scrambledeggs, the content of your OP aside, I can’t help but notice that you start a ton of threads and then never return to them. You have not responded to at least half of the 55 threads you’ve created in your time here, which started barely two weeks ago. We don’t have a rule that requires people to follow up on their own threads, but at a bare minimum it’s polite to do so, either to engage the people who’ve taken the time to respond to you, or to learn more about the topics you’re curious about (otherwise why bother starting the threads?) or even thank the people who are answering your questions.
I know some posters find some of your threads interesting. But you should either limit the number of threads you are starting to topics you are really curious about, or you should take the time to participate in the ones you do start. Or both. This isn’t a formal warning, but warnings may follow if you don’t adjust your posting habits somewhat.
Really? I thought threads like this just served to reinforce the lesson that obese people generally are above criticism, and only mindless trolls don’t realize this.
Just to be clear, since I think that came off as somewhat brusque - I really AM sorry that those things happened to you and other women you know, and I’m sure that at least some do the sort of self-abuse that you’re describing. My “What?!?” reaction is to the implication that a large percentage of fat woman are gluttenously stuffing themselves in order to make themselves unattractive. That’s the part that I’m finding ridiculous.
I’ll try to word this in the most PC manner possible.
There has to be a reason why the bulk of mass-market clothing for larger women is in “unattractive colors and prints” versus mass-market clothing for those of weight-proportionate-to-height and slimmer builds. Why?
I’ve heard this conspiracy theory: designers make the good stuff for slimmer customers, and deliberately design crap for larger women, because they’re in concert with the diet industry. Still, one would think that a designer would design clothing that appeals to the customer base; thus, it would fly off the shelves faster than the polka-dotted polyester sacks one sees on the shelves of “woman-size” stores.
The only reason I can think of is that it’s because of market preference; retailers are just catering to the tastes of their customer base. Nobody wants to stock clothing that nobody likes, and they’d stock clothing that was more attractive if their customers had a preference for it, and it was shown it would sell better than the ugly polyester sacks.
That doesn’t make sense, though. I can’t think of any reason why overweight women would prefer prints, fabrics and designs that are considered unflattering and unattractive compared to other options.
So… if I’m successful and overweight, I’m still a “general fuckup” because you’re bullshit theory applies to overachievers, too?
So, anyone who’s a smoker (ADDICT!), successful (OVERACHIEVER!), overweight, a slacker (GENERAL FUCK UP), has a “very large percentage” chance of having been a victim of sexual abuse? Do you have ANY idea what proportion of the population that would be? Your assumption is asinine.
BTW, have you girls tried maurices? The clothes aren’t exactly top quality, but I’ve had great luck getting “relatively normal, but still cute” clothes from there.
I think that’s a pretty retarded interpretation. If this weren’t the five millionth time someone on the Internet has made the observation that they find fat people to be unattractive, you might have a point. If an obese woman had solicited opinions about her appearance and then gotten outraged when all the responses weren’t uniformly positive, you might have a point. If fat people in this country weren’t constantly bombarded with the message that thin is attractive and fat isn’t, you might have a point.
But none of those are true, so you don’t. By the five millionth time some tard logs onto the web to share his view that omg fat people are gross lol, the only real response is to mock them and tell them to shut up. Not because the viewpoint is so abhorrent that it must be censored, but because it’s boring, rude, and overdone.
I actually ordered two outfits from Eshakti once; the company seems as normal as any other mail-order place. I will note that the tunics are cut a little narrow in the hip.
Another place with some interesting stuff is Ulla Popken. Mind you, some of their stuff is very bizarre looking and some is downright ugly. It’s worth looking thru their catalog, though, you never know what you’ll find.
While this is more of a general questions or great debates type issue - I read the link and found it interesting, but I find it somewhat (if you will excuse the expression!) hard to swallow that obesity is as genetically based as claimed; after all, obesity rates are changing very rapidly among a non-deprived population (North Americans). How can “genetics” account for the fact that the population is overall fatter now on average than in the 1970s? Our genetics haven’t changed.
I saw somewhere a chart depicting the average size of a muffin by decade. That seems to me to have a certain explainatory power - namely, that for various reasons average portion sizes have increased. People eat more and so are more likely to be fat.
To my mind, while genetics and psycology no doubt play their parts, the real key is the social acceptance of eating vast quantities of food.
Since you’re including both the successful and the unsuccessful, your ballpark could be anywhere from 1% to everyone. Add in your other criteria, and it’s easily most of the population.
Are you willing to assert that most women have suffered from sexual abuse? Because that’s not consistent with the cites I’m finding. Luckily for you, you and elbows have used terms you can define however you want (a “very high percentage”, a “huge portion”) rather than concrete estimates that can be refuted. Very clever, that, but probably not worth arguing with, so I’m not going to bother.
Please define “sexually abused”. I looked up your stats, and they seem to a) only appear on sites which have a clear agenda (albeit a well-intentioned one) and b) are never accompanied by a description of what, exactly, falls under the scope of “sexually abused”.
A BF got me drunk when I was 17 and tried to cop a feel. Does that count?