cheddar

To put this weight gain into perspective, if she were 5'8" instead of ~5'1", she's already undergone the equivalent of going from 116 to 150 pounds. I STRONGLY recommend being more honest and forthcoming about your interests as she gains, because due to her height, she really doesn't have to gain much more weight to go from being mid-normal bmi and skinnyfat to being Actually Fat. She's already done a lot for you by fulfilling your fantasies. If you want the relationship (and her weight) to grow, you have to match that. You got a good thing going, don't let your own wants and needs mess it up.

Libertarians are rarely skeptical of 'Pharma' or any corporate entity unless they see themselves as directly affected, so this is not a surprise. At the end of the day, what will affect drug efficacy is availability and accessibility and I highly doubt either will be sufficient to make a dent outside people that would already be in need of medical intervention. Once again ,this is a thread where the connection between increasing poverty and obesity has to be pointed to; if folk had the money for weight loss drugs, they'd have the money for the diets and exercise to prevent it without any complications.

Marketing is an influence, but it isn't the most important one; imho it is more emblematic of the competition between fast food brands. Limiting advertisements targeted at kids is a policy that's seen significant interest and it is a good idea, but it's not going to work in isolation if you don't address the biggest underlying problems. The telltale signs of trying to victim blame on this topic are obvious and already lurking in this thread; 'fat people are addicted', 'fat people are dumb', 'fat people are easily tricked.' Those are all impediments from giving people agency over their weight and work to the advantage of lobby groups that benefit from locking in car dependency, stagnant wages and lassiez faire junk food laws.

Fast food is by nature less filling and easier to digest, so yeah, you do in fact spend more time eating an apple than what have you. Compare the distribution of grocers and wholefoods stores to the distribution of drive-thrus. You don't even have to get out of the car and odds are you don't even have to detour on the way home so it is in fact a massive time-saver in the short-term, even if doing so constantly might be a bad idea. But hey, who has the time to number-crunch the exact difference between the two when one is more convenient than the other? Education doesn't magically make poverty stop having an impact, after all, poverty is the greatest impediment to access to education in the first place. You can say whatever pithy line you want, but single sentence replies aren't gonna cut it versus actual research. Blaming 'education' is one step removed from once again blaming people for living in a society that's structured explicitly to minimize exercise and maximize the extraction of money from working-class people. The weight game was rigged from the start.

Doesn't matter how much the apples cost if you don't have the time to eat them, or you have to drive half an hour to buy them. Try again.

300 pounds.... maybe more like 280 FWIW, 250 would be massive over here in not-america, especially depending on height. Biiiiiig difference between dub fiddy on five feet versus six. I honestly see problems on both ends of the meeting, vpprof's takes here being pretty on point, even if they don't justify lying about something that's obviously central to your attraction. If pure numbers is what you look for in women, expect to be disappointed a lot, since you can't quantify people like that. Perhaps she wanted to play things up out of wanting to please people in the fetish. Perhaps by offering to pay you encouraged that deception? There's a lot of unknowns since obviously none of us were there but hopefully you can see how complex it can be. I really feel like this is part of the commercialization of the fetish as it's grown in size alongside the general population, for better or worse.

There's an entire field of science that looks how where we live impacts our lives; health geography. If you want to take a look at why people fattened up and will continue to do so, I suggest reading up on topics like the Stroke Belt, Roseto Effect and Food Deserts. We've known why people have been collectively getting fatter for several decades. Nobody did enough to stop it. Like a lot of things, to understand what's going on you have to 'follow the money' and look at the built environment. You'll find the same common features across the fattest societies in America; high poverty, low density housing and car-focused infrastructure. The growth (heh) of obesity has been studied to death so we know that poor people are the first to blimp up, since they're probably working longer hours for less pay and loaded with stress. The further you have to travel since it's unaffordable to live where you work, the more you have to eat out and spend time sitting on your ass in traffic. Less time socializing as well, something that people probably wouldn't think of that also dramatically impact health. The lower standards of healthcare and lack of policy in red states are also partly to blame, as is diets in the south being high in fat and sugar, including traditional african-american diets. But said diets aren't a problem if you're active, socially-active and happy enough to compensate. Hence, why I name-dropped the Roseto Effect. Stress, poverty and cardiovascular disease are all linked to each other. It's no surprise that as the poor stay poorer and the rich get richer that obesity and obesity-related diseases continue to spike, while communities wealthy enough to eat fresh fruit and veg and hit the gym stay relatively thin. Being able to afford to see a doctor or living in a state with a better healthcare system also helps. Sugar taxes don't work if you can't afford healthier food and drink. Riding bikes or walking more doesn't work without the infrastructure to make it safe and practical. Actually changing things for the better requires dramatic shifts from car dependency and inequality, but that'd also herald the end of american capitalism so... fat chance. According to the stats, there's a big difference in obesity and related disease rates between north/inland and south/coastal florida, so it might be partly due to where you live. Plus, the constant influx of rich retirees into the state; the demographic most likely to be assholes and victim-blame younger people for the problems their generation caused. The vibe I get is that rich floridians hate poor floridians. In case Ricky's governorship didn't make that obvious by now.

There's a selection of forumgoers obsessed with trying to gatekeep and I think this is partly why you get this kind of treatment. Anyone they think isn't giving them satisfaction gets treated like a 'grifter'. It's not about what you do, but what you are to them. You could be a GOMAD chugger downing pints of heavy cream but unless their obsession with 'progress' isn't met, then you're a target. There's a huge list of models that are subjected to this kind of parasocial bullying. I think the healthiest response is to ignore because I've yet to see people satisfied. Trying to please what someone else wants never goes well in reality, no matter what personal fantasies it gets tethered to. You do you, be upfront about it and if that's not enough, that's their problem.

You know what actually causes homelessness? Commodifying housing. Sure, there's liberals* out there gentrifying everything they can get their hands on, but this is fundamentally a function of income inequality, where some people can afford to buy up properties and charge rent for the privilege of being housed and others cannot. Homelessness isn't caused by a person waving a sign at a walgreens or wanting wages high enough to afford the aforementioned rents. You can work multiple jobs and still be homeless if you're still only making minimum wage, especially if working so hard harms your mental and physical health and forces you to take time-saving shortcuts like eating out or driving everywhere, which also have a cost. By the same logic, being in a society that promotes productivity and affluence impacts you for the worse. The US invented consumerism and planned obsolescence, with media and marketing working together to invent new reasons to be jealous and envious of those with whatever new bauble just appeared in the shelves that month. And then there's the legacy of colonialism, where a huge portion of the american population are descended from slaves - either literal chattel slaves, or migrants acting as domestic servants. Whenever the US bombed a country or enabled its civil wars (philippines, south america, etc etc), it advertised itself as a destination for those with the means or the ambition to want their own slice of the 'american mythdream'. And then there's the standard of education, which is limited by its cost. By gatekeeping access to college behind wallets, the benefits of it are split by class and used as bait to lock young people into debt. There's no money for big business in seeing more female scientists but there's a lot to be made from advertising ways to make money from looks or continually redefine 'beauty' so they can sell more stuff. Student loans don't pay themselves after all. Looks are yet another commodity that people want and like any other thing of value, they're exploited. No other nation on earth has leaned into 'sex sells' quite like the US of A. So naturally, any human used to being treated by a commodity, will see those around them as potential exploiters. They've probably had to deal with leering eyes and denigration on some level. This can affect both genders, particularly black men and the racial stereotypes they're subjected to. Does this all automatically turn 'beautiful people' into less kind people? No. But given all the factors listed above that Americans have to deal with on a daily basis, it is understandable that it'd seem that way. The political responses you mention are just different coping mechanisms for the reality of the 22nd century. *Many liberals like calling themselves 'progressive' but few really are and fewer still are leftists. There's definitely not enough people on the 'far left' to have any kind of influence over social policy. and if they did, it'd make things better, lol.

fair; I'm not a user, but don't begrudge anyone seeing what condition their condition is in

'Getting high' isn't the same as getting ** and is by almost all medical metrics safer than alcohol intoxication. You would objectively do less (if any) harm with edibles than drinking beer. Any attempt to use drugs to enhance weight gain directly or indirectly has drawbacks; the downsides for THC are less than most appetite enhancers, which often have a toxicity problem in larger doses or weren't developed specifically for it.

No, it's the THC and certain analogues. https://examine.com/nutrition/cannabis-munchies/ is a fairly intelligible overview. The same effect can be gotten from other CB1 agonists, or any other pathway that increases ghrelin, though suppressing leptin has a clearly greater effect.

Dating is interesting, because when this site started, there wasn't exactly anywhere else to go to for that other than ff and let's just say that site had its fair share of problems. That's changed somewhat since but newer alternatives also have problems such that even if it isn't actively used, it does mean that if a certain site burnt to the ground then there's somewhere for those interested in it to go. I don't personally use the dating section for dating, but I do like the features of the site geared towards it in the member list. I would personally find a groups system more functional because unlike the USA and its relatively high density of site members, the rest of the world tends to be more spread out. Rather than have various harder-to-find threads for x country or city, having geographical 'groups' acting as a sort of subforum would hopefully drive more activity. As great as it is to be communicating with people on the other side of the world, there's always an urge to tell the sheilas and blokes to hop on ozbargain for discount tinnies and snags, or grab an esky of stubbies for a piss up at the servo no I will not elaborate.

Labels like 'right' or 'left' only exist to paint all politics along a single axis. It's dumb, reductive and exists only as a result of undemocratic two-party systems in certain wealthy and influential states. There are people framed as 'left' that actively undermine their supposed peers on social issues, just as the tea party and what became the 'alt-right' successfully shoved neoliberals into a corner by allying with christian theocrats. Those more or less in control of this narrative are those most likely to pander to the 'middle' that this model invents. Personally, the ideal social structure is whatever maximizes our humanity - what some german nerd might call 'gattungswesen'. This requires freedom from meaningless labour, respecting of bodily autonomy and preserving the most collective free will. Neither conservative nor liberal politics share an interest in this concept, since they both protect corporate excess and the exploitation that requires. Though of course, the former is a lot more explicit and openly hostile than the latter. There are plenty of toxic people out there in the community, they're just not posting in here yet (and are more likely to be on other sites). As long as their politics don't motivate them to directly harm others, I prefer to live and let live. At the end of the day, a Trump-voting redneck in the rustbelt is as twisted and enslaved by the influences around them as a chinese factory worker. Don't hate the player, hate the game.

The best mindset to take imo is thinking about what kinds of policies would allow people to live their happiest lives for as long as possible. There's many benefits to universal healthcare in that regard, irrespective of size. As for other intersections of fetish and politics; since participation in a fetish should be by choice, policies that encourage obesity among those that don't actively want it is something I'd disapprove of. Health and happiness are foremost. Secondary to that is inclusivity; whether political power is used to exclude a group for the purpose of vilification. While Conservatives and many centrists have put in place policies that either encourage or dismiss obesity (encouraging car use, long work hours for low wages, pandering to processed food lobbyists, etc), it is tethered to proscribed self-loathing. 'Fatties on welfare' is an all-too-common victim-blaming attack line used to blame poor people for being poor. Even if a FA ignored other people's well-being, I would argue that it's a lot better to be in a relationship with one plump, happy person than to fail in dating ten people that are fat and miserable. Consent is central to engaging in feeder-feedee stuff without it potentially veering into abuse and a big reason why I would happily advocate against policies that give people less choice and autonomy over their bodies. Even in the case of a 'sugar tax', you can always add more sugar on top of a drink, but you can never take it out. I haven't seen any proposals for a Heavy Cream tax so far. 😛

Healthcare costs are a lot higher than junk food taxes and much harder to avoid.

Accidentally double -posted thanks to some lag spikes, but I think that keeping the community sane and safe will always be a matter of social enforcement to a point, with actual law enforcement when the need arises because let's be real - just because this site and the attached communities are niche and 'unusual' does not mean that the same standards of behaviour and decency do not apply. Part of that might be the unfortunate and sexist perception among the bro-y 'pickup artist' crowd (and occasionally the mainstream) of fatter people being 'easy' as well as overarching links to bdsm. When misogynists within either crowd enter these spaces (moreso the former than the latter, but good god does curvage get a steady trickle of neocons jerking off to insulting women), things inevitably turn sour.

TFW autocorrect turns gainer shakes into gainer sheikhs

What is it with people and their obsession with The Punisher? There's this group of semi-illiterate 'American Patriots' that plaster it all over the place and make a big fuss about blue lines or something. And then they yap about some 2nd amendment while their kids shoot each other. Pretty Weird if you ask me.

This rate of weight gain is rather uncommon and borderline infeasible. Sorry to be the party pooper, but sometimes there are people that visit the site and larp as gainers and even steal photos from random people to keep up the deception so it's hard to take this at face value. If you can validate this then I'd be very curious about just how you achieved it. e: just looked at the OP post date, guess it was fake after all, lol

Eating timballo until your middle looks like one counts as jaw exercise, right?

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; We assume that other forms of diversity are somehow distinct and require 'unique' analysis We assume that there is a universal, objective and measurable metrics for 'realism' and 'representativeness' 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) 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.

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.

Yep. There's a bucketload of academic research into the relationship between obesity and poverty. However, trying to discuss it in depth tends to end up being 'Too Political' for some people on the forum, so I'd rather dive into it, lol. Needless to say, there's a whole range of factors that make it nigh impossible for people with limited means to actively manage their diet & lifestyle, and consequently, their weight. I don't want to celebrate that fact because for most of these people, it's unintentional and painful (either emotionally or in associated health impacts), without the pleasure that folks here might extract from that experience. Sure, some might experience an 'awakening' of preferences or such, but we know that ain't anywhere near the majority, lol. Probably the most important factor for this site is consent and people in this 'fat trap' can't, by and large, which kinda sucks.

The correlation of obesity with poverty has a lot more to do with the limits it puts on education, access to good nutrition and healthcare (etc) than anything else. And all three of those things have been affected by the pandemic. I highly doubt that being poor makes you want to be fat, lol. Though if you are around people of a similar weight or higher, it will tend to become more socially acceptable.