Thursday, 11 February 2016

Rape Prevention

Before I forget, if you saw the last post, you may have clicked this link [before I edited it substantially, lols]; "the NHS helped me lose 24 stone and get my life back", that's 336 lbs/152 kg. If so, you'll already know that it deserves mention. If your mind was a horse, it might well have refused this fence,
Chisholm ate and ate to make herself unattractive to men.
Sounds like the beginings of a self-writing joke. The subject of this piece, Caroline Chisholm, by this account a hardworking tenacious woman with real gumption, "ate and ate to make herself unattractive to men" because she'd been sexually abused for some months by her landlord, an awful experience. One she escaped through her own actions.

She continued her weight-gain diet though, in order to ward off men/rapists. We all know sexual assault happens when people are so overwhelmed by the attractiveness of a person that in their enthusiasm, they neglect to gain consent.....
She knew it had gone too far when she had to resort to ordering her clothes from the US. It was costing her a fortune.
So, she ate and ate despite becoming a "virtual recluse", despite being unable to take her daughter to school, despite her swollen legs and other pains, despite being unable to get clothes in the UK. She was haunted by the fear of sexual assault you see....

Until she got the clothes bill. Then she said, "I'm haunted by the fear of sexual assault, but at these prices? I'll take my chances!"

Now, I know what you might be thinking, I've gone too far, but this really isn't about me. It's about the mindset of middle/upper class feminist literate women who are so keen on directing fat people into calorie restriciton and to keeping hold of their dominance of fatness, that they'll use anything in service of it.
Matilda Moffett, the psychologist at the bariatric unit in Monkseaton medical centre belonging to Northumbria Healthcare trust, helped her talk about the abuse by her former landlord. “I thought the only way to deal with that was to get so big and disgusting that he wouldn’t come near me,” says Chisholm.
Oh I'll bet she "helped".
Chisholm struggled, though, until she saw Matilda. “I was scared to lose weight in case it [abuse] happened again,” she says. “I had to deal with that. She listened and asked questions which helped me understand it. I realised it was not my fault and it was nothing to do with the way I looked.”
Experiencing any kind of assault can lead us to experience feelings of culpability. Those feelings come from the injury not only to ourselves, but our sense of autonomy. Questioning of ourselves tends to centre on examining our actions, attitudes and reactions. People do not usually seek to damage themselves, they tend to resolve to change some aspect of their behaviour. Even anorexics might say, "I wanted to disappear." I'm not saying I believe that is the right or wrong interpretation, I'm talking about what people themselves say.

When we hear a report of Roxane Gay talking of the aftermath of the horrific rape she endured,
She began to put on weight quickly, gaining 40lb, and her parents sent her to fat camp, where she lost the weight, and then regained it. Putting on weight was "an intense form of control", Gay says. The boys in the woods had taken her body, "and they broke it. I will never get that body back, and I hate that, because it was a good body. But they took it; they ruined it. And so, when I ate, I got to make my body into what I wanted it to be, which is a fortress."
No matter what you think of the tenor of this piece, Gay said, a fortress.

When people speak of wanting to do something to protect themselves from sexual assault, they tend to speak of empowerment of some sort. Of making themselves look or seem bigger and/or more threatening. Being fat doesn't make you rape-proof, though it may well make you less likely to be raped than others of a slighter stature.

Though its hard to say this, many rapists and sexual abusers are cowardly. They feel encouraged only by what they perceive as weakness. Like any criminals, they have a process of selecting their targets. A small/slim person can be lifted off their feet. Fatness may well present a greater challenge on the face of it than slimness enough to put off someone looking to assert themselves at the expense of someone else. 

As for the perception of choosing weight, you can consider what that means for those who are raped and do not gain weight. Are we really expected to believe they're not as keen on avoiding futher assault? It seems to establish a hierarchy of reluctance to be raped. That's not only unsavoury, it doesn't ring true.

So where does the idea that sexual assault is a complement to your looks come from? Rapists and child sex abusers, another vehicle for this line. Always looking to minimize or excuse their actions, if only to themsleves, often by invoking some idea of collusion from their victims. They've been known to say that if the person or child wasn't so attractive, they'd have left them alone, to their victims, whilst assaulting them.

There's a steady stream of people getting involved in fat acceptance who insist, fat people keep slimmer people away by not being sufficiently willing to take on board the criticisms of others, thereby alienating them. Well, here's agreement between sex abusers and feminists.

What a kumbaya moment. If only we could all just get along indeed!
Chisholm is one of the vast majority of morbidly obese patients who have psychological issues that urgently need to be addressed.
Everyone has "psychological issues" of one kind or another, and virtually everyone's health would be improved by dealing with them effectively. It's tendentious to cite this as the 'cause' of "obesity/morbid obesity". And no, that's not a facile, "everyone's bisexual" kind of point. We all have to knock something out of ourselves to fit into whatever society is ours. That's the nature of existence.

Now bariatric surgery has entered this Maoist re-education phase, who's sanity do you feel is most in question here?

Another fundamental problem is the continued refusal to diagnose according to the symptoms of the actual problem, rather than imposing desired thinking. Inaccurate diagnosis stifles self perception. There's something cruel about blocking a person's ability to understand themselves properly, for the sake of your own gratification. Instead inserting what you want them to believe into their heads.

Chisholm is called a "binge eater", propagandising for the idea that people "use" food like a drug, eating when they're not hungry in order to eat/deal with their fee fees and boo boos. From reading her story I'd say CC probably had hyperphagia nervosa. That's when excessive or hyperhunger is present, with no known physiological injury and is instead partly or wholly caused by imbalance in (the functioning of) the nervous system. For example too much strain, pressure, stress reverberates through the system, triggering, heightening, sensitizing excess functioning in many areas, hunger inclusive.

In the case of hyperphagia, I feel it's like certain forms of chronic pain syndrome-where pain is caused by the body's (lowered) levels of pleasure chemicals. The pain of our bodies functioning, normally masked by the right chemical mix, starts to come through. Like when a person isn't given enough anesthetic for an operation. Hunger seems to function in a similar way (this may or may not affect levels of spontaneous thermogenesis). Hence why it feels like eating before this acute stage is eating in the absence of hunger.

CC would seem to be case of this supposed eating without hunger;
Breakfast was toast and cereal. She would get through 10 packets of crisps at work and order a jacket potato for lunch which would be delivered if the order was over £10, so she would add a sandwich as an afternoon snack. On the way home she bought a large Big Mac meal with chips and a drink, a large McChicken sandwich meal, a double Cheeseburger and a wrap. She began eating them in the taxi and finished them at home. Around 8pm she would have two 12in pizzas delivered – buy one, get one free – and eat both. “I did that every single day,” she says.
I'd be surprised if you got much change from 10,000 calories, if its not more. Post gastric sleeve,
She physically cannot eat more than a few mouthfuls at a time. Some foods, such as bread and chewy meats, are hard to get down. She feels full very fast and cannot eat within half an hour of drinking anything.
Doesn't that sound the picture of health? More like someone who's dying. Anyhow the message is, lack of hunger is why she lost over 300lbs and more than 150kgs. LACK OF HUNGER. Because she had HYPERPHAGIA, which is an EXCESS OF HUNGER.

Assertions of eating without hunger are purely for the convienience of support the notion of eating as simply a conscious decision based on habit or faddiction, rather than a response to an innate life sustaining urge.

That so many fat people are convinced of this too, "Overweight people don’t eat because we’re hungry" suggests fat people's eating and hunger function is mainly pretty average. The difference between a fat person and a slim one is the latter can have an eating/hunger disorder and not know it, whereas fat people tend to assume they have a eating/hunger disorder until they happen to find out they don't.

You can tell there is zero critical assessment going on-when these people effortlessly nuke their own wishful thinking and don't even realise it. They all think exactly the same way, including this journalist. The downside of pursuing the falsification of biology, is you don't always know what you've got. Seems you need knowledge of the truth, to hide it properly. 

And yes, this is obviously the easier way to diet. That's not judgement of the person, it just tells you what dieting is. So untenable that it requires you to be cut into it, to have any real chance-temporarily. For this is only an aid to get you started. They make it clear that the amount you lose or re-gain is solely down to your own efforts. The latter especially is the same old nasty line.
The first 2-4 weeks following surgery can be challenging. It may be uncomfortable or painful to eat, but this is a normal part of the healing process.....
That's from a support site for people undergoing full gastrectomy-stomach removal-not "a stomach-reducing operation".  Note what's presented as "weight-loss surgery" for fat people is presented as what it is- the body's healing process after a major insult......
The goal after surgery is to work toward settling into a “new normal”, allowing the body to heal and adjust to the loss of the stomach over time. At the same time it is important to try to consume as many calories as possible to minimize rapid weight loss in the first few months following surgery, and to take in nutrients that the body needs to aid in the healing process. Starting to eat and drink again can be difficult, requiring a determined effort. It’s a lot of work, and sometimes feels as though life suddenly revolves around eating and drinking – what, when, where and how much. Familiar sensations of hunger may be lost, replaced by feelings of weakness and emptiness. In the beginning eating and drinking is out of necessity, soon to become habit, and eventually the desire to eat and enjoyment of food returns.
My emphasis.

It also says, "It may a year or two, but eventually the body seems to adjust quite well to the absence of the stomach." That's the so called life saving weight loss surgery, but worse. The aim for fat people is to behave as if they haven't healed.

Despite having weighed, 40stones/560lbs/254kgs, Chisholm's metabolic function was amenable to alteration. The establishment refuses to support and push for the correct and therefore humane way/s to bring this about. Insisting on sticking everyone in the prison of calorie restriction at all and any cost.

All she needed was means to restore the balance of her body and/or simply to dial down her hunger. If they'd just been able to bring that down, the situation would have been arrested at an early stage. Instead she was 'advised' to lose weight. By being told to "lose weight". As she didn't "lose weight" by magic, this counted as "ignored advice to lose weight."

What that 24 stones/336lbs/152kgs represents is how the 'obesity' cult deliberately holds you ransom to your bodies ability to gain weight, using susceptibility and personal misfortune as allies. Then has the nerve to claim treating you like a ventriloquist's dummy before butchering your organs is "life saving".

Again I ask, does this feel like the influence of sanity to you? The very thing that is provoking anxiety, lack of means of controlling weight, is being maintained by the very people with the greatest urge to act out this anxiety, on other people's lives and bodies.

Here are people who have done something we've all done/will do and that is to kid ourselves that something we either know or suspect doesn't work, will work if we just force it hard enough. There's no one to tell these people NO, STOP or simply, GET A HOLD OF YOURSELVES. They're all on the same page so they just keep on trucking.

I think you'll find all this more than meets their definition of "behavioural addiction", except with fat bodies and minds as the vehicle for their compulsions, rather than their own.

Friday, 5 February 2016

Got Fat

The Guardian started a series of reports on the National Health Service (the NHS). Last Thursday attention turned to 'obesity'. You can imagine how well that turned out.

The headline [article] goes "How Britain got Fat" no question mark. In short, lots of calorie dense food, represented by the proliferation of fried chicken shops. A pre-clusion undermined by its own subtitle.
With cheap and fattening food everywhere, there has been a shape shift that means people do not recognise obesity when they see it in the mirror
Shapes shifted before Britain went clucky. Depending on your historical perspective, societies fattening started; after WWII, from 1960/ the mid-1970’s or 1979/80. Hilde Bruch started her studies on US children in 1937.
As Bruch later told it, her inspiration was simple: she arrived in New York in 1934 and was “startled” by the number of fat kids she saw—“really fat ones, not only in clinics, but on the streets and subways, and in schools.”
This was during the Great Depression, this extended to the UK, Orwell wrote the diet of working class people at the time.

The "does not recognize you are fat is why you are fat" theme typically reveals the only model for reversing weight is drawn from [ideas about] anorexia.

See you are fat ="feel fat".

Feel fat =starve self.

Not starving oneself whilst fat = thinks [one is] thin.

If you felt fat you'd automatically starve yourself-and presumably, wouldn't be fat anyway. This kind of nonsense is replete in 'obesity' cultism.

The short answer to the headline statement is: Deliberate stimying and derailing of proper investigation into useful means to reverse weight. Not as snappy as-too much fried food.

The whole focus on the person-ad hominem -and food/eating is wholly unnecessary, an irrelevant distraction from the objective pursuit of knowledge. The issue is, you want people alter their weight. That is where the focus should be. When trained scientists have found an effective efficent means, they can after testing, present it to the public.

There is nothing mysterious or frightening. It's not like quantum physics, the body already knows how to vary its weight and does so on an every day basis. Finding out how it does this will be a useful course, one calorie restriction and character assassination can never match.

In spite of an unswerving devotion to making a show of a solution to an "obesity crisis” mention of metabolic function is absent, though an immediate central theme in rare mention of the mechanics of another metabolic outcome-height.

No one is or has ever been stopping the white coat science and health establishment from genuine pursuit of means to reverse weight effectively and effciently, but they. The way is open for the resumption of objective inquiry any time they feel like.

Which doesn't appear to be quite yet. 

The only people truly and honestly devoted to making fat people slim have been fat people.

see Oprah as the patron saint of this yearning...

None too ironically the ones most accused of the disengenousness of their tormentors.

The phony dog and pony of eat less, do more, ELDM-which manages to be both outstandingly toxic and useless, makes intrinsic demands number one being the prioritization of those who are more prone to gain, at the expense of those less able to.

Socially, the power has been with the latter. Inevitably, they just continue behaving normally, which means celebrating the food most useful to human kind -calorie dense food. Their joyful active pursuit of an environment filled with such food remains intact. They saw nothing wrong in with that-because there isn't.

Hence hospitals welcoming in fast food giants on long favourable contracts, decades after their own aggressive promotion of weight as a CRISIS. Calorie restriction makes food wrong [or right]. It makes human nature wrong. It makes the will to live, wrong, lack of desire to self harm wrong, because it sets itself against all these.

All this is easy to overlook, if no one’s demanding that you diet.

Such an against human nature route needs the dictatorship of minimizing energy to be organizing principle of society. To have a hope of implimentation.

In democratic societies that flow along the lines of consumer choice and freedom. Plus increasing accessibility for individuals i.e. removing heavy doors in favour of automatic ones, lifts for stairs and such-this reduces energy wasting.

And people making conscious choices toward less activity, i.e. favouring cars and other motorized transport and so on.

Science as the only route to pursue was set not only by the suffering of fat outliers, who have various conditions that scramble their metabolic function. But by historical precident and these societies socio-economic course.

The only type of society that could have a chance at implimenting ELDM would be the kind of dictatorships that make a show of huge open air displays of physical exercises and can control food production.

An extraordinary hegemony invested in this delusion means consequences can be dodged, in favour of incantation of fantasy.  The fundamentally hostile, stigmatizing and abusive framing of 'obesity' helps maintain this canard.

'Obesity wallahs and health profession got around humans innate resistance to starvation by presenting weight loss dieting as a solitary, wholly individual pursuit. Implying slim people could continue mainly unbothered by their invasive dictates.

The lie of slim people’s possibility of exemption from the rule of calorie restriction is increasingly breaking down. More and more restrictions, penalties and harrassments are proposed, in addition to food scares, guilt and taxes. As numerous slim people cry: "Why should I be penalized for those who cannot control themselves?"

Leaving aside the thinking behind this kind of judgement, such mission creep was inevitable given the staunch refusal to accept the failure of calroie restriction dieting as a failure of it, not the person.

Even if dieting was remotely viable, millions of permanent dieters would have acted as cultural enforcers of that principle. Hungry desperate dieters, versus those who wish to be surrounded by calorie dense food, who do you think would end up dominating?

The game is in there. On some level, there’s understanding that fat people have probably been set up for failure. At the same time, there’s been hope that millions of reduced fat people will do the work of reversing the tide of normal eating for them.

What’s expected from fat people is rarely spelled out explicitly. It’s obvious that what is required of them isn’t how slim people behave or they’d have nothing to fear-it would only be duplicating their own lives after all.

That is how Britain or anywhere else, "got fat."

Wednesday, 3 February 2016

Slim Women Diet.....

Now here's a story-which happens to relate to the last post.

To recap for your reading pleasure.

It has been engineered from on high- that the only possible means of lowering weight must be through restriction of calorie intake. It should therefore be evident that if you have any active desire to lower your weight-whether you weigh 100lbs or 1000lbs-you will have to do it by restricting your calorie intake.

If you want to know why, ask the producers of knowledge-and the dispensers of medicine. Good luck in getting anything remotely resembling truth. If that felt comfortable, it would be out in the open and there wouldn’t be this kind of storm-in-a-pissbowl.

The product at the heart of this claims to be a "fat binder". This is supposed to bind with fat in your diet, causing more of it to be excreted without being digested. This is supposed to increase the extent of weight loss during a regime of calorie restriction. Repeat, the only way to lose weight on offer for everybody.

The advert featuring this fat outcha whazoozy aid has been banned after numerous complaints, including from British Naturism- [I know, who knew?!] The ad had the barefaced cheek [yes, now I see the pun....] to feature two slim women.

Apparently, everyone’s supposed to pretend slim women don’t diet, even though the media is constantly filled with seasonal weight loss regimes and ideas to get you into your bikini. You’re supposed to fit your clothes, rather than they fit you.

I happened to catch the ad in real time. I was surprised to see it, not due to the nature of its content but the honesty at the heart of it. Two slim women talking about how they want to lose weight to "look good". That's not only what people say, the 'obese' generating establishment says the same thing.

Most slim women, girls, I’ve ever met have been concerned with their weight, dieting and remaining slim-using various means of dietary restriction/exercising.

The obvious key to all this is everyone’s desire to collude in the imposition of starvation on all fat people.

SELLING FAT PEOPLE OUT, SELLs YOU OUT TOO.

Whatever you weigh.

The company in defence of itself, included a hilarious reference this company made-in its defence to the current "obesity-related" meme of “prevent obesity only.” What is a “prevented obese person”?

Correct: A slim person.

“Obesity prevention” = slim people impersonating anorexia, in order to avoid the 'threat' of 'obese'. Something they've done as long as I've been alive anyway.

Obese prevention=calorie restriction/lifestyle change.

Child obese prevention=calorie restriction/lifestyle change.

Obese prescription =calorie restriction/lifestyle change.

Any alteration of weight....you get the picture.

I have never felt any different on this issue. Slim people, women especially wish to be slimmer, for their own reasons. Basic bodily autonomy of being able to change your own body/appearance. Fashion, because amongst women, being slim/mer carries greater kudos, etc.,

This is taken advantage of-but is not created by various agencies, profit-making or otherwise. Let slim women own their own desires.

Physical inadequacy/body image issues comes from the idea of perfecting your body and means on offer-weight loss dieting. It does not come from adverts, they trade on the decisions made by individuals. 

The problem as I see it is not the urge of anyone to “lose weight.” It is the method insisted upon that is creating ALL THE PROBLEMS. There is not one problem I can see as being caused solely by the desire to lose weight-if you lose calorie restriction as the means and find other ones that are natural, non invasive and physiologically astute as well as truly effective. Which dieting isn't, never has been, never will be.

None of the guff spouted about poor old slimz, makes any damn sense. And yeah its profoundly patronising to claim slimz are docilely lead to starve and hate their bodies by slimming companies.

If you wish to reduce anorexia-amongst slim people-you’ll have to give up the psychological dependence on starving fat people. As long as you wish to hurt fat people, you have to sacrifice some slimz. At the very least, stop pretending the best trigger of anorexia isn’t calorie restriction.

No fat hater can be taken seriously as a pitier of thin anorexics or slim women’s so called body image problems.

Monday, 1 February 2016

They've got the Fear

Concerning Rachel Wiley's poem "For Fat Girls Who Considered Starvation When Bulimia Wasn’t Enough"

The title at least, was inspired by Ntozake Shange's famous 1975 "choreopoem", 'For Colored Girls Who Have Considered Suicide/When the Rainbow Is Enuf'


Poetry and myself have never been more than occasional acquaintances, so I cannot speak to artistic merit. But the thing that's caused a bit of a kerfuffle is abandoning the absurdist pretence that "weight loss" insisted upon in the west isn't inherently eating disordered.

That calorie restriction induced weight loss-CRIWL isn't effectively weight loss through starvation. That the 'obesity' cult and anyone swallowing weight=calories in - activity expenditure, isn't recommending the impersonation of anorexia. 

That people stick their fingers down their throat and vomit up the contents of their stomach, primarily to manage their weight, ditto abuse laxatives, engage in exercise bulimia, starve, fast and do all sorts of other things to "lose weight." 

Part of this maybe the term "starvation". It's both the act and end point. In other words, if you starve yourself, it doesn't mean you are skeletal or emaciated and dying...yet. It means you are from wherever you are, eating little enough for your body to use up part of itself to tick over.

This is about minus calories as the only route made available to reverse weight. It's not simply inevitable, that is weight loss-the end. The difference between someone trying bulimia, anorexia etc, as a "lifestyle" aspiration and someone who becomes a fully blown bulimic/anorexic is susceptibility. A minority of people have systems that seem to submit to starvation, rather than keep countering it.

For a couple of decades, the rigid lie has been enforced, anorexia has nothing to do with slimming/dieting/weight loss. It does-it has everything to do with it. 

A bit like the difference between someone who's out of breath from exertion, to someone having an asthma attack. You can tell people are fronting because though it might be easy for someone in the know to immediately tell the difference, no-one would deny surface similarity.

Starvation denialists (lols) just outright deny any similarity between; Dieting to lose weight-cut calories until your body uses its own stores and you lose weight. They do this because they are that afraid of being linked with 'obesity'.

But are too embarrassed to say this.

Anyone who's encountered raving anorexics and their coterie may doubt this. But all slimz are terrified of any connection with 'obese'.

Perhaps due to it being the only category of anything remotely connected to health where the people working in the 'field' are hellbent on the misuse of what's nominally their concern. Their default is to erase the subjectivity of what's supposed to be their vehicle of study.

Even those who work with murderers and paedophiles do not behave in this way.

The insatiability of their urge to mess fat people up, with the power they have to do it is terrifying.  No one wants any of that.

Instead of saying this out loud, they pretend anyone failing this pretence is trivialising anorexia in some way. It's more the other way around. Anorexia is not trivialised at all, on the contrary its given an importance way above the numbers concerned.

It's just, that isn't the cure. Understanding exactly what's going on is. And few can do that, whilst operating from a false consciousness. The disconnection of slimming from anorexia has undoubtedly caused many people over the years to drift unwittingly into anorexia without knowing why.

Even after recovery, some former anorexics told me, they still didn't get what that was about. It's not just 'obesity' were lies abound, but for different reasons. The term "eating disorder" is in itself dubious. I cannot even explain what happened to me without abandoning it.

The disconnection of the obvious connection between starvation and starvation helps shore up the pretence that the failure of dieting is inexplicable. That [fat] people experiencing this uselessness are the ones that are in need of "psychological help".

The holding up of anorexia as a lifestyle you can acquire with sufficient motivation would offend these advocates deeply if their offence was real. It doesn't. Indeed many anorexic promote and agree with slimming and 'obesity' propaganda.

You can imagine why. 

The most shocking thing is the way they expect their drivel to be take on face value and repeated. Yet think nothing of challenging any personal testimony from a fat person.

Fat people are so often blasé if not resentful about/of their own fortitude, so it can be hard to believe that others are terrified not of being fat, but of the sickening taint of 'obesity' wallahs relentless aggression. That they wish not to run away from those they hate, but to go directly to them, take them over and direct their lives is deeply creepy. 

Many's the time when fat people are warned off all sorts of comparisons, though often valid, the explanations for warning off fat people aren't. It's a situation where what the person says is correct, but their reasoning isn't.

That tends to show they aren't giving their true reasons from this-fear of erased subjectivity.

The other day someone cited intersectionality in this mode. That they wished fat white people would recognize the classism inherent in their situation yadda yah. Yet as usual, they failed to mention intersectionality would have left the 'obesity' cult without any support from social justice warriors.

Sunday, 17 January 2016

Mandated Physical Mis-Education

'Obese' is a trap set for fat people-to force us to impersonate anorexic exercise bulimics. Everyone lurrrves it. Forcing us to pay a physical mental and fasting penance for the 'sin' of being in a fat state.

Like most traps set for those society others though, the trap eventually starts to include the enforcers'. Here's some ob mission creep. Teachers are fed up of their lazy, stupid, boring, exclusionary and punitive "physical education" lessons being evaded, by those lucky enough to have simpatico parents.

Apparently, it took 'research' to find out that those who hated the punitive regime in their own childhood are more likely to write fake (or otherwise presumably) sick notes for their offspring. Despite the obvious fact that everyone has spent decades insisting fat people must 'lose weight' and achieve this through energy restriction and wastage- whilst consistently making choices that make that more difficult. On top of it going against basic human nature. I'm talking about choosing to prioritize the motor car-making streets to dangerous for children to explore on their own.

Selling off school playing fields, assigning the feeding of children to profiteering catering giants who favour serving calorie dense industrial food effluent, often "shaped" into dinosaurs and the like. I could go on. Just for the record, I never had a problem with PE, apart from the psychologically injurious pecking order of being picked for teams.

I've just got no sympathy for the lack of interest in truly educating children physically and the debasement of sport into mere calorie expenditure aid, rather than an activity worthwhile for the sake of self-mastery and skill acquisition.

As if you'd need telling, this ownership of a child's body is being justified on the grounds of 'obesity prevention'. Hence the trap you set for others becomes one for yourself. Sticking it to fatties becomes, "Let's teach children that extreme physical discomfort is something to treat with supreme disregard." Why should an adult demanding your participation in undesired physical activity not be a good idea? How extravagant to teach children that your body belongs to you, not to others.

If you're a self deluding hypocrite fat phobe who writes sick notes for your slim children, what are you going to say to this mandatory activity?

How about you try: "Weight shouldn't have to be regulated via unwanted physical activity. There should be other ways"[?]

Thursday, 14 January 2016

Inside Every (Desperate) Person is a Fat phobe Waiting for Release

Most people lead lives of quiet desperation. So it's hardly surprising that inside all of us is a cowardly bully or bigot (often both) waiting to be liberated. In this instance, by permission of the white coat mafia. From scientists and medics who hold our lives in their hands (only because many of them just won't let go). To the head docs who tell us what and how to think and about how we feel and think, along with how to interpret whatever's left in our minds.

When you stop either auto fat phobia or the fat hatred you have for others, it usually has numerous effects-which I'd like people to discover for themselves. But I would challenge anyone, fat to thin alike to simply stop hating fatness and/or fat people-the latter is so nonsensical when you think about it. Imagine "hating" slim people(?!) It's effectively misanthropy, which means it is also self hatred.

Really bite the bullet and root this out. Systematically.

It has been said by many that fat phobia does not signal self esteem. I'd be more direct and humbly suggest that it is often a marker of low mood or even depression. And that if you stop fat phobing, you will take strain off your mood. Bring back some lost energy and that is often key to neurosis of all kinds, depression and anxiety especially.

If you excise it as completely from your mind and its functions as you can, you'll feel better not simply about yourself, you'll feel better about everything. I'd avoid setting out to "love" fat. That is, positively fetishizing fat. That often brings its own problems. It can and does sit side by side, with a virtually unchecked loathing of fatness/fat/fat people.

Its important that you stick to getting rid of any ill feeling, any over-excitation about fatness, fat and people in any aspect. Think more of a kind of acquiring of a neutral stance. Concentrate on the aim of changing the way you react emotionally and mentally to fat. Quiet your nervous system right down when you think of it, see it or hear it mentioned.

Go further than you think you need to. Fat phobia can be peskily hard to spot, until you have gotten rid of a certain amount-when more hidden depths of prejudice, surface. Often after a gap or high point of reversal. That is probably true of a lot of most, if not all prejudice.

Fat phobia is a mental drag.

Fat phobia has costs.

Do the experiment on yourself and make up your own mind.

Friday, 1 January 2016

Happy New Year One and All

To make that even happier still. I'd say, drop the notion that slim people are stopping fat people from being real. Slim people are out of it. They can't help themselves. They need an intervention, that of fat people refusing to indulge them anymore.

I've sadly come to the conclusion that they cannot be expected to do any better than they are on this issue.

It's starting to feel almost cruel to expect them to understand fat people, without fat people understanding themselves. This is on fat people. If that makes your heart sink to your boots, that's an indication of something fundamental.

I recently saw a post praising the idea that it was empowering to change being fat into a choice. As if that would make it so. As if that notion isn't part of the problem. I have to wonder whose side that is on.

If fatness was driven by conscious direction, fat people wouldn't be awol from their own state of being. If you look at conditions where direct choice is a driving force-if only initially-people are far more present in their own narrative. They're often in charge of it.

When one hears about anorexia, drug addiction, alcohol dependence, mental illness, or other states/conditions people try to force weight into, one hears from those involved, whether that is bullshit or not.

Not completely, I'm not saying there's no professional fooling going on. Ultimately though, the tropes we parrot come from who've directly experienced those various situations. That comes from a pattern of making choices that lead to the outcome.  Not with fatness, on the contrary, all you hear about is measurements and ignorant judgements. People do not exist in 'obesity'

The reason I put 'obesity' in quotes, is because it has nothing to do with people. It is an imposition.One that is wholly empty of narrative of strategy of anything. If this is to change, fat people need to recognise that it is we who are refusing to speak for ourselves.

It has been said that fat people used to ignore fat phobia, this is nonsense, we bowed to it. To really blank it, to emotionally detach from it and the people disseminating it, would do far more good than a 'social justice' challenge.

So here's to 2016, may it be a great year for everybody. And the year when all fat people finally turn up for their own lives.