Why are some people attracted, or indifferent to, fat people?

[Creepy-Cyclops]

lookes aren't everything, sure, but not giving any effort to be the best that you can be is more than just an issue about lookes.

you make it sound like when someone is overweight they can no longer comb their hair or smell nice, have expensive or a style of clothes... or whatever *any* effort entails.

How are you to say what is the best someone can be, that's all subjective really.

[Creepy-]

lol at everyone getting mad over differing opinions. So other people don't agree with you... now what?

Chill. Or don't... whatever makes you happy

[Kristiina]

you make it sound like when someone is overweight they can no longer comb their hair or smell nice, have expensive or a style of clothes... or whatever *any* effort entails.

How are you to say what is the best someone can be, that's all subjective really.

they can. sure. I would not stop them. However, that's rarely the case.

I would go as far as to say that fat people are very rarely happy about being fat. And I'd be as bold as to bring an analogy of being a smoker - people are happy to have their cigarette but studies show that most people would quit if they could. And if this was a discussion about smoking, then almost all non-smokers would say that smokers are "nasty" and they smell and so on. Well, they just have different values and they don't mind that smoking is bad for their health and they might die younger (just like being fat). So if smoking is viewd like such a vice and the smoker is "killing themselves", then I see very little reason to be nice and tolerant to people who eat too much. It's just another vice. It doesn't make the person a bad person, but I don't have to like it either. Being very close to a smoker makes me want to smoke and hanging out with people who over-eat make me have faulty views what meal size is normal and this can be destructive for me. I do have both smoking and over-eating friends, but I do wish they'd change their destructive ways.

Just my mini-rant. You can try to butcher me now for expressing my views in an EIE way. I know people always try to butcher me in forums after I do that. Oh well. It was worth the internet space.

[Kim]

McDonald's

(sorry I could not resist)

Anyway, Kim, Dolphin, your stories have helped change my outlook a bit. I've had friends who would have been considered fat and I've heard their stories. What bothered me about them though was their constant complaining of their weight, yet not doing anything about it. I feel like if somebody is not happy with an aspect about themselves then they should work on changing it, and if they don't then it is only their personal loss; that has always been my philosophy, anyway. I don't see this as a rule for just overweight people in general; I feel we should all have personal goals of improvement.

and Kim, I think you are a lovely person no matter what your weight is. <3

Awww, that's sweet! Thanks!

I think Gilly summed up what I meant to say, namely that there are so many reasons for people to be overweight (and many painful ones) that judging anybody based on weight is ludicrous. My boyfriend can eat what he wants and doesn't nearly work out as much as I do and is in top shape. I have to work a lot harder for a lot less, so of course I take offense when people associate fat/overweight with lazy. Not to mention eating disorders, depression, social phobia, etc. And some people like to be fat or like to eat and don't mind the consequences. So what. I don't judge people who don't finish high school or don't go to college because I don't automatically assume that they are stupid.

[strrrng]

I actually feel really sorry for you thinking I say this to appear non-shallow.

Poorly veiled condescension aimed at gaining superiority in the argument. Nice.

I mean what I say.

So, then it follows that you actually do feel sorry for them. Why, though? That would mean you feel sorry for people when they misinterpret you. What's there to pity? Sounds like a contradiction to me.

If you are so convinced looks is the thing that makes everyone tick, then you'll probably be very depressed when you get old.

Except nobody said that looks are the thing that makes everyone tick; that was your misinterpretation. And why would banking all of your assessments on looks necessitate depression when you get old? That just sounds like some mindless hypothesis conjured to mitigate fears of being "shallow." Illusion of nobility ftw.

I value people based on their personalities.

So do I. That doesn't mean I can't distinguish between attractive and ugly, and that such an assessment won't factor into how physically attracted I am to someone.

I have been attracted to people who are perceived ugly lots of times, and I'm probably perceived beautiful myself.

Well, if you like ugly people, awesome. For some reason though, I'm getting an impression that you utilize this attitude to give yourself some subtle feeling of nobility. As if by abnegating "surface" assessments, you are somehow more sophisticated and have deeper insight into people than the rest of us shallow idiots. Your tone in this post seems to corroborate that impression.

And how would you know if you're perceived as beautiful? Especially since, as you said, looks don't factor into it. Does that mean that most people have insight into your personality? Your self-appointed righteousness in this thread is pretty ugly to me.

I definitely don't find looks important at all.

Ok, so go fuck a baboon. Go to Kentucky Fried Chicken and pick up Julio behind the counter, gain some deep insight into his beautiful personality, then take him home and ride his drumstick all night. I hope you have fun.

It's a fact, and I tell you only to balance your childishness.

It's not a fact, so cut the righteous bullshit. You're not here to judge others' childishness anyway.

Remember that impression I was getting before? It's a fact now.

I don't need you to believe me, but I hope anyone feeling hurt by this thread does.

Yes, you do. Which is why you arrogantly profess all this contradictory, sanctimonious shit. And stop acting like you're trying to assuage the damaged feelings of people wronged in this thread. Anyone who gets their feelings hurt over a forum debate is fucked up anyway. Plus, it's not like you actually care. You're just pretending to to bolster your ego—the same reason you preach this "I don't care about looks, they're just shallow" crap.

There are people having more important values in life than looks.

It's not a value; it's an instantaneous physical reaction. The only value comes after that reaction.

And I bet we are more happy.

It's not your place to say. And it's funny that you need to end your little dissertation with this supercilious qualifier, as if to put the stamp of self-assurance on it.

[dbmmama]

Poorly veiled condescension aimed at gaining superiority in the argument. Nice.



So, then it follows that you actually do feel sorry for them. Why, though? That would mean you feel sorry for people when they misinterpret you. What's there to pity? Sounds like a contradiction to me.



Except nobody said that looks are the thing that makes everyone tick; that was your misinterpretation. And why would banking all of your assessments on looks necessitate depression when you get old? That just sounds like some mindless hypothesis conjured to mitigate fears of being "shallow." Illusion of nobility ftw.



So do I. That doesn't mean I can't distinguish between attractive and ugly, and that such an assessment won't factor into how physically attracted I am to someone.



Well, if you like ugly people, awesome. For some reason though, I'm getting an impression that you utilize this attitude to give yourself some subtle feeling of nobility. As if by abnegating "surface" assessments, you are somehow more sophisticated and have deeper insight into people than the rest of us shallow idiots. Your tone in this post seems to corroborate that impression.

And how would you know if you're perceived as beautiful? Especially since, as you said, looks don't factor into it. Does that mean that most people have insight into your personality? Your self-appointed righteousness in this thread is pretty ugly to me.



Ok, so go fuck a baboon. Go to Kentucky Fried Chicken and pick up Julio behind the counter, gain some deep insight into his beautiful personality, then take him home and ride his drumstick all night. I hope you have fun.



It's not a fact, so cut the righteous bullshit. You're not here to judge others' childishness anyway.

Remember that impression I was getting before? It's a fact now.



Yes, you do. Which is why you arrogantly profess all this contradictory, sanctimonious shit. And stop acting like you're trying to assuage the damaged feelings of people wronged in this thread. Anyone who gets their feelings hurt over a forum debate is fucked up anyway. Plus, it's not like you actually care. You're just pretending to to bolster your ego—the same reason you preach this "I don't care about looks, they're just shallow" crap.



It's not a value; it's an instantaneous physical reaction. The only value comes after that reaction.



It's not your place to say. And it's funny that you need to end your little dissertation with this supercilious qualifier, as if to put the stamp of self-assurance on it.

+1

[Kim]

+1

What? Not caring about looks when first meeting people and then starting to like them and perhaps even falling in love with someone who initially didn't seem attractive is so foreign to you?

If so, ok. Whatever works for you. But to accuse others of being self-righteous and such just because they approach people and interpersonal relationships differently really makes me wonder what you are doing on a Socionics forum.

[dbmmama]

What? Not caring about looks when first meeting people and then starting to like them and perhaps even falling in love with someone who initially didn't seem attractive is so foreign to you?

If so, ok. Whatever works for you. But to accuse others of being self-righteous and such just because they approach people and interpersonal relationships differently really makes me wonder what you are doing on a Socionics forum.

no, its not foreign. i just dont care for the "moral high ground" of putting others down in not seeing things their way. if you dont, then dont, but why put someone else down for seeing it differently? strrrng is not really any better when he puts others down either but his view on the condescending attitude is closer to mine. THAT'S what i was agreeing with.

[Steve]

Out of curiosity, how could the dissenting opinion in this thread have been presented in a way that would not have come across as self-righteous?

[Steve]

A few hundred years ago the farming Estonians were convinced that a proper woman is big, wide and strong. They have to be able to carry buckets of water with no significant effort and they have to have good wide hips and enough fat to still have the figure of a REAL woman.

Well, then there was civilization and times changed.

Right, definitely. Things probably changed around the time where civilizations developed their gods and goddesses in image of the perfected human muscular lean form like the Ancient Greeks, Egyptians, etc.

[dbmmama]

Out of curiosity, how could the dissenting opinion in this thread have been presented in a way that would not have come across as self-righteous?

i personally prefer talking with people who state their opinions and views without the attitude of being "better" than others because of their opinion. mostly because i dont like it when others do that to me. one reason i try to always state what im saying with "to me" "personally" and shit like that. then its not about putting the other down, just stating my opinion. i own my opinion. i prefer for others to own their own. then, it's mutual respect, no matter how its said.

[strrrng]

Out of curiosity, how could the dissenting opinion in this thread have been presented in a way that would not have come across as self-righteous?

By not telling people you feel sorry for them because they disagree with you, or that you will be depressed if you base assessments on looks, or that people who judge solely by personality are deeper and happier, or claiming opinion to be fact.

And there were no real complaints about self-righteousness until I called her out on it, so it's not like we need some steep change in behavior/attitude. It's not hard. If you're expressing an opinion, do so without being a haughty fuck. And if you are going to be arrogant, don't veil it in martyr-like nobility.

[Steve]

<3




This is strikingly insightful, starfall. I have witnessed it in myself and a few good friends over the course of my high school career, and I think you're dead on. Like, I always wondered how one of my friends would get up every day at 4:30am just to train in the morning before school. And it's just because he was looking for a different form of pleasure than a 'normal' person would, probably linked to some void, but whatever. It's still not to be judged as something bad; to me, the thrill from that pain/void is more beautiful than some normal routine. 'What can you do when you're broken down' kind of thing; I don't care how well you can function under normal conditions. So, I like the people out there who train with/through the pain, because I know why they're doing it, and it's noble.

It's not "bad" for you if you like/enjoy/get pleasure out of it. I think when you toss around the word "pain", and talk about enjoying it or w/e, people naturally assume society's connotation of the word "pain" as something bad and dysfunctional, which is not exactly how you mean it. I think this is what leads to misunderstanding in threads like with Kim in the other thread.

[Steve]

By not telling people you feel sorry for them because they disagree with you, or that you will be depressed if you base assessments on looks, or that people who judge solely by personality are deeper and happier, or claiming opinion to be fact.

And there were no real complaints about self-righteousness until I called her out on it, so it's not like we need some steep change in behavior/attitude. It's not hard. If you're expressing an opinion, do so without being a haughty fuck. And if you are going to be arrogant, don't veil it in martyr-like nobility.

Makes sense.

So, the dissenters could have said "I actually don't have any preferences or standards for physical attractiveness" ?

[Kristiina]

This thread makes me sad. Is looks the decisive factor when it comes to who people are attracted to? Personality and behaviour not important? I certainly don't share that opinion.

That being said, I was a little surprised seeing this:



There is a lot of talking about the huge fat problem we have here (Norway). But I mean, we are pure health when it comes to weight compared to a lot of other countries. How did 30% of the US population end up obese? That's extreme!

lol. they had "different values" And each of those people had reasons that deserve a good tear or two.

[Kristiina]

lol. they had "different values" And each of those people had reasons that deserve a good tear or two.

And one more thing - I found statistics that in Estonia, among people 19+ years old, the number of people with BMI 30+ is 9% of men and 3.3% of women.

[strrrng]

Makes sense.

So, the dissenters could have said "I actually don't have any preferences or standards for physical attractiveness" ?

Just read her post. The arrogance is pervasive. We can't quantitate peoples' behavior and draw up rules for what should and shouldn't happen. You just see it, know it, and call it.

lol. they had "different values" And each of those people had reasons that deserve a good tear or two.

you are classic

[Kim]

It's the diet here. I gained a lot of weight in the US when I first moved here and to this day, when I go home, I can eat TONS of food and I never gain and this includes Christmas. Part of it is probably that my metabolism is optimized to process what I ate growing up, another part is that it's a lot less processed food, not as many hidden calories, and more walking and biking. In the US I feel like I have to make an effort to exercise, whereas in Europe it just happens because I walk to the bus, bike to the lake, swim because the weather is nice, take a walk with the dog, etc.

AND eating healthy in the US is expensive and nobody will convince me otherwise. I don't have time to visit farms around time, so I have to buy produce at the supermarket and it's ridiculous. AND things that are loaded with sugar and fat are sold as healthy.

[Kim]

Originally Posted by Kristiina
lol. they had "different values" And each of those people had reasons that deserve a good tear or two.

I see my crusade was not in vain. Good ENFj...! *pets*

[Steve]

Just read her post. The arrogance is pervasive. We can't quantitate peoples' behavior and draw up rules for what should and shouldn't happen. You just see it, know it, and call it.

Yes I saw it, I was just curious if there was an explicit way to show how it could've been done differently. I guess not.

[Kristiina]

It's the diet here. I gained a lot of weight in the US when I first moved here and to this day, when I go home, I can eat TONS of food and I never gain and this includes Christmas. Part of it is probably that my metabolism is optimized to process what I ate growing up, another part is that it's a lot less processed food, not as many hidden calories, and more walking and biking. In the US I feel like I have to make an effort to exercise, whereas in Europe it just happens because I walk to the bus, bike to the lake, swim because the weather is nice, take a walk with the dog, etc.

AND eating healthy in the US is expensive and nobody will convince me otherwise. I don't have time to visit farms around time, so I have to buy produce at the supermarket and it's ridiculous. AND things that are loaded with sugar and fat are sold as healthy.

I agree it's expensive here. I shiver at the thought of how much I spend on food. However, I discovered that 2 big juicy oranges have the same amount of calories as one pop tart. So when I indulged on 4 pop tarts during one day (Mmmm. with milk... ), I got 800 extra calories. Scary.

[strrrng]

Yes I saw it, I was just curious if there was an explicit way to show how it could've been done differently. I guess not.

There is, but with such a specific example, it wouldn't be worth the time and energy to do so. People just need to know their fucking place

[strrrng]

That is not what I meant. I'm sorry if it came across that way. I meant that people avoiding others because of looks might just lose a good friend. That's sad. And I feel sorry for people making such choices because of that. No attempt of being superior in those words. Just true sadness.

Well, I agree that dismissing people based solely on looks is limiting and detrimental in the long run. But you seemed to be saying a lot more than that in your post. Whatever.

The rest of your e-mail seems just like you want to quarrel. I'm not in the mood for it. I actually mean what I say. Beauty and attraction isn't the same thing for me.

Damn, I even tried to tone it down, and you still thought I was quarreling. Or maybe you were just looking for a pretense to avoid responding to direct criticism. And there's no need to debate semantics; you said what you said

[crazedrat]

when a person reaches a certain level of fatness most resemblance to a human body disappears and is replaced by a big mass which isn't sexually appealing. this process really occurs gradually, and can be thought of on a scale: human form ----- mass of flesh. the emphasis on sexual attraction in partnership varies from culture to culture; and there are different psychological components to attraction, some non-sexual; but i don't think the fundamental statement that fat people are less sexually attractive to the general population, fetishes aside, changes. Like I said, minus fetishes.. you just can't be as sexually attracted to a big lump.

I'd also like to add that in many ways chronic eating problems are as much of a mental problem as they are a physical problem; and in a big way I avoid fat girls because they're histrionic, needy people.

[strrrng]

I meant what I said, I just didn't mean what YOU said I said.

Except what you say can have multiple meanings, so that statement is circular and redundant, and serves more as a means to not have to clarify what you mean (especially under direct scrutiny ) than anything else.

So, when I examined your post, I did so within the context of the rest of the posts in the thread and it's general subject matter. I don't see why you couldn't just point out where and why I was wrong. I wasn't trying to quarrel, which is why I think you used a bullshit pretense to shift the context and avoid direct confrontation.

[Kim]

I agree it's expensive here. I shiver at the thought of how much I spend on food. However, I discovered that 2 big juicy oranges have the same amount of calories as one pop tart. So when I indulged on 4 pop tarts during one day (Mmmm. with milk... ), I got 800 extra calories. Scary.

Ohhh pop tarts are evil!

But get this: $2.50 for one (ONE) red pepper. WTF??

[dbmmama]

That is not what I meant. I'm sorry if it came across that way. I meant that people avoiding others because of looks might just lose a good friend. That's sad. And I feel sorry for people making such choices because of that. No attempt of being superior in those words. Just true sadness.

The rest of your e-mail seems just like you want to quarrel. I'm not in the mood for it. I actually mean what I say. Beauty and attraction isn't the same thing for me.

And no, I don't find baboons sexually attractive. That doesn't mean I can't find them beautiful.

for me mimosa, it's when someone says "i feel sorry for others." people make their own choices. if you feel sorry for them making their OWN choices, THAT'S condescending. to me, it means that you feel YOUR choices are superior that you would feel the need to feel sorry for others for the choices they make.

please never feel sorry or sad for me. period. or glad for me for that matter. my life is my life, not someone else's to feel or pass judgment on. i may not agree with your way or someone else's way, but i respect that it's your way. i expect the same in return. sorry, but when i do not get that, especially as that is what i give, i dont have those people in my life very much.

[strrrng]

for me mimosa, it's when someone says "i feel sorry for others." people make their own choices. if you feel sorry for them making their OWN choices, THAT'S condescending. to me, it means that you feel YOUR choices are superior that you would feel the need to feel sorry for others for the choices they make.

Exactly.

please never feel sorry or sad for me. period. or glad for me for that matter. my life is my life, not someone else's to feel or pass judgment on. i may not agree with your way or someone else's way, but i respect that it's your way. i expect the same in return. sorry, but when i do not get that, especially as that is what i give, i dont have those people in my life very much.

Same. I don't want peoples' pity; that's fucking disgusting. Don't waste your energy on me; if I'm down, just let me writhe in abject pain. I'd rather die self-sufficient than live with someone else's bullshit aid. ugh.

[UDP]

Poorly veiled condescension aimed at gaining superiority in the argument. Nice.

[Gilly]

if I'm down, just let me writhe in abject pain.

rofl

[Gilly]

Who said I was making negative assumptions about their character in all cases? Did you happen to read my post in response to Kim?

No, admittedly I didn't; however you seemed to be implying negative assumptions earlier in the thread. Sorry if I misinterpreted.

Overall, it's very foolish to believe that a person's appearance says nothing about them.

I absolutely agree, but I am certainly against lumping people into rigid categories based on physical traits.

[strrrng]

rofl

happy life

I absolutely agree, but I am certainly against lumping people into rigid categories based on physical traits.

Why not? I think it's an efficient and pragmatic method of making immediate judgments and decisions on who you will interact with (in more casual settings). Maybe it's a beta Se thing, as physical traits are viewed as static, discrete entities that don't have other "angles" to them (gah, delta NF's) and are systematized into a hierarchy (Ti). Not that all betas do this on a significant level, but most betas I talk to tend to relate to my idea of an "objective" scale, looks being very concrete, self-explanatory things, etc. You sure you're not allowing Ne some breathing room here?

[Creepy-Cyclops]

happy life



Why not? I think it's an efficient and pragmatic method of making immediate judgments and decisions on who you will interact with (in more casual settings). Maybe it's a beta Se thing, as physical traits are viewed as static, discrete entities that don't have other "angles" to them (gah, delta NF's) and are systematized into a hierarchy (Ti). Not that all betas do this on a significant level, but most betas I talk to tend to relate to my idea of an "objective" scale, looks being very concrete, self-explanatory things, etc. You sure you're not allowing Ne some breathing room here?

Na not really, you could just as easily say that Beta's have a heirarchy based on how much money someone has, so in effect find a fat person more attractive than a skinny poor person.

And then people from any quadra can have any number of reasons.

You just have to accept that it's a generalization which is incorrect and doesn't necessarily apply, at least in socionics.

[crazedrat]

can you imagine eliminating all generalization from your thinking?
it would basically mean you would stop thinking.
it's a retarded thing to value

[strrrng]

Na not really, you could just as easily say that Beta's have a heirarchy based on how much money someone has, so in effect find a fat person more attractive than a skinny poor person.

Fair enough. But the point is, the thought process underpinning said thing would stay the same. And since we're operating within the realm of attractiveness, that is where I chose to apply it. Plus, I think it's safe to say that betas will approach most areas in life with this general attitude, if not having a few, specific ones that they concentrate completely on structuring, mastering, whatever. Like me with coffee. I essentially became absorbed in the arena after developing an addiction, and I created this sort of aristocracy out of it—"these beans are the highest quality, and you should have them if you want to be like this," etc. While anyone can master a subject, betas seem to do it in a very ideologically-driven, absolute manner, where the mastery comes from a desire to understand the principles behind something, structure it, and find some tangible result (and they usually push it onto other people).

And then people from any quadra can have any number of reasons.

Right, well the thought processes guiding the reasons and decisions will always reflect the quadra's functions.

You just have to accept that it's a generalization which is incorrect and doesn't necessarily apply, at least in socionics.

What? The beta hierarchy thing? I think it applies pretty well, generally.

[strrrng]

can you imagine eliminating all generalization from your thinking?
it would basically mean you would stop thinking.
it's a retarded thing to value

Right. And while it's not beneficial or accurate to implement some top-down style of thinking with things, there are general categories and principles which things can be subsumed under. The trick is, these generals are almost always derived from constituent parts. So, it essentially never starts with a generalization; they are just a sort of abstract result of people observing a conglomeration of pieces, inducting patterns, and synthesizing them. So, while they exist, he's right in the sense that we shouldn't apply generalizations to reality—especially without understand their building blocks or contextual factors.

The other side is when people focus solely on the constituent parts, and assume consistency in them regardless of context (hello unhealthy alpha NT's with socionics). This is probably even worse than imposing generalizations, because it is a completely blind way of operating.

[strrrng]

lol wtf


leave it to allie to interrupt a discussion with spam

[Gilly]

*screenvomit*

[Joy]

I have a friend who's husband has a bit of a beer belly. It's not even that bad. She mentions it sometimes and talks about it like he's chubbier than he is, but she seems offended by the idea that someone wouldn't date a person because of their weight. She seems to think it's shallow. She's been a runner her whole life and is very healthy. I explained that I'm not simply not physically attracted to guys that have medium or large builds. For whatever reason, I'm all about skinny guys. Always have been. I assume it's biological.

[discojoe]

When I think of having sex with a really fat person it makes me feel bad.