Dude.

That's not what I said, that's not what I meant, and that's not what those videos say. I admitted multiple times to errors in phrasing in the op, and trust me, I AM sorry. But having watched those videos... I feel heard, I very much agree with them, and some of what was said in them was what I was actually trying to say. I literally saved them to my favorites playlist for discussing this topic, so I can note their phrasing if I ever find myself in a discussion like this again.

I feel like it is likely that I triggered you, and for that I am sorry as well, but I also feel like you likely didn't take in my clarifications and rephrasings in the subsequent posts, but just spoke from the original place of anger (I do understand it was my original post that put you there), over and over again.

I am actually on your side, I know this because I hear what you are saying and agree with the declarative and expository statements, just not the ad hominem and recriminations, the othering, victimization, and fury.

I'd like it if you'd at least try to think beyond the original rage, but I do understand if you are too triggered to do that, and I am sorry for taking away your choice there. If it's best for you to not respond, I understand that too. I hope someday you can forgive me for writing words that hurt you. (Again, I REALLY never meant them AT ALL the way yall took them. SERIOUSLY: not my thing, and again, I am sorry that the original phrasing made it sound that way.)

I appreciate you trying to communicate through all this. Thank you.

How about this one?

The Larger Side - A Rant on the Irony and Hypocrisy of Fetishizing Thinness while Tabooing Fat Admiration

(Note: This was pure opinion, and reactionary, with a goal halfway between conversation and being pointed.)

Being into fat women isn't a fetish.

Being into thin women is a fetish.

For millions of years, a fat female body has meant fertility, which, let's face it, is the core of sexuality every bit as much as fun is.

A thin female body, on the other hand, has no biological reason to be attractive (I am not trying to be offensive here, I am talking about the biological purpose of physical attraction): it doesn't as prominently display the nutrition necessary to make baby brains, it doesn't feel as good in bed, and, for most thin women, it also kind of sucks to inhabit... except, debatably, for the attention it gets from people that fetishize thinness.

And that's the crux of the problem: two of the most common reasons to strive to be thin are: one, for that, frankly, biologically-illogical attention, and then the only reason for that attention is a novel and deviant modern cultural norm based largely around just how difficult it is to be thin, thinness perhaps being even an unnatural state for many people; and two, to avoid the negative social attention heaped on anyone that doesn't laud the cult of thinness or has the audacity to actually show in public a body that is larger than borderline anorexic.

It's even become adopted by the medical community itself, despite the dearth of actual evidence. Does excessive visceral abdominal fat have a correlation with some diseases? Yes, yes it does, and that's probably one of the reasons the waist-to-hip ratio is also relevant to instinctual physical attraction to a woman's body.

But there's grosse fallacies imbedded in the medical fear of fat, most prominently: that most fat is not unhealthy; that exercise and healthy foods have far more impact on health than body weight does; and, OF INCREDIBLE IMPORTANCE, that the disease and damage (physical, psychological, social, etc.) caused to individuals and society over the last several decades of cultural bodysize dismorphia and the societal pursuit (read: fetishization) of excessive female thinness, despite it being neither natural nor healthy in many cases, is probably LITERALLY INCALCULABLE (but, certainly, absurdly, obscenely, disgustingly, despicably vast).

That first one is brilliant, wish it were on the homepage here lol. Really great job of more things than I can count (srsly, was trying to remember them all to respond but gave up after less than 10 minutes and just listened instead), but really stood out to me the discussion of being shamed for thinness - since that seems to be the source of our own misunderstanding - the discussion of fad dieting, and the comparison between thin shaming and fat shaming, which reminds me somewhat of discussions on the difference between personal prejudice and systemic racism.

Also, and I realize that you might hate this... in addition to being an illustrative example of my own errors in phrasing... she also addresses most of your objections to my first piece. One notable example, for both of us, being her framing of the binary not as fat vs thin but as perceived-as-fat vs not perceived-as-fat. Your first response mentioned you are buff, so you would probably be in her latter category, though something tells me that many women are placed in both categories in a negative light at different times and by different people for the purposes of labelling and controlling their bodies and minds.

Edit:
Yah, not gonna finish the second one tonight I think, already made me choke up twice lol. Really good video though, like the first one. Thanks for sharing.

Thank you, will do so now.

2/2



No, you read that, but that was not what I said nor meant. However, my sentence there was poorly structured for such as strong ending, and certainly it was long enough to be confusing. The actual subject was meant to be "disease and damage" - rather redundant with "neither natural nor healthy", lol - with the focus of "cultural bodysize dismorphia and the pursuit (read: fetishization) of female thinness. The intention of that admittedly ambiguous phrase, "the pursuit of female thinness", was not in terms of what women want themselves - which nowhere through this entire piece or really my entire life did I ever think to comment on much less to dictate - but of what society, and to a lesser degree men, seem to push. Thus the clarifier, "fetishization", and the adjective, "cultural". As in: "cultural bodysize dismorphia and the cultural fetishization of female thinness". If this was the main reason for your responses here, I am sorry for wasting your time - like I said, I should have edited this more carefully before posting it.





Not what I said nor meant nor think.

My intention was mainly to highlight the irony of speaking of appreciating fat female bodies as a fetish while ignoring the hypocrisy and irony of how thin female bodies are viewed. Clearly the execution leaves something to be desired.





Okay, seriously though.

"Misogynistic": "strongly prejudiced against women". How?

"Ablest"... HOW?

Are you just looking for words that end in "ist" at this point?

I suppose you could say I am culturalist and racist too for focusing on predominantly white western society too. Or a misanthropist or misandrist for my charges against a culture made of people and still largely run by men. Or homophobic for not discussing or focusing on same-sex attraction, or for attacking fashion which is stereotypically seen as being run by gay men.

I mean, a lot of the stuff you said had a good point, or at least pointed out how my flawed prose could be misinterpreted. But... not this. Not unless you have a seriously good defense that there is something I am glaringly missing about my own character.

1/2

I just have to say, I realize that you mean some of this ironically or perjoratively, but I am very appreciative for you being willing to respond. If you feel this way, it means many others probably felt this way as well but did not respond. So thank you for responding, and thank you for giving me the chance to clarify my own thoughts.



That is an interesting and thought-provoking perspective, though I think the phrase "best understood" is a rather odd choice given your displeasure with my own subjective charges. That human attractiveness can and should be and is studied through sociology and psychology is absolutely correct and valid. That thinking of humans as not being animals, however, and as biology not also being an important and useful lens... seems an odd argument from someone that studied all of this stuff. Can you elaborate?





You know, someone else said that too. Where did I say that, exactly?

Wherever it was, I certainly did not mean it to sound as it apparently sounded to you and others. Perhaps that is where your charge of misogyny originated from.

I do not think... that I think, that there is a right and wrong way to be attractive as a woman. I think... that it seems odd, or ironic - both, I guess - that society, certainly American culture and fashion, so promotes excessive thinness as the ideal body type for women. To the degree that yes, it very much fetishizes thinness. And that in turn makes it ironic to think of appreciating heavier women as itself a fetish, an irony then multiplied by the fact that, yes, biologically, fat on a female body has been a central indicator of fertility for much of human history and prehistory, afaik.

You may find this fascinating as well, but I actually did not mean for this rant to be about how women choose express themselves AT ALL. It was only envisaged and intended as a rebuke of the current societal norm of exulting female thinness, especially in reference to the further exclusion of other body types, and how this has gotten to the point where the vast majority of the fashion industry is focused on either completely ignoring women that aren't thin or, "at best", convincing women that aren't thin that they need to hide anything that isn't thin, and then selling to resulting socially-engineered demand to hide parts of the body that are totally natural, even laudable - those same parts that on a thin woman are encouraged by that same industry and culture to reveal or show off or use to tantalize, to look cute, etc. Personally, I do find it cute on thin women. I just ALSO find it cute on heavier women, and it seems like that focus on only thinness has gotten to the point where it is, VERY MUCH, a fetish. And not even (solely) a sexual fetish - a socionormative fetish, a fetish of what is generally seen as even acceptable, much less attractive. And personally, I find that disturbing and, frankly, offensive (though I acknowledge the irony considering how I have seriously offended you by how poorly I've expressed it, lol).





That I said; do you have an argument specifically about "biological reason to be attractive"?

Mmmm, yah, poor phrasing throughout, though I didn't actually say thin wasn't attractive - I find it attractive, lol - what I said was that it doesn't have a biological reason to be attractive outside of waist to hip ratio. Which, still, is an overgeneralization, and cringe for other reasons. But no, not cringe for that particular reason.

Yah, you're right, should have edited this, wrote it in the middle of the night after reading something of the opposite viewpoint that pissed me and then didn't reread it before posting, not sure what I was thinking. Not the way I meant it, sorry. Thanks for calling it out. I meant it as an overreaction to the material I'd read, as compensatory, not as offensive, went overboard on the rhetoric. At the bare minimum, the first sentences of the 4th and 5th paragraphs should have been removed or greatly altered, clearly a poor choice of phrasing lol.

I know you get this a lot, but the pay-for-messaging thing might be a mistake. I know it's supposed to be a draw to subscribe, but all it does in effect is send traffic offsite. Every account has a kik or access via another messaging service.

But, imho, there are several viable and lucrative paths forward!

The most important thing is to keep as much traffic here as possible.

The most obvious solution is advertising in messaging, though I understand that is difficult given the nature of this site.

Another option is to make an LLC messaging service that ostensibly anyone could use, but is used directly by this site, and recruit advertisers from that side instead. In fact, it surprises me this isn't already a business model, seems like a very lucrative and relatively simple middle-man business, call it hosted advertising, where sites that can't recruit advertising themselves instead send there traffic through this company for messaging services and the company in turn recruits advertisers that would otherwise be nervous about doing business directly with these sites / shares advertising revenue with the site that sent the traffic to them. Lol. This is actually a decent business idea and I should probably delete it. Anyway...

Another option is vary the way in which the social/dating subscriptions function with respect to messaging, such as expanding messaging to allow contact with twenty accounts maybe five times in a day, and then have the social subscription give unlimited contacts while the dating subscription gives unlimited messaging per individual contact. Or some other version of this.

And finally, and perhaps most importantly, the worst thing you can do, imho, from a business perspective, is keep the current messaging model. Driving traffic consistently and constantly away from your site is the worst thing you can do for a business, and, if you need to choose a lost leader, messaging is almost always the best choice, since there an unlimited number of free messaging services on the internet.

TL;DR: The current messaging policy only harms FF.

what are the "right foods"?