Sigh

Dimensions Magazine

Help Support Dimensions Magazine:

waldo

***
Joined
Dec 19, 2006
Messages
607
Location
somewhere on Earth
Was she in the right with her original snarky video? That’s not my judgment to make. I do not agree with her style, and it wasn’t how I would’ve handled the situation. But the point I was trying to make, and what keeps getting obfuscated in this ongoing discussion, is NOT that she was refused access to ride. The point of my post was that she was fat shamed. She was called a “fat bitch” because she complained. She was fat shamed. If the teen’s words were a justified response to her entitlement, why did the owners of the ranch apologize and denounce what he said? Why did they change their online blog to include weight related limitations for riding, including suggestions for the breeds of horses better suited to fat riders?

As for misandry and a cheap shot directed at you, no sir. My post actually was not addressed specifically to you, or I would’ve quoted you. My comments were based on my own experiences. When I was single, I attended dances and parties for fat people and their admirers. Twice I was approached by men whom I had no connection with, and so I declined their advances. Both times, when I apologized and told them I was not interested, I was called an “ungrateful fat bitch”, because I should be happy any man deems to find me worthy to spend time with him.

I shared my opinion based on my experience as a very fat woman in a thin centric world. I would love to hear the opinion of any of the BHM amongst us as to their experience(s) with fat shaming. From my interactions with them, I see it happening, but I don’t even begin to understand how it impacts them because I am not a man and/or I do not identify as male. Isn’t that kind of the function of a discussion forum?

If you feel my post was an insult to you, or anyone else, I apologize. No insult was intended or implied.

It's not that I don't understand/appreciate the frustration you have from being a fat person in a thin centric world. But, not everyone who may push back somewhat is a fat hater or self-loathing FA. Yes, those 'bad FAs' are all over the place and those of us that try to be genuine are affected by their egregious behavior. I am sorry for poking at you.
 
Last edited:

loopytheone

Staff member
Administrator
Global Moderator
***
Joined
Dec 14, 2012
Messages
5,092
Location
England
It was really shitty of that teenager to say that stuff online. It's a symptom of fatphobia on a social/cultural level and it damn well sucks. That said, I don't think the company could have handled the situation with the kid any better than they did. They distanced themselves, apologized, took advice on putting weight limits on the website etc etc.

It's just yet another example of how far we have to come in terms of fat acceptance on a societal level. Hopefully the kid grows up into a decent person and looks back at this and cringes. God knows I was an ass at that age, sometimes.
 

Ffancy

***
Joined
Mar 20, 2017
Messages
110
Location
In a salt fog
I was wondering how knights in full armor got around if the weight limits for riding without injuring the horse are so low, but of course the answer is draft horses for riding were way more common when armor was a thing.
 

loopytheone

Staff member
Administrator
Global Moderator
***
Joined
Dec 14, 2012
Messages
5,092
Location
England
I was wondering how knights in full armor got around if the weight limits for riding without injuring the horse are so low, but of course the answer is draft horses for riding were way more common when armor was a thing.

That and the long term effects of too much weight bearing on horses are a fairly recent discovery/consideration. Back in the days when horses were for fighting, it didn't matter too much if they ended up with premature arthritis or back problems, as long as you won the war. There's a big difference between the amount of weight a horse can carry without any immediate problems, and the amount of weight it can take without causing long term damage.

The amount of weight that can be held gets less proportionally the bigger/taller the horse too, hence the suggestion that no horses have more than 250/300 lbs or so on them. But like I said, if wearing too heavy armor whilst riding the horse is what is needed to win a war, then the long term effects on the horse are far less important than that.

...sorry, I'm a horse/physics nerd, hahaha.
 

waldo

***
Joined
Dec 19, 2006
Messages
607
Location
somewhere on Earth
That and the long term effects of too much weight bearing on horses are a fairly recent discovery/consideration. Back in the days when horses were for fighting, it didn't matter too much if they ended up with premature arthritis or back problems, as long as you won the war. There's a big difference between the amount of weight a horse can carry without any immediate problems, and the amount of weight it can take without causing long term damage.

The amount of weight that can be held gets less proportionally the bigger/taller the horse too, hence the suggestion that no horses have more than 250/300 lbs or so on them. But like I said, if wearing too heavy armor whilst riding the horse is what is needed to win a war, then the long term effects on the horse are far less important than that.

...sorry, I'm a horse/physics nerd, hahaha.

So you appear to be saying that I was wrong to suggest the heavy horses could carry a larger than 20% of their body weight but that it is actually less than 20 % ? I am surprised at that. When you look at a picture of a draft horse like the Clydesdales and Persherons versus that of a quarter horse, the draft horse looks to be built like a total brick shithouse in comparison. Big, thick, strong looking legs and a large solid looking torso. We know those big horses can pull a much larger load, so I am surprised that they could not also carry a larger load on their backs.

As far as horses used in warfare: even when the cavalry was rendered largely obsolete starting with WWI (other than for reconnaissance), MANY horses were used to pull artillery and supply wagons into the front line. And many of these horses were killed or allowed to die in harsh winter conditions during which supplies were limited. Even in WWII, the German army, which was famous for their prowess in tank and mechanized infantry warfare used a lot of horse drawn wagons to haul the supplies just as in WWI. The carnage at the famous Falaise pocket was full of dead horses.
 
Last edited:

loopytheone

Staff member
Administrator
Global Moderator
***
Joined
Dec 14, 2012
Messages
5,092
Location
England
So you appear to be saying that I was wrong to suggest the heavy horses could carry a larger than 20% of their body weight but that it is actually less than 20 % ? I am surprised at that. When you look at a picture of a draft horse like the Clydesdales and Persherons versus that of a quarter horse, the draft horse looks to be built like a total brick shithouse in comparison. Big, thick, strong looking legs and a large solid looking torso. We know those big horses can pull a much larger load, so I am surprised that they could not also carry a larger load on their backs.

As far as horses used in warfare: even when the cavalry was rendered largely obsolete starting with WWI (other than for reconnaissance), MANY horses were used to pull artillery and supply wagons into the front line. And many of these horses were killed or allowed to die in harsh winter conditions during which supplies were limited. Even in WWII, the German army, which was famous for their prowess in tank and mechanized infantry warfare used a lot of horse drawn wagons to haul the supplies just as in WWI. The carnage at the famous Falaise pocket was full of dead horses.

Yeah, draft horses are super strong and great at pulling things, but that doesn't translate well into long term weight carrying. Animals that are the same specie have the same basic structure in terms of bones, joints etc, which is the main factor in terms of carrying capacity. If you disregard build for a moment, and assume that larger horses are just perfect scaled up versions of smaller ones, then the issue is that height/length are linear but weight/volume are cubic. So a taller/bigger horse, even with the same build, has a lot more strain on its joints/muscles from its own body. That's one of the reasons why small animals like rats can carry over 100% of their body weight, but a horse can only carry ~20%.

It's like building a bridge or a building or something. You can't just scale up a bridge and make it out of the same material, or it won't be as steady at the larger size. Larger ones need extra support structures. But within a specie, the support structure are essentially the same regardless of size.

As well, a heavier build puts more strain on the joints/skeletal structure of an animal compared to a lighter built one of the same height/size. Especially for larger breeds (draft horses, mastiff-type dogs, etc) that are already at the limit of the height/weight ratio, a heavier build just means more strain from gravity. Stronger in terms of pulling, but much more vulnerable to long term damage from weight carrying, be it their own weight or something they are carrying.

The same thing is true in humans, even. People with gigantism, who end up much, much taller than usual, tend to have joint problems/difficulty weight bearing. Heavier people are more at risk for arthritis/long term joint issues as well, I think that's fairly well established.

It can feel counter intuitive, but it's actually kind of fascinating to look into, at least, to me, hah. ...I'm going to stop derailing this thread now, sorry Donna. Not really relevant, but Clydesdales are some of my favourite horses. <3
 

Donna

Lips & hips & ass & sass
***
Joined
Sep 29, 2005
Messages
2,268
Location
.
It can feel counter intuitive, but it's actually kind of fascinating to look into, at least, to me, hah. ...I'm going to stop derailing this thread now, sorry Donna. Not really relevant, but Clydesdales are some of my favourite horses. <3

Eh, I'd much rather we talk about equine biomechanics than fat shaming. I'm just sad I can't go out and see some horses, maybe groom and feed them, now.
 

FFAscinated

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2021
Messages
96
Location
USA
Loopy, have you heard Battlefield Band's song "The last trip home," about retiring Clydesdales from their farm work? Great song. (apologies for continuing the sidetrack)
 

waldo

***
Joined
Dec 19, 2006
Messages
607
Location
somewhere on Earth
Eh, I'd much rather we talk about equine biomechanics than fat shaming. I'm just sad I can't go out and see some horses, maybe groom and feed them, now.

I agree, the 'derailing' is often actually more benefit/interesting than the original topic.
 

waldo

***
Joined
Dec 19, 2006
Messages
607
Location
somewhere on Earth
Yeah, draft horses are super strong and great at pulling things, but that doesn't translate well into long term weight carrying. Animals that are the same specie have the same basic structure in terms of bones, joints etc, which is the main factor in terms of carrying capacity. If you disregard build for a moment, and assume that larger horses are just perfect scaled up versions of smaller ones, then the issue is that height/length are linear but weight/volume are cubic. So a taller/bigger horse, even with the same build, has a lot more strain on its joints/muscles from its own body. That's one of the reasons why small animals like rats can carry over 100% of their body weight, but a horse can only carry ~20%.

It's like building a bridge or a building or something. You can't just scale up a bridge and make it out of the same material, or it won't be as steady at the larger size. Larger ones need extra support structures. But within a specie, the support structure are essentially the same regardless of size.

As well, a heavier build puts more strain on the joints/skeletal structure of an animal compared to a lighter built one of the same height/size. Especially for larger breeds (draft horses, mastiff-type dogs, etc) that are already at the limit of the height/weight ratio, a heavier build just means more strain from gravity. Stronger in terms of pulling, but much more vulnerable to long term damage from weight carrying, be it their own weight or something they are carrying.

The same thing is true in humans, even. People with gigantism, who end up much, much taller than usual, tend to have joint problems/difficulty weight bearing. Heavier people are more at risk for arthritis/long term joint issues as well, I think that's fairly well established.

It can feel counter intuitive, but it's actually kind of fascinating to look into, at least, to me, hah. ...I'm going to stop derailing this thread now, sorry Donna. Not really relevant, but Clydesdales are some of my favourite horses. <3

Thanks for explaining. I totally get it now! Simple scale up does not work. Your knowledge of physics and biomechanics is much appreciated 🤩
 
Top