Dimensions Forums  
Home Register Premium Membership Stories Ye Olde Library Health Issues Market Place Big Fashion

Go Back   Dimensions Forums > Discussion > FA/FFA forum



Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 07-23-2009, 02:49 PM   #26
AnnMarie
✰cuddly and terrifying✰
 
AnnMarie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Twirly Girl
Posts: 16,296
AnnMarie has ascended what used to be the highest level.AnnMarie has ascended what used to be the highest level.AnnMarie has ascended what used to be the highest level.AnnMarie has ascended what used to be the highest level.AnnMarie has ascended what used to be the highest level.AnnMarie has ascended what used to be the highest level.AnnMarie has ascended what used to be the highest level.AnnMarie has ascended what used to be the highest level.AnnMarie has ascended what used to be the highest level.AnnMarie has ascended what used to be the highest level.AnnMarie has ascended what used to be the highest level.
Default

1. I don't think dating/partnering with your preference is shallow. Shallow is superficial/artificial (to me) and sticking with your preference (whether in personality or looks) is not shallow, it's just your choice.

2. I think most FAs have a much wider range of "dateable" partners than most who prefer thin/normal women. I know many FAs who'd date a woman from 300-500lbs or more or slightly less, etc. I hardly find that a constrained range - whereas most guys I know who prefer thin women will date only from 120ish (or less) to MAYBE 160-170, and she'd be tall, etc.


Sorry, but no matter how I slice it... nope, FAs are not more shallow. (And if the question is directed to the idiots who pull out a tape measure for the "your waist has to be this much percentage of your hips" type of "preference"... I discount them as morons and NOT FAs.)
__________________
So ... yeah.
AnnMarie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2009, 03:18 PM   #27
stan_der_man
The Teflon Frog
 
stan_der_man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Born in The Mission, raised on Rt. 66, living in the Squirrel Ghetto, SoCal
Posts: 5,195
stan_der_man has ascended what used to be the highest level.stan_der_man has ascended what used to be the highest level.stan_der_man has ascended what used to be the highest level.stan_der_man has ascended what used to be the highest level.stan_der_man has ascended what used to be the highest level.stan_der_man has ascended what used to be the highest level.stan_der_man has ascended what used to be the highest level.stan_der_man has ascended what used to be the highest level.stan_der_man has ascended what used to be the highest level.stan_der_man has ascended what used to be the highest level.stan_der_man has ascended what used to be the highest level.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AnnMarie View Post

Sorry, but no matter how I slice it... nope, FAs are not more shallow. (And if the question is directed to the idiots who pull out a tape measure for the "your waist has to be this much percentage of your hips" type of "preference"... I discount them as morons and NOT FAs.)
I completely agree with AM... I don't think FAs (m/f) are any more shallow than other people per se. All people have physical preferences whether or not they admit to it... FA or not.

And that person potentially pulling out the measuring tape could also be measuring for how skinny a potential mate is... There are plenty of non-FAs who appear to be concerned about the numbers of how much (or little) others weigh.
__________________
.



"Regardless of who runs the websites and organizations, the cause belongs to all of us.
stan_der_man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2009, 03:21 PM   #28
CurvaceousBBWLover
Primordial
 
CurvaceousBBWLover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Baltimore Metro Area
Posts: 1,908
CurvaceousBBWLover has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!CurvaceousBBWLover has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!CurvaceousBBWLover has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!CurvaceousBBWLover has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!CurvaceousBBWLover has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!CurvaceousBBWLover has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!CurvaceousBBWLover has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!CurvaceousBBWLover has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!CurvaceousBBWLover has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!CurvaceousBBWLover has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!CurvaceousBBWLover has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!
Default

Everyone has preferences. Men have them and women have them. There is nothing wrong with having a predilection for dating whomever you want as long as it's not a kid.
__________________
"A small body of determined spirits fired by an unquenchable faith in their mission can alter the course of history."--Mohandas Ghandi
CurvaceousBBWLover is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2009, 03:49 PM   #29
Elfcat
Radical FPL from Hell
 
Elfcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Bay Point, CA
Posts: 794
Elfcat never has a post go unnoticedElfcat never has a post go unnoticedElfcat never has a post go unnoticedElfcat never has a post go unnoticedElfcat never has a post go unnoticedElfcat never has a post go unnoticedElfcat never has a post go unnoticedElfcat never has a post go unnoticed
Default

For myself, there are many aspects of a person that are attractive to me. I am heterosexual. I am fat-positive. I also tend to prefer strong-willed women who are not completely inimical to talking politics and like to make trouble. And a sick and wicked sense of humor helps greatly.

It seems to me that those who level the accusation of shallowness are often committing the offense themselves, because they are isolating one of my many aspects to assail it, ignoring other of my preferences which would be obvious to anyone who is around me for any length of time.
Elfcat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2009, 03:53 PM   #30
superodalisque
 
superodalisque's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: atlanta
Posts: 7,580
superodalisque has ascended what used to be the highest level.superodalisque has ascended what used to be the highest level.superodalisque has ascended what used to be the highest level.superodalisque has ascended what used to be the highest level.superodalisque has ascended what used to be the highest level.superodalisque has ascended what used to be the highest level.superodalisque has ascended what used to be the highest level.superodalisque has ascended what used to be the highest level.superodalisque has ascended what used to be the highest level.superodalisque has ascended what used to be the highest level.superodalisque has ascended what used to be the highest level.
Default

yes, i definitely think it can be shallow depending on how a preference is approached. i think its fantastic that a man is attracted to your body. i personally love being appreciated physically. i love being fat and if someone is over the moon about that its exciting. but the body can be a very ephemeral thing and it can change for many reasons. it wouldn't really matter if a guy had such narrow preferences if you are just looking for sex. but if you are looking for more than just sex it can be problematic.

i think most women want to be sure to be loved for ALL of who she is and not ONLY her body. i'm definitely not talking about being loved in spite of your body. i'd HATE that. i think its especially worriesome for me if someone who says they love me would leave only because i might lose weight particularly if it gets to be a life or death choice. was it really love in the first place? does the person really know what love is? its really complicated. even though i have no intention to lose weight it can be kind of tough trusting someone who might be so totally dependent on your exterior to be attracted to you. it would also feel limiting to my personal freedom if i knew i had to meet someone's definite criteria to have thier affection and passion.

i personally prefer someone whose libido is more attached to character and personality than just the physical aspects of a person. that would mean someone who has such a wide range of physical preference that it becomes a nearly moot issue--it would not mean they were settling for something they are not attracted to or only tolerating it. i think here people often assume that if a guy is not a card carrying FA he is merely dealing with a fat body rather than appreciating it or loving it as much or even more than an FA. just because a man also is arroused by thin women it does not mean he hates fat women. the two things are not necessarily mutually exclusive. i feel that a lot of BBWs prefer exclusive FAs because deep down they feel afraid they might have to compete with thin women. there are some BBWs who are openly hostile toward FAs with a broad prefernce or with a preference for smaller BBWs because they think they can't "win" in comparison. so they chose exclusive FAs out of fear and a serious lack of self confidence. so there can be a kind of codependent relationship sometimes. i think great communication and an honest loving relationship with someone who is attracted to you in such a way that they they lust after and appreciate your body at any size just because its my "house" is ideal for me on an emotional level. i don't feel as personally trapped by that idea.

i've been trying to figure this out for some years --ever since i discovered there was such a thing as an FA. i love my FA friends because they share the aesthetic appreciation of the loveliness of fat with me. we like the same things. but my feelings have always been that i'd rather be loved for all of me. everything i've found out about the community has convinced me of it even moreso. the evidence i've seen is that women who rely on a man's fetish to "get" him end up alone. sure they can have lots of sexual partners and playmates. but, in the end thats not enough for anyone to want to stay with them long term because they are just appealing to thier lowest common denonimator as a human being. one day the man grows up and understands that there is more to happiness. he moves on to explore that. i think a lot of women who appeal to men on that level count on them being shallow. i think they probably deep down don't like FAs very much and really feel they aren't capable of more than just kneading ( punn intended) thier fat. even though they pretend otherwise they really feel that they can't be loved, only fetishized.

the women who rely too heavily on prefernce and fetish end up getting older and more alone. appealing only to a man's crotch will get you just so far and then no further. in order for women to feel fulfilled i think they have to have the confidence to be who they are and not just someone who panders to a fetish or a preference. if a guy has an extreme preference a woman can, but not always, end up sublimating who she really is. its important for her to understand that though important sexuality isn't all a woman has to offer. if more BBWs fully understood that then they wouldn't be so surprised and confused about the fact that a lot of guys from here who want something deep and meaningful and who adore fat women can also end up falling for a thin woman. guess what, preferences are not always exclusive.

Last edited by superodalisque; 07-23-2009 at 04:21 PM.
superodalisque is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2009, 04:11 PM   #31
Fascinita
Jeez, we're blessed!
 
Fascinita's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 4,162
Fascinita has ascended what used to be the highest level.Fascinita has ascended what used to be the highest level.Fascinita has ascended what used to be the highest level.Fascinita has ascended what used to be the highest level.Fascinita has ascended what used to be the highest level.Fascinita has ascended what used to be the highest level.Fascinita has ascended what used to be the highest level.Fascinita has ascended what used to be the highest level.Fascinita has ascended what used to be the highest level.Fascinita has ascended what used to be the highest level.Fascinita has ascended what used to be the highest level.
Default

As Felicia said, it starts feeling shallow if in the scope of a serious relationship suddenly it becomes clear that the FA is not OK with his/her partner losing weight for whatever reason. In essence, that kind of attitude--not sure how rare or widespread it is among actual FAs--can pre-empt a serious relationshio from feeling... well, serious.
__________________
......................
|:| Sponsor a puppy or kitten. |:|
Fascinita is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2009, 04:37 PM   #32
AnnMarie
✰cuddly and terrifying✰
 
AnnMarie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Twirly Girl
Posts: 16,296
AnnMarie has ascended what used to be the highest level.AnnMarie has ascended what used to be the highest level.AnnMarie has ascended what used to be the highest level.AnnMarie has ascended what used to be the highest level.AnnMarie has ascended what used to be the highest level.AnnMarie has ascended what used to be the highest level.AnnMarie has ascended what used to be the highest level.AnnMarie has ascended what used to be the highest level.AnnMarie has ascended what used to be the highest level.AnnMarie has ascended what used to be the highest level.AnnMarie has ascended what used to be the highest level.
Default

Yeah, I guess it all depends on who the individual defines shallow. I don't think a man who dates a thin woman and leaves her for gaining 100lbs is shallow, I think he's got a preference and she's gone WELL outside it. I think it's a relationship where a significant component has been altered and such changed, and then perhaps the relationship is lost as a result.

By the same token, if a relationship with an FA ends because of drastic weight loss, I don't think that's shallow. I think it's a relationship where a significant component has been altered and such changed, and then perhaps the relationship is lost as a result.

Add in possible personality changes from drastic weight change in either direction and you've got a relationship issue that could drive most couples apart. I just think that it's reasonable that physical changes impact relationships. If you're not a person who believes physical changes or attraction are integral parts of relationships then I can certainly see why you'd classify such actions as shallow.

Just don't agree.
__________________
So ... yeah.
AnnMarie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2009, 04:45 PM   #33
Fascinita
Jeez, we're blessed!
 
Fascinita's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 4,162
Fascinita has ascended what used to be the highest level.Fascinita has ascended what used to be the highest level.Fascinita has ascended what used to be the highest level.Fascinita has ascended what used to be the highest level.Fascinita has ascended what used to be the highest level.Fascinita has ascended what used to be the highest level.Fascinita has ascended what used to be the highest level.Fascinita has ascended what used to be the highest level.Fascinita has ascended what used to be the highest level.Fascinita has ascended what used to be the highest level.Fascinita has ascended what used to be the highest level.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AnnMarie View Post
If you're not a person who believes physical changes or attraction are integral parts of relationships then I can certainly see why you'd classify such actions as shallow.
Well, I'm saying that I think attraction that hinges solely on physical attraction isn't deep enough for serious relationships. Besides physical attraction, serious relationships require commitment and work. Knowing that someone was apt to abandon our commitment and investment together solely because my looks changed wouldn't let me feel confident enough in that person's seriousness over the long term to enter into a serious relationship with them. If I lost a leg in an accident and my husband of twenty years left me because he couldn't get turned on anymore, I'd say that qualifies as shallow. Depth is depth.
__________________
......................
|:| Sponsor a puppy or kitten. |:|
Fascinita is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2009, 04:48 PM   #34
StarWitness
part square, part drape
 
StarWitness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Sexcriminalboat
Posts: 692
StarWitness is a pillar of the Dimensions communityStarWitness is a pillar of the Dimensions communityStarWitness is a pillar of the Dimensions communityStarWitness is a pillar of the Dimensions communityStarWitness is a pillar of the Dimensions communityStarWitness is a pillar of the Dimensions communityStarWitness is a pillar of the Dimensions communityStarWitness is a pillar of the Dimensions communityStarWitness is a pillar of the Dimensions communityStarWitness is a pillar of the Dimensions communityStarWitness is a pillar of the Dimensions community
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AnnMarie View Post
I just think that it's reasonable that physical changes impact relationships. If you're not a person who believes physical changes or attraction are integral parts of relationships then I can certainly see why you'd classify such actions as shallow.
But if you're in a committed relationship that you intend to last for a long time, you pretty much have to accept the fact that your partner is going to change physically over time-- unless you're dating Joan Rivers, in which case, ew. And yeah, relationships themselves change over time too, but if looks are a dealbreaker... do you really want to be in something long-term with that person?
__________________
Oh yeah, like the people of New Jersey have never seen a fat guy and a chick make out. It's on the freaking state flag. --Homer Simpson

I've always been a guy with a sweet tooth, and that girl's just like a king-size candy bar...
--Sleater-Kinney
StarWitness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2009, 04:55 PM   #35
Chef
Galloping Gourmet
 
Chef's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 625
Chef has super-sized repChef has super-sized repChef has super-sized repChef has super-sized repChef has super-sized rep
Default

Shallow - Judging a person based strictly on looks, not factoring in their personality whatsoever.

I think FAs, and myself, are guilty as charged on this board considering it is very difficult to obtain a sample of personality, since many people broadcast a completely different personality here than they do in r/t. Judging from comments made on the Fat Sexuality and Pay-Site threads, we seem to be quite shallow.
__________________
Read the CRU-confirmed E-Mail :D
Chef is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2009, 04:58 PM   #36
AnnMarie
✰cuddly and terrifying✰
 
AnnMarie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Twirly Girl
Posts: 16,296
AnnMarie has ascended what used to be the highest level.AnnMarie has ascended what used to be the highest level.AnnMarie has ascended what used to be the highest level.AnnMarie has ascended what used to be the highest level.AnnMarie has ascended what used to be the highest level.AnnMarie has ascended what used to be the highest level.AnnMarie has ascended what used to be the highest level.AnnMarie has ascended what used to be the highest level.AnnMarie has ascended what used to be the highest level.AnnMarie has ascended what used to be the highest level.AnnMarie has ascended what used to be the highest level.
Default

But there's a big difference with physical changes that we all are subject to and HUGE change that may occur very deliberately (weight loss or gain).

I can date someone who changes weights by up to 50lbs or something, maybe more or less depending on where they started, etc. But if I were dating someone who's weight changed by 100lbs or more - it WOULD be an issue. I can still love them and laugh and share, but our sex life would change and while that may or may not be ok at the time, I don't rule out that that could be something that ends the relationship.

I just don't find it reasonable to expect anyone, of any gender/orienation, to stay in a relationship that no longer fulfills them in all the ways they need/want/deserve to be fulfilled.

Factor in personality changes that go with those other physical changes and ... yup, things could be doomed.


And accidents/illnesses are completely different and unrelated to this particular conversation, so I'm not even going to go into that.
__________________
So ... yeah.
AnnMarie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2009, 05:00 PM   #37
superodalisque
 
superodalisque's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: atlanta
Posts: 7,580
superodalisque has ascended what used to be the highest level.superodalisque has ascended what used to be the highest level.superodalisque has ascended what used to be the highest level.superodalisque has ascended what used to be the highest level.superodalisque has ascended what used to be the highest level.superodalisque has ascended what used to be the highest level.superodalisque has ascended what used to be the highest level.superodalisque has ascended what used to be the highest level.superodalisque has ascended what used to be the highest level.superodalisque has ascended what used to be the highest level.superodalisque has ascended what used to be the highest level.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chef View Post
Shallow - Judging a person based strictly on looks, not factoring in their personality whatsoever.

I think FAs, and myself, are guilty as charged on this board considering it is very difficult to obtain a sample of personality, since many people broadcast a completely different personality here than they do in r/t. Judging from comments made on the Fat Sexuality and Pay-Site threads, we seem to be quite shallow.
well lets be fair. paysites are playsites and not real life. a lot of people want a place to blow off steam --like a whole lot of women going to see thunder down under or chippendale dancers in vegas and making cat calls. but thats very different from real life. i think shallowness is really a question of how do people conduct themselves in real life with a person they want to have a relationship with that they claim they care about. so its hard to make the blanket statement about all FAs. sometimes if you read some things here it doesn't look so good but there are a lot of really nice FAs out there. i know them. just that i haven't personally found the one for me. but then i'm an oddball anyway. having said that, if they are exclusively dating fat women and dumping them if they decide to lose weight after professing love. if they are always sampling one fat girl after another in so called serious relationships but running hither and yon with a tape measure and comparing flesh density --you might be a shallow FA.

Last edited by superodalisque; 07-23-2009 at 05:11 PM.
superodalisque is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2009, 05:02 PM   #38
BarbBBW
Yep, I am BACK!
 
BarbBBW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Arizona
Posts: 2,973
BarbBBW is a pillar of the Dimensions communityBarbBBW is a pillar of the Dimensions communityBarbBBW is a pillar of the Dimensions communityBarbBBW is a pillar of the Dimensions communityBarbBBW is a pillar of the Dimensions communityBarbBBW is a pillar of the Dimensions communityBarbBBW is a pillar of the Dimensions communityBarbBBW is a pillar of the Dimensions communityBarbBBW is a pillar of the Dimensions communityBarbBBW is a pillar of the Dimensions communityBarbBBW is a pillar of the Dimensions community
Default

I would rather have some described as "shallow" then be with someone who,...just likes ALL women. Like me cause I am fat, then get to know me! I have been with way too many men that "can deal" with a fat girl, cause she is pretty, or sweet etc. That drives me absolutely crazy! Thats why I am so into "FA's" I am just as shallow for choosing only FA's. Make sure he is a FA first,... then find out what he looks like and what his personality is.
__________________
:smitten::smitten::smitten:THERE IS NOTHING SEXIER THAN A MAN THAT LOVES BBW!!:smitten::smitten::smitten:



From a friend : "its interesting. you seem to have a contentious love affair with sexual temptation...."
BarbBBW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2009, 05:03 PM   #39
Fascinita
Jeez, we're blessed!
 
Fascinita's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 4,162
Fascinita has ascended what used to be the highest level.Fascinita has ascended what used to be the highest level.Fascinita has ascended what used to be the highest level.Fascinita has ascended what used to be the highest level.Fascinita has ascended what used to be the highest level.Fascinita has ascended what used to be the highest level.Fascinita has ascended what used to be the highest level.Fascinita has ascended what used to be the highest level.Fascinita has ascended what used to be the highest level.Fascinita has ascended what used to be the highest level.Fascinita has ascended what used to be the highest level.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AnnMarie View Post
I just don't find it reasonable to expect anyone, of any gender/orienation, to stay in a relationship that no longer fulfills them in all the ways they need/want/deserve to be fulfilled.
I think it's totally reasonable to want/need to be fulfilled in a relationship. And I think most reasonable people are attracted to their mates in ways that encompass a spectrum of qualities. I disagree that physical attraction alone can make or break a deep, serious relationship.
__________________
......................
|:| Sponsor a puppy or kitten. |:|
Fascinita is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2009, 06:05 PM   #40
Santaclear
User
 
Santaclear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: North America
Posts: 8,230
Santaclear has ascended what used to be the highest level.Santaclear has ascended what used to be the highest level.Santaclear has ascended what used to be the highest level.Santaclear has ascended what used to be the highest level.Santaclear has ascended what used to be the highest level.Santaclear has ascended what used to be the highest level.Santaclear has ascended what used to be the highest level.Santaclear has ascended what used to be the highest level.Santaclear has ascended what used to be the highest level.Santaclear has ascended what used to be the highest level.Santaclear has ascended what used to be the highest level.
Default

I suppose the question of whether FAs are more shallow than non-FAs is like deciding whether the glass is half full or half empty. If attraction is based solely on appearance then yeah, that's shallow. (But like anything else attraction, and the question of why one is attracted, can be viewed as infinitely deep too.)

Do we FAs who recognize the natural superiority of fat women or men lack depth? I think not.
__________________
:confused:
Santaclear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2009, 07:10 PM   #41
kioewen
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 290
kioewen does more than just post hot picskioewen does more than just post hot picskioewen does more than just post hot picskioewen does more than just post hot pics
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chef View Post
Shallow - Judging a person based strictly on looks, not factoring in their personality whatsoever.
I don't buy that definition at all. I don't see what makes a person who reject someone else based on, say, intelligence any more "deep" than someone who rejects someone else based on looks.

So the guy who puts down a girl by saying "You're too dumb for me" is somehow morally superior to the guy who puts down a girl by saying, "You're too ugly for me"? I don't see how one rejection makes the guy any better than the other.

After all, just as some people are blessed with great looks, others are blessed with being charismatic, or intelligent, or whatever. They won the personality lottery, just as others won the looks lottery. It doesn't make the one a morally superior person to the other, and it doesn't make the person who chooses someone based on one set of gifts better than a person who chooses someone based on another set of gifts.

Rather, I think the person who said that people are simply "picky" has it right. There's nothing "shallow" about it. We all follow our instincts when it comes to selecting a significant other, and it's a poor practice to be judgemental about people's impulses or choices in this regard.
kioewen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2009, 05:38 AM   #42
mergirl
 
mergirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Scotland
Posts: 6,927
mergirl keeps pushing the rep limit!mergirl keeps pushing the rep limit!mergirl keeps pushing the rep limit!mergirl keeps pushing the rep limit!mergirl keeps pushing the rep limit!mergirl keeps pushing the rep limit!mergirl keeps pushing the rep limit!mergirl keeps pushing the rep limit!mergirl keeps pushing the rep limit!mergirl keeps pushing the rep limit!mergirl keeps pushing the rep limit!
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thatgirl08 View Post

Anyway, anyone who has a preference is "shallow" to some extent and since everyone has a preference.. well, yeah, connect the dots. We're all somewhat shallow (although I'm not so sure that's the right word.. it sounds so harsh.)
I don't agree with this. If you were to date someone simply because they were fat/thin because that body type was your preference regardless of thier personalities then i think THAT would be shallow. If we are ALL shallow then none of us actually can be, because without depths there can be no comparison.
__________________
We must learn that to passively accept an unjust system is to cooperate with that system, thereby to become a participant in its evil. -Martin Luther King, Jr.
mergirl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2009, 09:54 AM   #43
Webmaster
Chief Emeritus
 
Webmaster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Knoxville, TN area
Posts: 2
Webmaster has ascended what used to be the highest level.Webmaster has ascended what used to be the highest level.Webmaster has ascended what used to be the highest level.Webmaster has ascended what used to be the highest level.Webmaster has ascended what used to be the highest level.Webmaster has ascended what used to be the highest level.Webmaster has ascended what used to be the highest level.Webmaster has ascended what used to be the highest level.Webmaster has ascended what used to be the highest level.Webmaster has ascended what used to be the highest level.Webmaster has ascended what used to be the highest level.
Default

I think it depends on what one's definition of "shallow" is. If shallow means one is to turn a blind eye to any sort of physical appearance and completely disregard it when it comes to selecting a partner, then I think we're probably all shallow.

On the other hand, given who and what we are, I see nothing wrong with seeking out that which gives us joy and pleasure in life. I went through formative years in my life when I came to realize that I wanted and needed a fat partner, and nothing else would do. It still has to be the RIGHT fat partner, of course, and having a preference cuts down the number of potentially right people.

As for the sexual arousal part, I think that's where it gets a little difficult. There can be a situation where you're with someone who fits your ideal of what is sexy and appealing, yet the chemistry just isn't there at all, and nothing is happening. Likewise, it's very possible to have a terrific sexual attraction with someone who may not be one's physical ideal. A lot is in how two people relate and interact.

In the end, if you're an individual who gets a warm, happy smile on their face every time you see a fat person, then by all means don't settle for anything else. Just realize that you still need to find the right person inside the body, too.
Webmaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2009, 12:27 PM   #44
superodalisque
 
superodalisque's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: atlanta
Posts: 7,580
superodalisque has ascended what used to be the highest level.superodalisque has ascended what used to be the highest level.superodalisque has ascended what used to be the highest level.superodalisque has ascended what used to be the highest level.superodalisque has ascended what used to be the highest level.superodalisque has ascended what used to be the highest level.superodalisque has ascended what used to be the highest level.superodalisque has ascended what used to be the highest level.superodalisque has ascended what used to be the highest level.superodalisque has ascended what used to be the highest level.superodalisque has ascended what used to be the highest level.
Default

joy and pleasure in life is a wonderful thing. everyone should go for it. but i think it gets to be shallow if when your in the process you don't care if you hurt another person. if you sublimate someone elses well being and happiness for physical desires that would mean a lack of care for who they are as a human being. being attracted to or having a preference is one thing but treating people as though they are disposable is another altogether. so if someone is easily disposed of just because they change physically i personally don't think it was really love in the first place. it really makes you wonder how far preference should go when it comes to chosing someone. its like heterosexual males saying they have a preference for women. not just any woman should do. and one would hope that if that woman got ill or was in an an accident or just got older ... a person's preference may be an inital attraction but if it doesn't develop into more than just that over time then it probably is shallowness.

Last edited by superodalisque; 07-24-2009 at 12:35 PM.
superodalisque is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2009, 01:51 PM   #45
Tad
mostly harmless
 
Tad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 12,422
Tad has ascended what used to be the highest level.Tad has ascended what used to be the highest level.Tad has ascended what used to be the highest level.Tad has ascended what used to be the highest level.Tad has ascended what used to be the highest level.Tad has ascended what used to be the highest level.Tad has ascended what used to be the highest level.Tad has ascended what used to be the highest level.Tad has ascended what used to be the highest level.Tad has ascended what used to be the highest level.Tad has ascended what used to be the highest level.
Default

My Friday afternoon response......


Only the thin FA are shallow, the fatter ones might stick up above water more but also go deeper below the surface....simple physics really

(more seriously, I think people who put part ahead of the whole, be that part 'FA' or any other, are being shallow. On the other hand shallow is probably not the biggest crime in the world)
__________________
Criticism is so often nothing more than the eye garrulously denouncing the shape of the peephole that gives access to hidden treasure.
-Djuna Barnes, writer and artist
Tad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2009, 01:55 PM   #46
joswitch
Exile from Main Board
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 4,704
joswitch has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!joswitch has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!joswitch has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!joswitch has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!joswitch has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!joswitch has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!joswitch has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!joswitch has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!joswitch has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!joswitch has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!joswitch has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KnottyOne View Post
Ok, so I feel that this is like the first serious question thread I have ever come up with, so bear with me if it's all spacey and all over the place.

I don't know where this thought came from, but it just popped into my head last night, and that is that FA's are naturally more shallow then non-FA's. I'm not talking in the generic "oh, they aren't cute enough" way, but I mean in the, if they aren't fat then they can't be attractive way. I completely understand preferences, and no one should go against what they really enjoy or try to like something that they don't truly desire, I'm just wondering if it is the disposition of someone who has one set preference. This can go into anyone who has standards they refuse to break, something as simple as only dating people with a certain hair color could also fall into this category. But I can't help but think that by limiting yourself to only what you find as the ideal is shallowness in itself. I know there are tons of guys on this board who would only date a fat girl, and even if a skinny girl came by with the same personality that they could like for that, they wouldn't because they were skinny. So I'm just wondering, if someone has preferences that they refuse to budge on, does this just make them really picky or shallow to a point? Anyone else have any ideas about this?
Disclaimer: You'll find some anger in my response here. This is not directed as you personally, but rather this persistent and IMO unpleasant idea.

I am so sick of this neo-puritan BS idea that owning your sexual orientation and dating the people you are sexually attracted to makes you somehow "shallow"! For a lot of folk sex is a DEEP and powerful connection and sex with someone you love is as DEEP as it gets! So I reject this "shallow" judgement wholeheartedly!


I think this "shallow" attitude stems from a number of different myths:
Myth - 1)
The false dichotomy of mind/body - that "you" are not *really* your body, but something else that "happens" to inhabit your body... This dualism is formalised and given mainstream acceptance in religion. Humans are "monads" - mind/body = "one thing"! The sooner folks "get" this, the better for all IMO.
Strongly allied to this / a subset of this false dualism is the myth (1a lol! at self) That fat is somehow "alien" and "separate" and "other" and not actually PART OF YOUR BODY! Sure, no-one is *just* their fat - but fat *is* PART of you - in an entirely holistic sense... so many anti-fat ranters and sadly, big folks themselves, speak of their fat as being a "thing" which they are somehow divorced from... this is a fundamental cognitive disconnect in a similar way to someone who wishes to amputate a body part before they feel "right" in themselves....In this sense - the main difference between the person who wishes to amputate a limb and the person who wishes to "amputate" their fat, is that the first idea is considered horrifying by mainstream society and the latter is considered marvellous and wonderful and the right thing for everyone to do...

Myth 2)
That sexual attraction is a "choice" and something that you can change your mind about... Seriously I don't feel that I need to advance an argument on this one - listen to what gay folks have had to say in response to decades of efforts by the mainstream to "heterosexualize" them... I can sum it up in two words - the second is "OFF!" Loving big, fat beautiful women is my sexual orientation and I'm not ashamed of it and it's not ****** "shallow"! *bangs table*

Myth 3)
That sex and sexual attraction "shouldn't really matter" if you are truly "in love" with someone. Crap. For two adults to truly be lovers, most of the time BOTH LOVE and LUST are required... Certainly for me.
(N.B. There are people for whom sex is genuinely not important, and that's just dandy! - for them! I suspect they are a minority of humans - I will not speculate as to the size of that minority big or small... their being a minority does not make their experience any less valid... just as my being minority does not make my FAness any less valid )
Having had wonderful LTRs with gorgeous BBWs and having experienced the DEEP and powerful connection that was love and kissing and hugs and SEX with someone I found 100% desirable, someone I didn't have to fantasise with to "finish off" because I could actually be right there, in the moment with her and she actually was everything I desired... To be with someone that when I held her in my arms and kissed her everything felt suddenly and somehow in every way completely RIGHT.... How could that depth of feeling possibly be "shallow"?? and how could I possibly go back to being divided against myself with someone I didn't find as physically desirable... Why would I do that? When there are women out there who I find gorgeous for ALL of themselves? *waves arms*

Myth 4)
The idea that most FAs are less "flexible" in their preferences than most non-FAs.... is basically garbage.... It's an artefact of P.O.V. because mainstream thinking divides people along these lines:

A) Fat people. For sheeple that's it. End of. Because of the way they dismiss fat people from "being attractive". No further distinctions are made by sheeple in this category. Hence the dumbass friend who on learning you are FA thinks you must be attracted to EVERY fat woman you see!
B) Thin people - or as sheeple would think of them "everyone else"... sheeple procede to make endless distinctions among this popluation, because this is the group of people that they happen to value as "attractive".

In fact I'd guess that if I'm typical in anyway of (any subgroup) of FAs, that FAs are probably attracted to partners in a broader weight range than mainstream people...
Example: my "range of attraction" encompasses BBWs who might weigh from about 200lbs - 420lbs++ (the ++ cos that's outside my experience, but I don't have a "top limit" of attraction - that I've experienced). So that's a range of variation of 220lbs++ for me... Now go out and poll a bunch of "mainstream" people I think you'll find that their "range of attraction" is a hell of a lot less broad than that!

/rant

Summing up:
Sexuality is a deep and fundamental subset of human feeling. To own, value and live your sexuality and to exchange joy in it - is NOT "shallow"!
__________________
...
joswitch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2009, 02:36 PM   #47
joswitch
Exile from Main Board
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 4,704
joswitch has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!joswitch has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!joswitch has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!joswitch has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!joswitch has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!joswitch has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!joswitch has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!joswitch has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!joswitch has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!joswitch has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!joswitch has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fascinita View Post
Well, I'm saying that I think attraction that hinges solely on physical attraction isn't deep enough for serious relationships. Besides physical attraction, serious relationships require commitment and work. Knowing that someone was apt to abandon our commitment and investment together solely because my looks changed wouldn't let me feel confident enough in that person's seriousness over the long term to enter into a serious relationship with them. If I lost a leg in an accident and my husband of twenty years left me because he couldn't get turned on anymore, I'd say that qualifies as shallow. Depth is depth.
Your analogy needs tweaking -

Try to imagine that your bf decided to cut off his legs. His finely muscled, strong functional legs (say) that you'd adored as an integral part of him from the moment you met...

Imagine that he did this thing because he wanted to fit in with a mainstream society that held amputation to be the "ideal"....
Imagine that he did this bit by bit...
toes first, (and you're like... ok I can deal with that, it's fine)
then a bit later feet, (and it's starting to freak you, but you can deal)
then to the knees (and now you're crying inside, every time you lose a bit more of him)
and so on, unto stumps of thighs...

Imagine he did that... deliberately...
Imagine he did that despite knowing from your first meeting that you adored him exactly as you found him...
Imagine the angusish and worry you'd feel as he went through this dangerous and fundamentally altering process....
Imagine how ****** ALONE you'd feel as everyone, his friends and relatives and colleagues lauded and praised his "progress" at every opportunity...
Imagine how disgusted you'd feel at a world of people who praised your lover for making *this* change FAR more than any of your lover's other pretty damn awesome achievements and wonderful qualities...
Imagine how angry you'd feel at a world of people who "brainwashed" / abused your lover from their childhood with the idea that amputation was a requirement for true value as a human, to the point your lover CHOSE to change themselves THAT much....

That's what it felt like for me to see my most recent ex drop about 90lbs in 6 MONTHS on a starvation diet less than 1/4 of the recommended daily intake...

She is a lovely girl and it's a measure of how much I love(d) her that I held on and held on as she vanished and melted away... I got actual ulcers... (never had that before, ever)... In the end it became clear that we couldn't be happy together, given that I couldn't suddenly stop being FA and she wasn't ready to stop starving and I couldn't cope anymore... so we split...

And yeah I felt like s*** for a long time...

But you know what - none of that was "shallow"!
You can call me "limited" certainly.
Yeah, I'm not "all that".

But nothing about that experience and how I felt about it and how I felt /feel about my (now ex) gf was "shallow".

[And yes I've happily been in a LTR with a BBW whose weight went up and down in 40lb ish range due to various non-diet things and I was cool with that... And no I wouldn't have felt the same if my gf had lost weight due to illness, because I would not have felt "divided against myself" - in that wanting her to get healthy would've meshed with wanting her to regain some/most of her previous weight]
__________________
...
joswitch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2009, 02:58 PM   #48
joswitch
Exile from Main Board
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 4,704
joswitch has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!joswitch has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!joswitch has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!joswitch has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!joswitch has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!joswitch has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!joswitch has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!joswitch has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!joswitch has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!joswitch has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!joswitch has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by superodalisque View Post
...its like heterosexual males saying they have a preference for women. not just any woman should do. and one would hope that if that woman got ill or was in an an accident or just got older ... a person's preference may be an inital attraction but if it doesn't develop into more than just that over time then it probably is shallowness.
How about if that woman decided to.... become a man?
Would you condemn her lover for being shallow if he broke up with her then?

Major changes.
Chosen. Not through accident.
Sudden. Not gradual ageing.

Different situation.
Different feelings.
__________________
...
joswitch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2009, 08:43 PM   #49
rollhandler
 
rollhandler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Northern Illinois
Posts: 612
rollhandler never has a post go unnoticedrollhandler never has a post go unnoticedrollhandler never has a post go unnoticedrollhandler never has a post go unnoticedrollhandler never has a post go unnoticedrollhandler never has a post go unnoticedrollhandler never has a post go unnoticedrollhandler never has a post go unnoticed
Default

In my opinion a persons sexuality is every bit the same as their preference. By this I mean that if a person is gay then they simply wont date outside of it and partner with a person of opposite gender. The same applies if one is straight not wanting to date or mate with one of their own gender. If ones preference happens to be skinny people you would naturally only find them attractive within the degree of your preference identification. It is all on the bell curve with some prefering some fat or thin, some only thin, and some only fat.

From there it becomes a matter of what type of fat person you enjoy within that preference. IE: redheads, blondes, tall/short, long/short hair, big bellies or barely there, merely chubby or extremely obese.

When it comes to relationships it seems that women are less visually shallow than men but when it comes to preference its all a matter of what turns us on, period.
Rollhandler
rollhandler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2009, 10:28 PM   #50
Fascinita
Jeez, we're blessed!
 
Fascinita's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 4,162
Fascinita has ascended what used to be the highest level.Fascinita has ascended what used to be the highest level.Fascinita has ascended what used to be the highest level.Fascinita has ascended what used to be the highest level.Fascinita has ascended what used to be the highest level.Fascinita has ascended what used to be the highest level.Fascinita has ascended what used to be the highest level.Fascinita has ascended what used to be the highest level.Fascinita has ascended what used to be the highest level.Fascinita has ascended what used to be the highest level.Fascinita has ascended what used to be the highest level.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by joswitch View Post
Your analogy needs tweaking -

Try to imagine that your bf decided to cut off his legs. His finely muscled, strong functional legs (say) that you'd adored as an integral part of him from the moment you met...

Imagine that he did this thing because he wanted to fit in with a mainstream society that held amputation to be the "ideal"....
Imagine that he did this bit by bit...
toes first, (and you're like... ok I can deal with that, it's fine)
then a bit later feet, (and it's starting to freak you, but you can deal)
then to the knees (and now you're crying inside, every time you lose a bit more of him)
and so on, unto stumps of thighs...

Imagine he did that... deliberately...
Imagine he did that despite knowing from your first meeting that you adored him exactly as you found him...
Imagine the angusish and worry you'd feel as he went through this dangerous and fundamentally altering process....
Imagine how ****** ALONE you'd feel as everyone, his friends and relatives and colleagues lauded and praised his "progress" at every opportunity...
Imagine how disgusted you'd feel at a world of people who praised your lover for making *this* change FAR more than any of your lover's other pretty damn awesome achievements and wonderful qualities...
Imagine how angry you'd feel at a world of people who "brainwashed" / abused your lover from their childhood with the idea that amputation was a requirement for true value as a human, to the point your lover CHOSE to change themselves THAT much....

That's what it felt like for me to see my most recent ex drop about 90lbs in 6 MONTHS on a starvation diet less than 1/4 of the recommended daily intake...

She is a lovely girl and it's a measure of how much I love(d) her that I held on and held on as she vanished and melted away... I got actual ulcers... (never had that before, ever)... In the end it became clear that we couldn't be happy together, given that I couldn't suddenly stop being FA and she wasn't ready to stop starving and I couldn't cope anymore... so we split...

And yeah I felt like s*** for a long time...

But you know what - none of that was "shallow"!
You can call me "limited" certainly.
Yeah, I'm not "all that".

But nothing about that experience and how I felt about it and how I felt /feel about my (now ex) gf was "shallow".

[And yes I've happily been in a LTR with a BBW whose weight went up and down in 40lb ish range due to various non-diet things and I was cool with that... And no I wouldn't have felt the same if my gf had lost weight due to illness, because I would not have felt "divided against myself" - in that wanting her to get healthy would've meshed with wanting her to regain some/most of her previous weight]
I tried to imagine my boyfriend alone in the wilderness with his legs caught under a boulder. It was very dramatic and I got carried away. Nearly started crying! Then I imagined his having to tourniquet and cut off his legs in order to try to crawl for his life to where he might have a chance at being found and rescued. Then I imagined that he had made it! Hurray! Thank goodness.

Then I tried to imagine me looking at his self-amputated legs and thinking, "God, can I "get it up" for boyfee again?" And I just can't. All I can think of is, "He did what he had to do for his own good, and I'm grateful he's still around."

For some fat people, losing weight is not just a cosmetic choice.

And in any case, a person who has an overwhelming need for a certain physical charasteristic in order to maintain an attraction should make it clear to everyone she or he gets involved with that this is the case. That way the potential partner knows what he or she is getting into, knows the depth of the person's ability to commit seriously and for the long term. This is all I'm saying: yes, there are some who are shallow and some who are not, just as with any demographic--and since it's the case that some have a "make it or break" need for a certain physical characteristic in order to remain attracted, that should be made clear to any potential love interest.

This has all been "just hypothetically" speaking. And I do understand and support anyone's desire to go after what makes them happy in life, as long as it's done in a considerate manner where the happiness of another human being is also at stake.
__________________
......................
|:| Sponsor a puppy or kitten. |:|
Fascinita is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:28 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright Dimensions Magazine. All rights reserved worldwide.