and 'She's quite fat' as my tag?
And I thought you actually were debating this with me, instead of whatever it was 'yeah' means. Foolish me.
quote:
Originally posted by Boy Racer:
Which is not to say that us men being bombarded with the rich / powerful = happy, images is a good thing either, though. But to a certain degree a backlash against this has already started in the form of the men's movement and the kind of ideas about masculinity represented in 'Fight Club', see Tyler's "we were told we'd grow up to be millionaire's and movie gods" etc, and by the anti-capitalist movement in general.
Exactly! I mean. C'mon who really is telling teenage girls that thin=beautiful? The newspapers? Fuck off! Like teenagers give a good goddamn about what The Telegraph or the Sun has to say about how they should look? So who is influencing them? Popstars? Like Eminem saying look at all this bullshit the media is feeding you? Or Marilyn Manson saying 'look as fucked up as you possibly can'. These are huge selling stars, and they're putting across a message saying 'who gives a fuck'. You've got icons like Brad Pitt starring in movies like Fight Club which unequivocally assault the idea of physical perfection. Books on similar topics sell in HMV, for chrissakes, that's how mass-market the voice is against the idea of physical perfection.
So yeah. There's big loud messages coming at you from both sides and all that's left to you to do is decide which ones you agree with and which ones you don't. If you want to lose weight it essentially comes down your choice to pay attention to a Calvin Klein ad instead of French and Saunders.
quote:
Originally posted by Boy Racer:
If you think one cancels out the other though Thorn you've kind of made our point for us, because of the sheer weight of imagery that says to women and the western world that thin=beautiful=happy.
Do you believe that a woman will be happier and more beautiful if she is thin?
[ 20 August 2003: Message edited by: Thorn Davis ]
quote:
Originally posted by Thorn Davis:
....... all that's left to you to do is decide which ones you agree with and which ones you don't. If you want to lose weight it essentially comes down your choice to pay attention to a Calvin Klein ad instead of French and Saunders.
Disingenuous rather than reasoned.
Of course, Saunders and French are as high profile as Calvin Klein.
Oops. No, the only time I have ever seen either the French and Saunders brand name when I have been shopping is in the over-sized (and that is going some) section of Evans. The well-known (and only) retail outlet of the ‘Dawn French’ name.
As Thorn would know.
quote:
Originally posted by Thorn Davis:
I just can't believe that people would really listen to some fucking marketing guy telling them what their gut should look like.
Thanks. What made you think the review had been written by 'some marketing guy'? Are all media marketing guys shallow then? (It wasn't written by any such, by the way.)
Anyway, this is a clear enough message that this isn't a real discussion to you, but a go at me. Sorry you feel this way and I am ending this now.
quote:
Originally posted by ziggy:
Thanks. What made you think the review had been written by 'some marketing guy'?
Not being funny but wasn't Thorn referring to Calvin Klein adds, which surely are created by a 'marketing guy'
quote:
Originally posted by ziggy:
Anyway, this is a clear enough message that this isn't a real discussion to you, but a go at me. Sorry you feel this way and I am ending this now.
Sorry, you've completely misunderstood me again. The comment was basically a summation of what I've been trying to put across, which is why would anyone worry what some marketing guy (ie the guy behind a calvin klein ad) had to say about what your figure should look like. It wasn't a go at you in the slightest. It was just a "why would anyone care what someone they've never met thinks they shoudl look like." It was nothing to do with the book you were referring to or the review of it.
If you mean do I find non-skinny/thin women attractive/beautiful then the answer is yes. But then I like women of all shapes, sizes, and colours.
And I don't find people attractive based solely on their looks. Intelligence, personality, style, and taste are all factors that influence how I see and feel about people.
I also think that it depends on several other factors.
How large the woman is, for one.
There is a difference between fat and obsese. One's a image issue, the other a health issue.
How she feels about herself, and how she feels about her body is another, if someone's not skinny but happy in their size then I think they can often be very attractive, equally if someone isn't happy in themselves then I think they are less likely to be attractive regardless of their size. Unless you're weird and into that.
Whether or not she's good looking in the first place is yet another, and that's pretty subjective.
Any further questions?
I'm avidly interested in the answers to the above questions, as I'm starting to have trouble believing you exist!
Luckily for everyone, however, re-securing my PC has taken so long that I have to go out and will have to catch up with this later.
Ben's Fat Stalker
quote:
Originally posted by Boy Racer:
Any further questions?
Well, you've reached these conclusions whilst living in a society that supposedly hammers home the idea that thin=beautiful=happy. You haven't been indoctrinated by the massive power of this message, you've questioned it and you've fund it insubstantial. So either you're special, and are somehow immune to the beauty myth, or the message isn't as punishingly powerful as has bee suggested.
quote:
Originally posted by Thorn Davis:
Sorry, you've completely misunderstood me again. The comment was basically a summation of what I've been trying to put across, which is why would anyone worry what some marketing guy (ie the guy behind a calvin klein ad) had to say about what your figure should look like. It wasn't a go at you in the slightest. It was just a "why would anyone care what someone they've never met thinks they shoudl look like." It was nothing to do with the book you were referring to or the review of it.
Jeez, I have already said I am at the limits if my debating ability here! OK Physic. I take a step back and re-think. There is no empirical evidence for trusting you – but almost three years of reading your posts pre-dispose me to listening to you. J
Which, when you think about it, Thorn, explains why people start to accept adverts. Sheer persistence over time! J (No offence, physic, I meant what I said about you and your posts affecting me in a positive way.)
Thorn, it isn’t just the Calvin Klein adverts – but almost, though I admit a small number differ - every other advert says the same. The volume of adverts which say the opposite (and you mentioned a few, I know) are small by comparison.
As to why anyone cares what an ‘outsider’ to their wholly personal experience says, I thought I had mentioned that with the hard-wired need to fit in with one’s society in order to promote the survival of the species.
Who said ‘No man is an island’ (or similar)? I hold that is NOT a weakness to want to be like your fellow man. I hold that it is not a matter for which you should be judged lacking. It’s just human instinct.
Maybe it is becoming less of a human imperative. I am not so sure. If we have our take on humanity that it is so well sorted by now, how come we are knackering our world and killing ourselves off?
Bugger, bugger. I am going have to ask you to re-read all my posts and work out the essence. I will not back down from the fact that people ARE influenced by their surroundings and their desire to fit in. More power to those than can fight it off, or who have never felt it, but I hold that it is not a human failing to find it so and I also believe that there is not a soul on Earth who is immune to this need to fit in at some level;. I hold that the ‘media’ (whatever we decide to call it) has a direct influence upon the bearings of many, many – indeed the majority – of people exposed to it.
Which is why I won’t bloody buy anything Nescafe produce. Read about the babies who die because of their advertising in the third world (and, yes, of others, too), even now.
Can I lie down and recover now? .
quote:
Originally posted by Cherry:
Thorn, do you live in a world devoid of contact with girls?
No, and every last one of them can think for themselves. I'd never dare suggest that they were so unthinking that they were beaten into a position where they felt they 'had' to do something because something like the 'media' the message of which can't even be pinned down, told them to.
quote:
Originally posted by ziggy:
Which is why I won’t bloody buy anything Nescafe produce. Read about the babies who die because of their advertising in the third world (and, yes, of others, too), even now.
This is kind of my point. Although advertising will try and influence us, at the end of the day you have the power to go away and getthe flip side of the argument - the background - and make a decision not to purchase Nescafe goods. From this point on it doesn't matter what slick tricks they ply you with, you've made your decision.
quote:
Originally posted by ziggy:
almost three years of reading your posts pre-dispose me to listening to you.
Umm, flattered as I am at this I'm now scared that I've been doing a Tyler Durden, since as far as I knew I'd only been posting since about February last year. I wonder if I also have a job making soap??
quote:
Originally posted by Thorn Davis:
This is kind of my point. Although advertising will try and influence us, at the end of the day you have the power to go away and getthe flip side of the argument - the background - and make a decision not to purchase Nescafe goods. From this point on it doesn't matter what slick tricks they ply you with, you've made your decision.
Yeh, I saw that as I posted it and I know what you mean. You talk logic. But for one reason and another it took ME, personally (and others I know), until my thirties to realise that.
I am trying to say that many people come to independent thought at very, very different stages (if at all) in their lives, and that mass representations of what they ought to be don't help them.
Surely not too hard a point to concede?
quote:
Originally posted by Physic:
Umm, flattered as I am at this I'm now scared that I've been doing a Tyler Durden, since as far as I knew I'd only been posting since about February last year. I wonder if I also have a job making soap??
I don't understand the reference to soap (nor indeed to Tyler Durham), but what I mean is that if I cast my 'emotional mind' back from beginning to end of my (sometimes sorry) history on this board, I cannot remember an incident when I was scared/offended/insulted by you.
I have a very poor memory for details as such, so I tend to rely on some sort of emotional gauge that I hold in my mind. The clock ticks up 'respect' and 'listens' for you, is all. Doesn't matter to me how far back you go.
Hope that doesn't sound too wanky. I won't hold you to any of it, I promise.
Your sentiments are appreciated though, I'd like to think I haven't posted anything too offensive, bland yes, offensive no. Just wish I had time to post more often.
Not bland. Who remembers bland?
Have a good evening.
[Unlucky Alf]Awww bugger![/Unlucky Alf]
"Guess its..
for me from now on"
"Ha, told you so you toothless twat!"
quote:
Originally posted by ziggy:
I am interested in this topic on two levels. I was rake thin until I was thirty-eight and didn't know how 'good' I had it until after that. I never understood my over-weight sister and her weight issues until then. I can't believe how much people's attitude towards me changed because my external body shape did. I say that, not because I feel a 'victim', but just because I have a point of comparison as the weight gain was rapid and I still work with people who remember me as thin, and still refer to it as if I ought to be sorry, twelve years later.Funnily enough, a colleague at work who was over 20 stone and is now down to 13 is suffering depression because after she lost weight, she gained so many 'friends' of both genders that she can feels she can barely trust anyone she didn't know from before.
It's a bit of a nerve to ask, but would you mind putting something about that in my
handbag thread?
I'm doing a bit of group navel-gazing 
Any contributions you could make - gratefully accepted!
Cheers,
Cx