Quantcast

Guys Who Like Fat Chicks: Village Voice Article

Dimensions Magazine

Help Support Dimensions Magazine:

joswitch

Exile from Main Board
Joined
Dec 26, 2007
Messages
4,681
Location
,
@Alzison (mainly)


The article never claimed to be about BOTH / ALL sides of the story, or even about all people-who-dig-fat-folks - it set out to talk about "guys who like fat chicks". Just that. The guys. The het guys. In fact: the young het guys who happened to be interviewed and then edited. It never claimed to be an encyclopedia entry.

Gettin' mad at it cos it didn't cover all the bases, e.g. about how fat women feel*, is a bit like getting mad at corn flakes for not being bacon and eggs. (I'm all over the food analogies lately :p ).

(*Oh, wait! I remember there was a part about one SSBBWs experience in Spain, and another about how one BBW felt wary when some dude approaches her with romantic interest. So, clearly fat women DID get a look-in.)

Also, is there anyone, anywhere in the Western world who doesn't already know that fat people in general and fat women in particular get shitloads of grief all the time? Have there not been endless column inches devoted to this? Ok, it didn't receive much mention in the article, but then if you were reading an article about how e.g.
- astronomers struggle with their sleep pattern, you probably wouldn't need to mention that they have to be awake at night to look at the stars, eh?



Suggestion: This Camille person seems a pretty decent journo and Dan has her contact info. - maybe people who want to have fat people's POV aired in VV should get in touch with her? It could turn into a series! Fat women and dating. Fat guys and dating. Het peeps, gay peeps, bi peeps, trans peeps from fat people and people who dig them's POV.

Just sayin'
 

Alzison

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2011
Messages
59
Location
,
@Alzison (mainly)


The article never claimed to be about BOTH / ALL sides of the story, or even about all people-who-dig-fat-folks - it set out to talk about "guys who like fat chicks". Just that. The guys. The het guys. In fact: the young het guys who happened to be interviewed and then edited. It never claimed to be an encyclopedia entry.

Gettin' mad at it cos it didn't cover all the bases, e.g. about how fat women feel*, is a bit like getting mad at corn flakes for not being bacon and eggs. (I'm all over the food analogies lately :p ).

(*Oh, wait! I remember there was a part about one SSBBWs experience in Spain, and another about how one BBW felt wary when some dude approaches her with romantic interest. So, clearly fat women DID get a look-in.)

Also, is there anyone, anywhere in the Western world who doesn't already know that fat people in general and fat women in particular get shitloads of grief all the time? Have there not been endless column inches devoted to this? Ok, it didn't receive much mention in the article, but then if you were reading an article about how e.g.
- astronomers struggle with their sleep pattern, you probably wouldn't need to mention that they have to be awake at night to look at the stars, eh?



Suggestion: This Camille person seems a pretty decent journo and Dan has her contact info. - maybe people who want to have fat people's POV aired in VV should get in touch with her? It could turn into a series! Fat women and dating. Fat guys and dating. Het peeps, gay peeps, bi peeps, trans peeps from fat people and people who dig them's POV.

Just sayin'
Um... yeah I realize in retrospect that I should have probably said another few or 50 times that I get that the article was about the dudes not about the fat women themselves. I'm just saying that the way the language framed the subject, it was like said dudes were into some inanimate object (thus objectification). It was as if the article was about why children love kittens or why astronauts (cause I gotta reference your own subject matter) love the stars. I'm not saying that the article was presented to be anything else or that it pretended to be more than it was set out to be, but describing only one side of the puzzle created, without even talking about it or referencing it, a fetishistic point of view. The women were just "giant boobs," or were just personifications of some attractive physicality.

I say this because I disagree with its representation of FA's. If a guy is dating or in love with a fat woman (and to respond to an above post- this clearly isn't about twentysomethings who just want to bang, because at least two of those interviewed have longterm girlfriends), it isn't just about the objectified attraction. I get the subject matter. I get the point of the article. I'm not commenting to say "hey what about me! let's do a series so it can be about me too!". I'm commenting because of the way FA's were portrayed and, vis-à-vis, the way that fat women were turned into simplistic objects of desire.
 

butch

cuddly, hairy, and fat
Joined
Mar 16, 2006
Messages
2,329
Location
,
the article also had a weird progression. It's about 'guys who like fat chicks' but yet there is a long middle piece aboue Charlotte, so it isn't just about the guys, and yet it is. I think it is valid to wonder why the reporter made the choices she did about what to write about and what to not write about. Although, it must be noted that reporters never write the headlines, so who knows if the article was pitched as being about 'guys who like fat chicks' or if it was pitched as being about fat sexuality more broadly, and the editors and copy writers made it into something more about the young men and their wild and crazy FA NYC lives then about the subculture that men and women occupy together.
 

Chimpi

into the shining sun
Joined
Feb 5, 2006
Messages
2,795
Location
,
I thought the segment about Charlotte was attuned well into the topic. The article, primarily 'guys who like fat chicks', shows the perspective of a woman whom is the object of affection and admiration from said 'guys who like fat chicks'. Showing the reality that a very fat woman, whom said guys desire and seek out, have much the same dating and sex lives as "normal" folk (if not better than some) is a healthy addition. I really enjoyed it, and the article overall.

With a few little tidbits in the article, I thoroughly enjoyed it, and felt at home within the information and viewpoints given. I'm in agreement and disagreement with this portion of the article:
“I have a type, too. Mine’s just bigger. He may like skinny blondes with bangs and long legs. I like pear shapes with brown hair and green eyes. I have a type—it just happens to be fat.” - Lawrence
“All the other normal benchmarks of attractiveness are in place. Proportions, symmetry, everything else, from tone of voice to texture of skin. That is exactly the same. It’s just that you’re talking about a different scale.” - Lawrence

Relating to the question mcbeth brought up, I think it has the potential to do good as well as re-emphasize the cookie cutter, unrealistic ideology that you have to be X, Y & Z in order to be desirable, beautiful and attractive. It's good to inform people - or just be open about the preference - that liking fat chicks is perfectly normal and a commonplace attraction. The more people know, the more accepted it shall hopefully be in the long right. But when it coincides with "you have to be a certain type of fat to be attractive," well that's just nonsense. That's detrimental to the fundamental reasoning behind the article, really. I realize it happens all the time, but I believe it completely diminishes the open minded approach people should be making about attraction as a whole.

Also, to the above people that say the particular photo from the article is pretty much the most awesome thing - I agree!
 

LalaCity

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2007
Messages
3,044
Location
,
I've seen the article criticized in various quarters as not being size acceptance-y enough; that the sentiment (as expressed by at least one of the interviewees) that not all FAs find all fat women universally attractive somehow undermines the SA movement. I wouldn't expect to be found universally attractive, nor would I accept as legitimate any piece of journalism that attempted to persuade me thus.

The purpose of this piece is to expose a truth, not salve the wounds of the oppressed; but, in being an honest piece of writing, it manages, at least for me, to do precisely that inasmuch as it leaves no doubt that the sentiments expressed are genuine. For that reason it means much more to me than the usual boilerplate "hot at any size" editorials designed to push a clothing line.

Good journalism is meant to anatomize and lay bare every muscle, nerve and bone of a particular story, and the results, whether pleasing, painful, or shocking, are meant to enlighten us, not reinforce our prejudices or indulge our fantasies.
 

butch

cuddly, hairy, and fat
Joined
Mar 16, 2006
Messages
2,329
Location
,
Just to clarify-I'm not criticizing that the Charlotte portion was in the article, it just seemed to be at odds with the purpose of the article, since it allowed a 'fat chick's' sexual agency to be on display, as well. In the Charlotte portion, she was allowed to have as much a voice, and a presence, as the FAs had, and in that context, the article subverts the idea that it is only about the POV of 'guys who like fat chicks.'
 

mithrandirjn

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2009
Messages
200
Location
,
I thought the segment about Charlotte was attuned well into the topic. The article, primarily 'guys who like fat chicks', shows the perspective of a woman whom is the object of affection and admiration from said 'guys who like fat chicks'. Showing the reality that a very fat woman, whom said guys desire and seek out, have much the same dating and sex lives as "normal" folk (if not better than some) is a healthy addition. I really enjoyed it, and the article overall.

With a few little tidbits in the article, I thoroughly enjoyed it, and felt at home within the information and viewpoints given. I'm in agreement and disagreement with this portion of the article:
“I have a type, too. Mine’s just bigger. He may like skinny blondes with bangs and long legs. I like pear shapes with brown hair and green eyes. I have a type—it just happens to be fat.” - Lawrence
“All the other normal benchmarks of attractiveness are in place. Proportions, symmetry, everything else, from tone of voice to texture of skin. That is exactly the same. It’s just that you’re talking about a different scale.” - Lawrence

Relating to the question mcbeth brought up, I think it has the potential to do good as well as re-emphasize the cookie cutter, unrealistic ideology that you have to be X, Y & Z in order to be desirable, beautiful and attractive. It's good to inform people - or just be open about the preference - that liking fat chicks is perfectly normal and a commonplace attraction. The more people know, the more accepted it shall hopefully be in the long right. But when it coincides with "you have to be a certain type of fat to be attractive," well that's just nonsense. That's detrimental to the fundamental reasoning behind the article, really. I realize it happens all the time, but I believe it completely diminishes the open minded approach people should be making about attraction as a whole.

Also, to the above people that say the particular photo from the article is pretty much the most awesome thing - I agree!
Have to disagree on one point: in a way, I think printing those lines was important in terms of framing fat attraction the way it was presented in the story.

There IS a perception out there about some men that if you like one, or two, or however many various types of fat women, then you obviously must find all fat women attractive. In doing this, the framework moves away from a fat attraction, and the perception becomes that of a fat fetish.

That, I think, is at the heart of what this article is combating. It's not an article trying to make everybody feel warm and fuzzy, and it's not about full, 100% open-mindedness about attraction. It's saying that people all have their own preferences, their own standards, their own likes or dislikes. Preferring fat women isn't much different from preferring a certain other body type, hair color, etc. It's just the way some guys are wired, and it's as normal and filled with positives and negatives as the preferences of any other men.
 

joswitch

Exile from Main Board
Joined
Dec 26, 2007
Messages
4,681
Location
,
I've seen the article criticized in various quarters as not being size acceptance-y enough; that the sentiment (as expressed by at least one of the interviewees) that not all FAs find all fat women universally attractive somehow undermines the SA movement. I wouldn't expect to be found universally attractive, nor would I accept as legitimate any piece of journalism that attempted to persuade me thus.

The purpose of this piece is to expose a truth, not salve the wounds of the oppressed; but, in being an honest piece of writing, it manages, at least for me, to do precisely that inasmuch as it leaves no doubt that the sentiments expressed are genuine. For that reason it means much more to me than the usual boilerplate "hot at any size" editorials designed to push a clothing line.

Good journalism is meant to anatomize and lay bare every muscle, nerve and bone of a particular story, and the results, whether pleasing, painful, or shocking, are meant to enlighten us, not reinforce our prejudices or indulge our fantasies.

^Cannot rep you. Great post. I agree completely.:)
 

NoWayOut

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2008
Messages
2,095
Location
,
if you were gonna pick a fake name, why pick lawrence. no offense to men actually named lawrence, but my fake name would be Maximillian or Optimus Prime, something cool like that
Veruca, you don't get to pick your fake name. It's the writer's discretion. Most times, the writer will just say "a man who spoke on the condition of anonymity". Trust me, you will never see anyone identified as Optimus Prime in a published article as their only identification.
 

joswitch

Exile from Main Board
Joined
Dec 26, 2007
Messages
4,681
Location
,
Optimus Prime sed: "I Haz BoneRz 4 Fat Chickz! Tehy HOTTEZ!!"
 

verucassault

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2010
Messages
153
Location
,
Trust me, you will never see anyone identified as Optimus Prime in a published article as their only identification.
i suppose i should have riddled my post with smiley faces to convey that i was being sarcastic sigh
 

Jenella

Far from Ordinary
Joined
Nov 23, 2010
Messages
26
Location
,
Before joining Dims and reading quite a bit of the threads on here. I had no idea there were 'guys who like fat chicks'. I wish that this article would of come out earlier...
So for me, the article was okay. I'm still in the accepting stage of 'omgwtf, guys find my fat ass attractive?'
 

asmiletoday

Active Member
Joined
May 6, 2011
Messages
38
Location
,
Confession. I joined dims yesterday BECAUSE of that article. I didn't know there was an active ( and healthy) online community.

I will say this. I don't like how the article portrays all fat women as down on themselves for it or seeing themselves as unlovable. There are fat women, like myself, who don't look in the mirror and cringe at their body- they smile. In fact when I look at why I am single, it's because no one has been good enough for me yet- not the other way around.

Did any other fat women feel the same way about that portrayal of fat women in the article?
 

BigBeautifulMe

That was a heart.
Joined
Oct 4, 2006
Messages
7,419
Location
,
Confession. I joined dims yesterday BECAUSE of that article. I didn't know there was an active ( and healthy) online community.

I will say this. I don't like how the article portrays all fat women as down on themselves for it or seeing themselves as unlovable. There are fat women, like myself, who don't look in the mirror and cringe at their body- they smile. In fact when I look at why I am single, it's because no one has been good enough for me yet- not the other way around.

Did any other fat women feel the same way about that portrayal of fat women in the article?
I don't think Charlotte was portrayed that way at all. Do you?
 

BigBeautifulMe

That was a heart.
Joined
Oct 4, 2006
Messages
7,419
Location
,
As someone who was also interviewed for the article, I do, too. Let's just say it's not because of ageism that no one older than 28 is represented.
Charlotte is 32, FWIW.

Before joining Dims and reading quite a bit of the threads on here. I had no idea there were 'guys who like fat chicks'. I wish that this article would of come out earlier...
So for me, the article was okay. I'm still in the accepting stage of 'omgwtf, guys find my fat ass attractive?'
Really glad you got something out of it, and that you're here. :)
 

asmiletoday

Active Member
Joined
May 6, 2011
Messages
38
Location
,
I don't think Charlotte was portrayed that way at all. Do you?

My comment was in regards to this quote. Like, "If only. Try convincing an archetypal “easy” fat girl to do it with the light on, or let you play with her belly, or refer to her as “fat” without sobbing and trying to throw up the nice dinner you bought her. Spend weeks convincing her you’re Not Joking, your buddy’s not gonna jump out of the closet with Tucker Max and a camera. "
 

BigBeautifulMe

That was a heart.
Joined
Oct 4, 2006
Messages
7,419
Location
,
My comment was in regards to this quote. Like, "If only. Try convincing an archetypal “easy” fat girl to do it with the light on, or let you play with her belly, or refer to her as “fat” without sobbing and trying to throw up the nice dinner you bought her. Spend weeks convincing her you’re Not Joking, your buddy’s not gonna jump out of the closet with Tucker Max and a camera. "
Perhaps that quote does portray many fat women that way, but the article also included someone not like that. So I don't think we can really say it portrays ALL fat women that way.
 
Top