Wed, Jan. 24th, 2007, 10:39 am

What's Your Angle?

I'm new to being shrill and touchy on the subject of fat politics. It's been interesting. When I call someone on a sneering remark about The Fatsos, there's a look I get. I think it's the same look I'd get if I said, "Surely you don't think Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone?" It's the 'oh, shit. One of those kooks' look.

Then, with greater or lesser degrees of tact, they want to know what my angle is. In a rather tense, but polite, discussion with my brother, he patiently explained to me that 'you just feel that way 'cause you're into big girls.' When I insisted that the subject was not my sexual tastes, he tried another tack: "You know," he said reassuringly, "you aren't fat."

In the discussion on alt.sex.stories.d that got me started ranting here last week, someone suggested that fat people shouldn't be covered by Britain's National Health plan. [info]serenejournal bristled at the notion. The original poster dismissed her indignation, explaining that it was simply because she "considers herself overweight and has mixed feelings about it."

The implication here is that the fatsos and the chubby chasers are biased. The hash of anxiety, self-congratulation, junk science, and blind groupthink that is the speaker's mental state is then given the handsome name impartiality.

Examining my own responses, I find myself surprisingly anxious to not be labeled a fat fetishist. "I'm attracted to some fat women," I protest, "but I'm attracted to some thin women too! I'm not a fetishist, I'm eclectic!" It's true, but in the eyes of the mainstream, this is as ludicrous as "just because I occasionally fuck corpses, that doesn't make me a necrophiliac." My ability to desire these women* at all makes me a suspect witness, and on some level I really am buying into this system by being so afraid of the categorization.


* And somehow it all really is about women. They're the ones whose bodies are everybody's business

.

Wed, Jan. 24th, 2007 04:02 pm (UTC)
[info]bart_calendar

I just like big tits and big asses.

It's not a fetish, really....

Wed, Feb. 25th, 2009 01:09 am (UTC)
[info]liljackhorner: and I cannot lie...

Thank you Bart -- for spelling it out plain and simple. I quote no less a poet laureate than Sir Mix-a-Lot: "I like big butts and I cannot lie..." some of us just prefer "a little gravy with our biscuits" but that doesn't make it a fetish. Then there are some of us who just like women. I quote another classic composer -- Gershwin this time "Auburn and brunette and blonde, short or tall I luv them ALL!" Some of us have the unique ability to find what's beautiful in all women, whereas others have a very narrow range of what they find attractive -- sux to be them!

R.

Wed, Jan. 24th, 2007 04:14 pm (UTC)
[info]malakhgabriel

Wow. I could have written this myself. Well, aside from the specific examples, of course. I even went through a period of doubting myself and worrying about fetishizing fatness because of the range of my attractions. Ultimately I used the same protest you did. It satisfied me, as my main concern was whether I was seeing these women as women or as only objects to fulfill my fetish.

Wed, Jan. 24th, 2007 09:36 pm (UTC)
[info]laurenpburka

In a recent Savage Love article, Dan Savage said something about how it's ok to treat someone like a piece of meat in bed as long as you don't treat them like a piece of meat before or after. Kind of blunt, that Dan Savage, but I can see his point.

Wed, Jan. 24th, 2007 04:15 pm (UTC)
[info]aroraborealis

I'm always interested to hear other people's thoughts an experiences on this front, especially men, since, as you say, they primarily get it from the "but you can't like THAT!!" angle. I have a few posts on the topic from my point of view:

http://aroraborealis.livejournal.com/tag/fat

Thu, Jan. 25th, 2007 04:09 pm (UTC)
[info]vinnie_tesla

I was fascinated and moved by your posts and their comments. They're too substantial for a little comment here to do them justice, so I'm gonna try to write an entry about them soon.

Thu, Jan. 25th, 2007 04:22 pm (UTC)
[info]aroraborealis

Thanks! I'll be curious to read your thoughts.

Wed, Jan. 24th, 2007 07:58 pm (UTC)
[info]kij66

A friend of mine says, when explaining her sexual preferences, "I fall in love with the PERSON, not the gender"; so of course she is routinely labled "bisexual" as a result. (When accused of being a fence-sitter, she says "My playground has NO fences").

At any rate, I should think the same attitude could be applied when accused of being a fetishist; that whole "I desire the PERSON, not the body-type".

Let's face it, we all have preferences; I prefer a steak over a hamburger, but that doesn't mean I don't occasionally want a hamburger. My preferred body-type in men is scrawny to the point of bruising my thighs on their hip-bones (no doubt due to seeing my obese father walk around the house naked even into my teenage years), but I'll be attacted to anyone I have chemistry with & that seems to transcend body-type.

Just my 2 cents :-)

Thu, Jan. 25th, 2007 04:23 am (UTC)
[info]vinnie_tesla

I'm a little leery of that approach to discussing this stuff, cause I think it veers dangerously close to that cartesian dualism I was talking about before.

Speaking for myself, I know that I have admired numerous people I did not desire, and desired numerous people I did not admire. I've also desired people I didn't really know, and even a few I didn't particularly like. In other words, my appreciation of superficial qualities is no less superficial for extending beyond the cultural standards of normality (or commonness as [info]newsfuck has it.

As you say, people have preferences, and preferences have exceptions. This gets us back into the territory of the archipelago stuff from last month. Labels can be useful--I'm much more likely to find someone I'm interested in messing around with at a straight sex party than at a gay one--but they're always constructs, and, as you suggest, it's important not to confuse the map with the territory.

Thu, Jan. 25th, 2007 03:51 am (UTC)
[info]jumbledlaughter

Soo if you're a fat fetishist because you occasionally fuck fat women, are you also a skinny fetishist because you also occasionally fuck skinny women?

Thu, Jan. 25th, 2007 05:06 am (UTC)
[info]vinnie_tesla

Here's another puzzler--is it possible for an American to have a fetish for women with shaved armpits?

Thu, Jan. 25th, 2007 04:50 pm (UTC)
[info]misnim

As always, you awe and inspire me, not only with your fiction, but with your beliefs, ideas and expression of these.

As I 'bigger girl', I salute you.

BTW I think alot of men suffer from some shame about attraction to a girl who's 'fat' thinking they'll be thought less of by others around them. I 'pity the fool' who cannot look past society's expectations in this way.

It's almost like a homophibic reaction in some - to be the quickest to put down someone of a particular type rather than be seen to sympathise with or like them...

Fri, Jan. 26th, 2007 06:03 am (UTC)
[info]serenejournal

My hero!

[info]someotherguy says: "I don't know, what's the world coming to when there are guys who actually have a clue?" :-)

Sun, Feb. 4th, 2007 03:01 am (UTC)
[info]spankaesthetic

I loathe this idea that those who like fat women do so because they have some kind of fetish. It often seems to me that society treats fat people, especially women, almost as if they're completely devoid of emotions, incapable of being hurt by the comments made about them. And being seen as the object of a fetish isn't a nice feeling (admittedly it bothers me less in recent years). In the past I've had the friends of the person I was with comment on my size right in front of me, as if I wasn't worth the respect they would grant a slimmer person.

Personally I don't have a 'type', and I don't understand why people shut themselves off from possibilities by feeling the need to label their desires.

Mon, Feb. 12th, 2007 05:58 pm (UTC)
[info]lumpesse: * And somehow it all really is about women. They're the ones whose bodies are everybody's business

Write a post about this footnote, please.

Tue, Feb. 20th, 2007 07:07 pm (UTC)
[info]vinnie_tesla: Re: * And somehow it all really is about women. They're the ones whose bodies are everybody's busine

It's in my queue. On the other hand, it's been there since last summer.

Tue, Jan. 6th, 2009 07:47 pm (UTC)
(Anonymous): Foolishness

Found this site through an unrelated link at boingboing.

As a man who fancies big girls, I've been reading this thread (and others with tag *fat*) with some interest, not all of it prurient.

My most immediate thought is that when spankaesthetic writes that "being seen as the object of a fetish isn't a nice feeling" I wonder what world she (yes?) lives in.

Get over it, is what I say; we're all objectified. Me and you and Linda Lou. Fat people are objectified, skinny people are objectified, people with beards or piercings or those who wear hats.

So now that you know it, what're you gonna do about it? The most sensible thing is to welcome into your world those with a fetish type that includes subset you.

If the idea is to feel good about your body, why are you going to shut out those people most receptive to it? If as a big girl, you're going to take note of the unfair treatment given yourself vs. the skinny ones, then shouldn't you consider that this means skinny girls are being fetishized as well?

I found the recent nude of Jennifer Anniston on the cover of Whatever It Was magazine something close to disgusting. She looks like a baby, not even finished developing, my God. Can't be normal, right? Still, notice the many healthy ways in which Ms. Aniston has harvested the way SHE has been fetishized.

Fortunately for my mental health, my longtime girlfriend is down with all of this: if I had to pretend that the large size and round shape of her rear end was not of great interest to me, I'd be repressing myself, probably to the point of a sickness that would express itself elsewhere in our relationship.

We are not ascetic monks (at least most of us aren't), so to pretend that the grossly physical is not a large component of our sexual makeup is naive. The "Cartesian duality" is spot-on, except you must respect both sides.

Tue, Jan. 6th, 2009 08:04 pm (UTC)
[info]vinnie_tesla: Re: Foolishness

I think you're misreading [info]spankaesthetic's comment. As I see it, her point is about the labeling of attraction to her as "fetish" by the larger culture, not the nature of the attraction itself. Note that she sais "being seen as the object of a fetish," not "being the object of a fetish."

I do have some sympathy for women (people in general, really, but but women's bodies are always front-and-center in almost any discussion of sex and bodies in our culture) who are afraid of forming relationships based solely or even primarily based on body-type, since bodies change. No-one wants to feel like the continued affection of their partner depends on their attaining or maintaining a particular weight.

Thu, Jan. 8th, 2009 04:26 pm (UTC)
(Anonymous): Re: Foolishness

Whoops, maybe I did misread and if so, hereby acknowledge that I not only made myself look like a fool, but also spankaesthetic.

However, I'm not sure I necessarily want to give up the ghost entirely on this, as spankaesthetic's introductory sentence read as follows:

I loathe this idea that those who like fat women do so because they have some kind of fetish.


Which is exactly what I believe I was taking issue with in my original comment. I'm saying, yes, I am indeed a fetishizer, you're indeed fetishized, but it's OK, coz we all are . . . .

At any rate apologies if I misunderstood anyone's intent.