Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest You have a belly

Why haven’t I seen a fat woman in a lead role?

43 posts / 1555 viewsLast Reply

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Mr Froggy said:

At the risk of going off topic, I'd say feminist women have a blind spot for the struggles of men, broadly.   A blind spot at best ,  a pejorative hypergamy-lensed contempt at worst. 

I don’t blame them for not understanding the problems of other demographics. It’s just that some of them are great at telling other groups of people to humbly sit down and listen, but not so great it doing it themselves. Especially if they’ve decided that you “look” like you’re not oppressed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look, I don't know you and I don't want to put words in your mouth or feeling in you heart but it seems like you have a lot of internal shame around your preference.  The world is not insisting that men like you do not exist or that you're committing gross sexual immorality. Do some popular venues push this kind of idea? Sure they do, but why do you insist on repeatedly returning to a poisoned well? You're unlikely to get a woman of the type you desire portrayed as the lead in a Hollywood studio romantic comedy or blockbuster film. You can disengage from that world. There is a lot of independently created art and entertainment with fat women as the lead created within this community. Some of it is quite good. I'm not saying that you need to accept the Hollywood image and learn to like it, but the anger and the shame aren't helping anyone. I've been comfortable and "open" about my preferences for a long time (I don't go around informing people but I don't take any measures to hide it). People don't care. If your friends care about that then you need to find new ones. Again, this isn't directed at you per se, it's directed at anyone who struggles with feelings of resentment and anger stemming from this preference.

I wish that there were more popular depictions of curvy, soft, plump and fat women who are sexy and confident, etc. What we can do is seek them out and support them. Do I fantasize about sex scenes in popular entertainment actually being sexy to me? Sure I do. Do I take it as a personal rejection of my self worth that these scenes are not relatable to me? No I don't.

The men in this community as a whole (this is in no way directed at you, I don't know how you feel), would also do well to strive not to be the fat-loving version of the "typical" man, insisting that women fit their fat-centered beauty ideal. We should work to de-objectify women, not strive to see our preferred objectification take precedence. I love seeing films where people just look like normal people, fat, thin, whatever. I just want to see interesting stories where the people look like people I see everyday, not like computer generated fitness models. The Hollywood/social media/magazine ideal is designed to make everyone feel shame. They want you to feel shame so that you buy garbage to make yourself feel better. An atmosphere of insecurity drives their profits up. 

Anyway, hopefully no one is insulted by what I've said. It wasn't very well organized but maybe there is something helpful there.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mr Froggy
4 hours ago, boss frond said:

The men in this community as a whole (this is in no way directed at you, I don't know how you feel), would also do well to strive not to be the fat-loving version of the "typical" man, insisting that women fit their fat-centered beauty ideal. We should work to de-objectify women, not strive to see our preferred objectification take precedence.

I dont really buy into this.  Historically women were objectified more than men because their primary value socially was (and technically still is) in their fertility - but both sexes will always objectify one another because we are biological beings that are driven to form pragmatic reductionist assumptions about the world around us.   Objectification has become something of a dirty word;  conjuring images of caddish men in boardrooms or building sites; rejecting the opinions of female coworkers out of hand "because she's just a pretty face" etc - but the reductionist, biological essentialist drive beneath it is a perfectly natural phenomenon and not something I believe we should be trying to 'shame' or 'educate' out of people imo.   

People respond well to an actor being pretty because of the Halo effect.  So objectification, whilst a "problem" for an egalitarian society - isn't a problem we really are entitled to ever solve. 

I'll admit I'm being somewhat of a deliberate contrarian here and I mean no offence to you personally  -  I've just come to see the old "we need to work harder to stop this vile Objectification of women in media!" thing more of a disingenuous feminist and/or niave bluepill talking point than an actual practical or wise goal for society. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a classic way to dodge this. You can find someone attractive without turning them into an object. This is the dividing line between pornography and erotic art. 

Rigid beauty standards are a byproduct of objectification. Painting with broad strokes, in the worst parts of our culture a woman has value to a man as a status symbol. The extent to which she conforms to conventional beauty standards serves to advertise his worth. This is obviously bad for everyone involved. 

Men are obviously also held to many harmful standards. It's all a feedback loop that is practically designed to make everyone miserable. It benifits all of us to see each other as human beings and to find beauty and eroticism in a range of bodies. And to find worth in a broad range of humans. I'm not saying everyone needs to fuck everyone but if you want to talk about so called biological imperatives im fairly certain it behooves a species to not be so exacting when it comes to what body types are ok to mate with.

Can all problems be solved absolutely l? No. Are we intelligent beings with the ability to strive towards something better? I think so. 

There is great irony in having this discussion on what ammounts to a porn site. Like drugs, pornography provides a somewhat damaging solution to the problem. Maybe it can help sate the instict to objectify but it can also reinforce it. Obviously I'm no monk. 

But I'd also like to point out that for women this isnt some theoretical thing. The pressure on women to have a certain type of body is enormous and its reinforced constantly from childhood. Mass media advertising is poisoning all of us. Attacking it at this spot can help to weaken it and help to solve more problems.  Its not reductionist and its not naive.

Im very cynical, I dont really forsee any real progress being made, but we can still recognize these things for what they are we dont have to throw up our hands and say that the tools used to opress and divide us and jeep us feeling alone and inadequate are hardwired into us. We have the ability to think and choose and change and to reduce suffering. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, boss frond said:

Look, I don't know you and I don't want to put words in your mouth or feeling in you heart but it seems like you have a lot of internal shame around your preference.  The world is not insisting that men like you do not exist or that you're committing gross sexual immorality. Do some popular venues push this kind of idea? Sure they do, but why do you insist on repeatedly returning to a poisoned well? You're unlikely to get a woman of the type you desire portrayed as the lead in a Hollywood studio romantic comedy or blockbuster film. You can disengage from that world. There is a lot of independently created art and entertainment with fat women as the lead created within this community. Some of it is quite good. I'm not saying that you need to accept the Hollywood image and learn to like it, but the anger and the shame aren't helping anyone. I've been comfortable and "open" about my preferences for a long time (I don't go around informing people but I don't take any measures to hide it). People don't care. If your friends care about that then you need to find new ones. Again, this isn't directed at you per se, it's directed at anyone who struggles with feelings of resentment and anger stemming from this preference.

I wish that there were more popular depictions of curvy, soft, plump and fat women who are sexy and confident, etc. What we can do is seek them out and support them. Do I fantasize about sex scenes in popular entertainment actually being sexy to me? Sure I do. Do I take it as a personal rejection of my self worth that these scenes are not relatable to me? No I don't.

The men in this community as a whole (this is in no way directed at you, I don't know how you feel), would also do well to strive not to be the fat-loving version of the "typical" man, insisting that women fit their fat-centered beauty ideal. We should work to de-objectify women, not strive to see our preferred objectification take precedence. I love seeing films where people just look like normal people, fat, thin, whatever. I just want to see interesting stories where the people look like people I see everyday, not like computer generated fitness models. The Hollywood/social media/magazine ideal is designed to make everyone feel shame. They want you to feel shame so that you buy garbage to make yourself feel better. An atmosphere of insecurity drives their profits up. 

Anyway, hopefully no one is insulted by what I've said. It wasn't very well organized but maybe there is something helpful there.

 

I think you’ll notice by looking at my picture, Rose Quartz, that what I desire doesn’t have to be a sexualized depiction of a woman. I know I mentioned “sexualized” earlier, but that’s because pretty females are always sexualized in media and I was just trying to explain a concept in a way that other people will understand it. I don’t care about getting my dick hard. In fact, I don’t really want to—not when I’m watching a show. On the contrary, I feel emotional validation from seeing the kind of woman I like represented in any form, and I feel emotional pain when what I like is excluded. I’ve never had a girlfriend and I was abused with extreme fatphobia throughout my whole childhood, so seeing fat women in media is one of the few things that has been therapeutic for me. My mental health literally permanently improved from the depictions of fat women in Steven universe, especially the character Rose Quartz. For example, after I saw those positive depictions of fat women, I stopped having near-suicidal meltdowns ever time I stepped on the scale and thought I had gained weight. All I want it more of that. But it has to be live action, not just cartoons. Every second of seeing a fat woman I like in media that is NOT porn, helps to slowly undo the years of shit that I went through. Porn doesn’t help at all, hence why I complain about popular media. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Mr Froggy said:

Objectification has become something of a dirty word;  conjuring images of caddish men in boardrooms or building sites; rejecting the opinions of female coworkers out of hand "because she's just a pretty face" etc - but the reductionist, biological essentialist drive beneath it is a perfectly natural phenomenon and not something I believe we should be trying to 'shame' or 'educate' out of people imo.   

Well, objectification is dirty because it negates the needs, wants and feelings of another person. No happy relationship can be built on such a basis.

We have pretty much the same biological drive for stealing, aggression etc., but I doubt you'd be advocating these things. 

9 hours ago, Mr Froggy said:

because their primary value socially was (and technically still is) in their fertility

No idea what "technicalities" you had in mind while writing this.

9 hours ago, Mr Froggy said:

I've just come to see the old "we need to work harder to stop this vile Objectification of women in media!" thing more of a disingenuous feminist and/or niave bluepill talking point than an actual practical or wise goal for society

It's not a goal for society, it's a goal for each individual person. Be respectful of other people, so they can reciprocate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that is actually a good question and one that i think its a matter of time. even do... there are some considerations. how fat would it be without making it because she is fat o making fat the center of the conversation? are we make it a topic on the movie like... a fat girl losing weight or the crap of learning to love her curves and overcoming being fat ? i would like for it not to be part of the conversation but then i cannot be a super hero running to save the world at 500pounds but yeah there should be sompe progress in that direction. a normal curvy body. ella bryan or something like that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/11/2020 at 11:48 AM, Mr Froggy said:

forced diversity

Every post after these words were typed seems to verge on being abjectly unreadable. The primary reason you don't see fat leads is that fat actors are typecast and it is far easier for The Industry to bank existing stars than ones that physically can only perform specific roles. There might be exceptions given for actors/actresses gaining/losing weight for roles, but that's the thing: weight is dynamic - it's far easier to hire a skinny actor for a fat role than a white actor for a black role for Very Obvious reasons. So a burgeoning thick actress specifically has fewer roles available to them and the few they do have will see competition from thinner actresses.

Since roles -> exposure/more potential chances of success -> better roles, the Industry as it exists is built in a way that prevents fat female leads.

"Forced Diversity" is yet one of many myths and zinger phrases used to oversimplify complex issues and mobilise the Angry White Men that right-wing movements in the USA seemingly rely upon. This is an era of huge production costs of big movies and tiny margins for cinemas where risk aversion is paramount in the minds of execs. Diversity is a financial decision in a multicultural and multiracial society; the broader your viewing audience, the more butts on seats and merch you sell. If anything 'forces' diversity, it's shifts in demographics and consumption. If Straight White Men are too busy playing vidyagames to go sit and see a film, why pander to intolerance in your non-audience? Black Panther made a shitton of money, deal with it tbh.

So long as thinness remains an aspiration, mainstream protagonists will be thin. Just like the American Dream, it doesn't matter if you will ever look as thin as a Hollywood Star, so long as you can project yourself into that body, the typical movie-goer will ignore the contradiction of underweight leads in an overweight society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mr Froggy
22 hours ago, cheddar said:


"Forced Diversity" is yet one of many myths and zinger phrases used to oversimplify complex issues and mobilise the Angry White Men that right-wing movements in the USA seemingly rely upon. This is an era of huge production costs of big movies and tiny margins for cinemas where risk aversion is paramount in the minds of execs. Diversity is a financial decision in a multicultural and multiracial society; the broader your viewing audience, the more butts on seats and merch you sell. If anything 'forces' diversity, it's shifts in demographics and consumption. If Straight White Men are too busy playing vidyagames to go sit and see a film, why pander to intolerance in your non-audience? Black Panther made a shitton of money, deal with it tbh.

Plenty fallacies there and it's clear you have an axe to grind.

"Forced diversity" is a zinger phrase yes, but it means something more specific than is read from its face.  It specifically refers to levels of racial/sexual diversity which may be unrealistically disproportionate for the setting,  unfaithful to the source material and/or unrepresentative to the core of the materials target market.   This unrepresentative diversity is either cynically or zealously engineered;  either for nakedly political reasons - or because a media executive believes "Diversity" is such a hot cultural property, that pursuing it is a commercial no-brainer.

But all that being said....

Black Panther wasn't an example of forced, cynical, contrived or disproportionate diversity at all.   It seems entirely reasonable, both statistically and culturally, to have at least one superhero movie set in Africa wirh a cast of African descent.   Even mentioning it is a intellectually dishonest strawman.   Ironically, Wakanda was actually a pretty strong argument for the potential benefits of ethnonationalism.   It would only have been a "forced diversity" movie had a sizable chunk of the Wakandan population been inexplicably white. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/17/2020 at 4:24 AM, Mr Froggy said:

Plenty fallacies there

To appeal to fallacy without further logical argument is itself a fallacy. We both know that's a debating 101 bad faith move.

Quote

racial/sexual diversity which may be unrealistically disproportionate for the setting, unfaithful to the source material and/or unrepresentative to the core of the materials target market

Okay, let's break this half down a bit. There's a bunch of assumptions being made within a statement like this even if taken on face value. For example;

  1. We assume that other forms of diversity are somehow distinct and require 'unique' analysis
  2. We assume that there is a universal, objective and measurable metrics for 'realism' and 'representativeness'
  3. We assume we have perfect knowledge of authorial intent (primarily within a fictional setting) and/or its historical context (primarily for works situated within or derived from reality)
  4. We assume that the purpose of media is to serve the interests and needs of predefined commercial audiences

Regarding assumption 1, I think it is safe to say that this specificity is intentionally designed to serve a 'culture war'-esque framing of these topics as more important than any other form of discrimination to one's identification within either 'conservatism' or 'liberalism'. Where do Religion and Class for instance, fit into this narrative? Neither one is truly contested by that 'conflict', so they are excluded. And yet, if you made a film set in Palestine and excluded Islamic characters, or took a film like Parasite and rewrote the poor characters to be the same as everyone else, I think it's hard to argue that these examples would be less egregious a twisting of reality. Why exclude these? Because that's not what's making The Right mad today. They're the only people whose perspective we should care about?

Assumptions 2-3 are fairly straightforward. Humans are not mind-readers that can 'know' each other's thoughts, nor is our understanding of history or even such basic facts as evolution and viral transmission (thanks, 2020) things that are universal and uncontested. In fact, science is built on uncertainty and challenging our observations. People will disagree on if something is realistic, depending on their frame of reference. Even if a bunch of studies debunk right-wing claims of ethnic purity and stasis within medieval Europe, there will still be people that moan if they see one brown face in a Robin Hood adaptation. It doesn't matter if the character has genuine explanations within that adaptation. It doesn't matter even matter if they're well-written or if the actor does a good job or not. The torch-bearing mob doesn't care.

Assumption 4 is where things start getting fun. Why should an author tell their own story? No, the purpose of fiction is apparently, to pander. To spoonfeed customers with what they want, unchallenged. Ghostbusters 2 isn't terrible because it was poorly written and executed, it was bad because it had WOMEN! And some of them were almost FAT! The new Star Wars Trilogy isn't bad on its own merits, it's because of the POC*! I never personally approved of this! The audacity!!!11!!!  Of course, fiction doesn't have to be popular to be good. In fact, it seems increasingly obvious today that works which specifically go out of their way to be critical are more successful.

Attacking a media property for lacking self-consistency is a different analysis to attacking it specifically because you don't like the presence of women and POC.

Quote

This unrepresentative diversity is either cynically or zealously engineered;  either for nakedly political reasons - or because a media executive believes "Diversity" is such a hot cultural property, that pursuing it is a commercial no-brainer.

After all, most examples people bring up re; "false diversity" are commercials larping as media properties, since merch and licensing is where the real bucks are.

The existence of diversity itself isn't a bad thing. Calling diversity "fake" is done by specific people with an 'axe to grind' as you say, to encourage people upset over dumb corporate decisions to adopt positions further to the right politically.

It would be dumb and despicable to do straight adaptations of old racist films or ones that deliberately skew reality in the opposite direction. Women were and are regularly excluded from recorded history and yet you won't see conservatives complain if a work has too few women. A sequel straying from the original work shouldn't be treated so shallowly. There's a distinctively one-sided analysis going on here, isn't there? It's almost as if there's a dog being whistled...These arguments aren't made in good faith. It's angry people that vent about their pet political peeves and these over-reactions being itself exploited as free advertising for the 'other side'. "Don't like racist people? Come watch our film that made them mad!" Whether or not something is 'realistic' doesn't come into the equation either way.

And besides, when did realism suddenly become important in fantasy space opera?

Don't get me wrong, most examples people bring up of "false diversity" are genuinely bad due to the nature of corporate interference in the creative process, but these kinds of decisions are a fraction of the underlying problem. Most times a corporation markets its products as being 'progressive' it does so while simultaneously sidelining POC within the production process of such works. The Mulan remake flopped in China as well as the US partly due to this duality.

Falling for the "false diversity" narrative doesn't make you a bad person. It's easy to see how appealing it is to pretend that right-wing politics is anti-corporate (while it simultaneously enables Disney to become a monopoly). Corporations exploit both sides, after all - though I don't think it is hard to see which is the lesser evil these days. It is in the interest of both sides of US politics - and the corporations around them, to misrepresent the importance of big-budget media properties for their own gain.

So, yeah. TL;DR I don't think fat lead roles is an inherently bad thing and harassing people on this forum for their views (and choice of profile picture) is baffling and honestly rather depressing. Is Big-Budget Hollywood capable of having fat leads in a non-exploitative way right now? Probably not, but to say that "false diversity" is why furthers a political agenda, misses the whole picture and ignores any other possible representative media.

*Aliens, the actual racial allegories of Lucas' star wars films not included. No alien leads allowed. Only Humans will save the Galaxy Far Far, away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mr Froggy
9 hours ago, cheddar said:

To appeal to fallacy without further logical argument is itself a fallacy. We both know that's a debating 101 bad faith move.

Okay, let's break this half down a bit. There's a bunch of assumptions being made within a statement like this even if taken on face value. For example;

  1. We assume that other forms of diversity are somehow distinct and require 'unique' analysis
  2. We assume that there is a universal, objective and measurable metrics for 'realism' and 'representativeness'
  3. We assume we have perfect knowledge of authorial intent (primarily within a fictional setting) and/or its historical context (primarily for works situated within or derived from reality)
  4. We assume that the purpose of media is to serve the interests and needs of predefined commercial audiences

Regarding assumption 1, I think it is safe to say that this specificity is intentionally designed to serve a 'culture war'-esque framing of these topics as more important than any other form of discrimination to one's identification within either 'conservatism' or 'liberalism'. Where do Religion and Class for instance, fit into this narrative? Neither one is truly contested by that 'conflict', so they are excluded. And yet, if you made a film set in Palestine and excluded Islamic characters, or took a film like Parasite and rewrote the poor characters to be the same as everyone else, I think it's hard to argue that these examples would be less egregious a twisting of reality. Why exclude these? Because that's not what's making The Right mad today. They're the only people whose perspective we should care about?

Assumptions 2-3 are fairly straightforward. Humans are not mind-readers that can 'know' each other's thoughts, nor is our understanding of history or even such basic facts as evolution and viral transmission (thanks, 2020) things that are universal and uncontested. In fact, science is built on uncertainty and challenging our observations. People will disagree on if something is realistic, depending on their frame of reference. Even if a bunch of studies debunk right-wing claims of ethnic purity and stasis within medieval Europe, there will still be people that moan if they see one brown face in a Robin Hood adaptation. It doesn't matter if the character has genuine explanations within that adaptation. It doesn't matter even matter if they're well-written or if the actor does a good job or not. The torch-bearing mob doesn't care.

Assumption 4 is where things start getting fun. Why should an author tell their own story? No, the purpose of fiction is apparently, to pander. To spoonfeed customers with what they want, unchallenged. Ghostbusters 2 isn't terrible because it was poorly written and executed, it was bad because it had WOMEN! And some of them were almost FAT! The new Star Wars Trilogy isn't bad on its own merits, it's because of the POC*! I never personally approved of this! The audacity!!!11!!!  Of course, fiction doesn't have to be popular to be good. In fact, it seems increasingly obvious today that works which specifically go out of their way to be critical are more successful.

Attacking a media property for lacking self-consistency is a different analysis to attacking it specifically because you don't like the presence of women and POC.

After all, most examples people bring up re; "false diversity" are commercials larping as media properties, since merch and licensing is where the real bucks are.

The existence of diversity itself isn't a bad thing. Calling diversity "fake" is done by specific people with an 'axe to grind' as you say, to encourage people upset over dumb corporate decisions to adopt positions further to the right politically.

It would be dumb and despicable to do straight adaptations of old racist films or ones that deliberately skew reality in the opposite direction. Women were and are regularly excluded from recorded history and yet you won't see conservatives complain if a work has too few women. A sequel straying from the original work shouldn't be treated so shallowly. There's a distinctively one-sided analysis going on here, isn't there? It's almost as if there's a dog being whistled...These arguments aren't made in good faith. It's angry people that vent about their pet political peeves and these over-reactions being itself exploited as free advertising for the 'other side'. "Don't like racist people? Come watch our film that made them mad!" Whether or not something is 'realistic' doesn't come into the equation either way.

And besides, when did realism suddenly become important in fantasy space opera?

Don't get me wrong, most examples people bring up of "false diversity" are genuinely bad due to the nature of corporate interference in the creative process, but these kinds of decisions are a fraction of the underlying problem. Most times a corporation markets its products as being 'progressive' it does so while simultaneously sidelining POC within the production process of such works. The Mulan remake flopped in China as well as the US partly due to this duality.

Falling for the "false diversity" narrative doesn't make you a bad person. It's easy to see how appealing it is to pretend that right-wing politics is anti-corporate (while it simultaneously enables Disney to become a monopoly). Corporations exploit both sides, after all - though I don't think it is hard to see which is the lesser evil these days. It is in the interest of both sides of US politics - and the corporations around them, to misrepresent the importance of big-budget media properties for their own gain.

So, yeah. TL;DR I don't think fat lead roles is an inherently bad thing and harassing people on this forum for their views (and choice of profile picture) is baffling and honestly rather depressing. Is Big-Budget Hollywood capable of having fat leads in a non-exploitative way right now? Probably not, but to say that "false diversity" is why furthers a political agenda, misses the whole picture and ignores any other possible representative media.

*Aliens, the actual racial allegories of Lucas' star wars films not included. No alien leads allowed. Only Humans will save the Galaxy Far Far, away.

I do not have time to read that.  

Maybe one day I will. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/16/2020 at 11:24 AM, Mr Froggy said:

Plenty fallacies there and it's clear you have an axe to grind.

"Forced diversity" is a zinger phrase yes, but it means something more specific than is read from its face.  It specifically refers to levels of racial/sexual diversity which may be unrealistically disproportionate for the setting,  unfaithful to the source material and/or unrepresentative to the core of the materials target market.   This unrepresentative diversity is either cynically or zealously engineered;  either for nakedly political reasons - or because a media executive believes "Diversity" is such a hot cultural property, that pursuing it is a commercial no-brainer.

But all that being said....

Black Panther wasn't an example of forced, cynical, contrived or disproportionate diversity at all.   It seems entirely reasonable, both statistically and culturally, to have at least one superhero movie set in Africa wirh a cast of African descent.   Even mentioning it is a intellectually dishonest strawman.   Ironically, Wakanda was actually a pretty strong argument for the potential benefits of ethnonationalism.   It would only have been a "forced diversity" movie had a sizable chunk of the Wakandan population been inexplicably white. 

Wakanda is an inversion of reality. In real life, the two nations that most resembled wakandan isolation are pre-Meiji Japan and present day North Korea. The commonalities between isolationist nations tend to be; A culture that is very interesting to observe but unpleasant to actually live in, exceptionally undemocratic politics, and very bad stagnation in technology and science. Basically, strict isolation results in what you might call the “Game-of-thrones-ification” of nation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, now that I’ve had time to collect my thoughts and cool down from all the annoying shit people have said to me, here is my final verdict;

There should be more representations of young, normal-looking, CONCEIVABLY attractive (so, basically no standard) fat people of all ethnicities and backgrounds in popular media. The representation should be fair and cater to everyone so that nobody feels left out for whatever reason. Whatever your bodily level of fatness or your taste in fat people, we all win big with this scenario. 

Because if they aren’t represented, it makes young fat people feel ugly, and young fat admirers feel gross and confused. It is bad to oversexualize one body type all the time while treating other body types like they’re totally ugly and repulsive. There should be a more balanced, intersectional approach, which takes into account the need to show all kinds of beauty while also making sure not to sexualize and objectify women too much. 

There is my politically correct, non-offensive, well thought out statement of my position, with every possible political angle taken into account, so that none of you sadistic bastards can accuse me of being inconsistent or wanting to get my dick hard while watching sitcoms or whatever else. If you have a problem with this excessively positive, thorough manifesto of fat inclusivity, then too bad so sad go have incest with your dad. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)

I think the reason for this is the same reason there are unnecessary remakes of way too many movies, it's a sure bet and it pleases the shareholders of the studio.  I just don't why everything has to be so extreme. (As far as this thread) Movie studios are appealing to the lowest common denominator so everything has to be spelled out and obvious.

I will stand by this theory because it's kind of obvious. These things are made to be commercial. I do not think the majority of men are attracted to women who are a B cup and have visible abs. It's not overtly sexual- *it's clean- it's marketable* and we all mistake it for gospel- women must look this way! Men must be turned on by this!  What ? like mannequins? 

What is pathetic to me is that men just follow along with it, I am also sexually attracted to women so before everyone jumps all over me, I get enjoying looking at sexy women just as much as anyone else. But to me the whole system is like "the emperor's new clothes" everyone is lying to themselves and everyone else to fit in, and the cycle continues.  There is no reason to feel guilty for being turned on by fat women!!!! The conflict of it is ridiculous- luckily when I was around 13 I discovered Marilyn Manson- who is ALL about embracing taboos and fuck everyone. So I feel bad for anyone who didn't have that type of influence. And the fact that my overall look and vibe is representing that influence is something I'm proud of. And - it's great asshole repellent.

If people felt good about themselves they wouldn't buy things, so keep people unhappy, keep people afraid- they buy shit they don't need so they can be just like everyone else "Keeping up with the Jones's". 

This is artifice, this is nonsense. Commercial enterprises aren't going to cater to what you want if they don't think it's wanted. So this becomes an issue of people accepting themselves.

I don't really buy that this submissive virgin bride breeding machine thing is every guys dream. Like wake up dude, women aren't objects, men aren't repulsed by self expression- that's you, YOU hate the fact that women are even biologically given a brain.  Also men get turned on by the visuals of what hopefully what THEY think is attractive, not what everyone else tells them is attractive. ITS OK TO GET TURNED ON BY SOMETHING OUTSIDE THE NORM. IT'S * NO ONE * ELSE'S FAULT THAT YOU CAN'T ACCEPT WHO YOU ARE. And It's ok to want to see shit that gets your dick hard, why have time for pretending to be into anything else?

But enough people want to keep pretending and keeping fat admiration dark and dirty and super taboo, so you get what you pay for. You want power and control over fat women so you keep up this charade, you want acceptance because you can't stand to be yourself,- you are biting your own hand off- when do you stop? You please EVERYONE else and pretend to be just like everyone else until you're dead? Not how I want to live, sorry, and I'm fucking glad my "alternative look" represents that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by NogutNoglory

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

* also one year it's Paris Hilton, the next it's Kim K. It's always changing- When should your dick get hard? -Don't worry, we'll let you know. 

I'd LOVE to know how gender difference makes that ok or not compared to - we will let you know if your body is acceptable? It's the same fucking thing!!! To make really anything a gender issue is a thing only .......(let me not call anyone out ahem...🐸 would do-)-----everyone is suffering from brain washing.

If you took a group - half male/ half female and "Clockwork Orange"-ed them- is one more effected than the other?

There is a quote from the movie Gia- I'm going to adapt it for this -movies are advertising and advertising is money and in the end someone has to pay.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are watching the rise of fascism again throughout the world. The signs are all around us. It’s undeniable. You can’t even go to an FA chat room without hearing the far right propaganda that is repackaged violent misogyny and racism. I expect it in Trump’s America, but even the whilst crowd is peddling that garbage using pseudo intellectual sounding nonsense like primary social value. Fuck all. At least American fascists no longer care to hide their ugly impulses so give us the benefit of advertising themselves with Camp Auschwitz sweaters so we can give them a wide berth.

Primary social value? Jesus. Incels of the world unite! Women don’t owe you dick for not laying your sorry ass. Maybe treat them like a human being and one might look past your Newsmax and OANN talking points to give you a hummer. Until then crawl back into the Fuhrer bunker you came from. Also, Ben Shapiro wants his platform back; there’s only room for one pathetic weasel on the bleeding edge of “modern” conservatism. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.