{ASSD} Truly Dangerous Fiction
0mn1vore
http://www.yorkdispatch.com/ci_4935969
Well what did you expect, pedo snuff or something?
0mn1.
--
"it's ok to look at the past, [When replying,
just don't stare at it." use sneakEmail,
-- oprativ not sneakYmail.]
[I've never heard of yMail, anything like yEnc?]
0mn1vore
(in message
<0001HW.C1CCAB0B...@news-60.giganews.com>):
> Surprisingly enough...
>
> http://www.yorkdispatch.com/ci_4935969
>
> Well what did you expect, pedo snuff or something?
BTW, in the newspaper I'd seen, there was an added photo inset of
the now-late Ana Carolina Reston, the Brazillian fashion model
who, in spite of having plenty of money, recently starved to
death.
After a closer look at the URL, I see that part's missing.
cmsix
"0mn1vore" <0mn1-s...@sneakyMail.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.C1CCAEB9...@news-60.giganews.com...
> On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 3:03:40 -0800, 0mn1vore wrote
> (in message
> <0001HW.C1CCAB0B...@news-60.giganews.com>):
>
>> Surprisingly enough...
>>
>> http://www.yorkdispatch.com/ci_4935969
>>
>> Well what did you expect, pedo snuff or something?
>
> BTW, in the newspaper I'd seen, there was an added photo inset of
> the now-late Ana Carolina Reston, the Brazillian fashion model
> who, in spite of having plenty of money, recently starved to
> death.
>
> After a closer look at the URL, I see that part's missing.
Having plenty of money doesn't mean you're well adjusted, or even
adequately adjusted. It just means you have money. If you can't keep
focused on staying alive to spend it then the money doesn't do you
very much good, unless a nice funeral is what you always wanted.
cmsix
0mn1vore
(in message <RwMph.19181$sR....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>):
>
> "0mn1vore" <0mn1-s...@sneakyMail.com> wrote in message
> news:0001HW.C1CCAEB9...@news-60.giganews.com...
>> On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 3:03:40 -0800, 0mn1vore wrote
>> (in message
>> <0001HW.C1CCAB0B...@news-60.giganews.com>):
>>
>>> Surprisingly enough...
>>>
>>> http://www.yorkdispatch.com/ci_4935969
>>>
>>> Well what did you expect, pedo snuff or something?
>>
>> BTW, in the newspaper I'd seen, there was an added photo inset of
>> the now-late Ana Carolina Reston, the Brazillian fashion model
>> who, in spite of having plenty of money, recently starved to
>> death.
>>
>> After a closer look at the URL, I see that part's missing.
>
> Having plenty of money doesn't mean you're well adjusted, or even
> adequately adjusted.
No, of course not. More often it means; maladjusted in a way
that's conducive to making lots of money [note some of Jack C's
comments from a while ago, about psychopathic personalities in
the workplace].
> It just means you have money. If you can't keep
> focused on staying alive to spend it then the money doesn't do you
> very much good, unless a nice funeral is what you always wanted.
Well, maybe it didn't go so badly for her then.
I just find it strange that such a wildly inaccurate view of
beauty, sex appeal, aesthetics, the human body, and even biology
would gain so much acceptance. Pure fiction, obvously unhealthy,
but apparently considered normal -- or at least, considered
normal by enough people to support a fashion industry.
Walking down the street, leafing through the paper, a magazine,
sales flyer, whatever, I find myself surrounded by half-starved,
half-dead examples of so-called `beauty' and wonder wtf is wrong
with this species? It's like the whole Third World, dressed up
in expensive clothes.
No, you don't have to explain society's ills to me. I dropped
out of the lemming-race quite a while ago, just can't come up
with a reasonable alternative. But it's no fun to watch
sometimes.
There's a girl at work who weighs practically nothing, btw. I
keep wanting to buy her a cheeseburger. Not that she'd eat it,
or keep it down, but still...
Ah, nevermind. We're fucked, it's over. Just hand it all over
to the cockroaches, they'd probably run things better than we do
anyway.
>
> cmsix
0mn1 [sarcastic, but surprisingly not depressed right now].
Leowulf
news:0001HW.C1CCE7E5...@news-60.giganews.com:
>
> I just find it strange that such a wildly inaccurate view of
> beauty, sex appeal, aesthetics, the human body, and even biology
> would gain so much acceptance. Pure fiction, obvously unhealthy,
> but apparently considered normal -- or at least, considered
> normal by enough people to support a fashion industry.
>
Not by me - I like women big and healthy.
LW
Evil Nigel
There's been much discussion about actress Keira Knightly in the Brit
tabloids recently - is she healthy or is she too thin?
Personally I think she's healthy. Her breasts are tiny (but sooooooo
cute!) and she's very tall, both of which accentuate her slimness, but
there's quite a lot of meat and muscle on her arms and thighs and her
ribs don't stick out like some I could mention.
Evil Nigel
0mn1vore
(in message <Xns98B7569DA...@140.99.99.130>):
Mmmmm. :-)
Of course, thin and healthy is nice too, with emphasis on the
healthy.
BTW, hi Nigel. :-) I'd probably agree with you, if I knew who
Keira Knightly is.
Thanks for the sane responses. The world can look particularly
insane to me at times [mainstream media, mostly], and that was a
good shot of antidote. Sometimes I wonder if this stuff looks
wrong to anyone else, or if it's just me.
>
> LW
Thanks,
0mn1 [probably wired wrong, but thanks
for comparing notes with me].
Evil Nigel
> BTW, hi Nigel. :-) I'd probably agree with you, if I knew who
> Keira Knightly is.
Actress, most notably in the 'Pirates of the Caribbean' trilogy, but one
or two others too.
Evil Nigel
Jack C. Lipton
> Pure fiction, obvously unhealthy, but apparently
> considered normal -- or at least, considered
> normal by enough people to support a fashion
> industry.
I recall a quote, cite unknown, of:
"Fashion is a form of ugliness so horrible that
we have to change it every six months."
To my eye, the originally quoted study may be
trying to claim that the diet articles are
effectively causitive rather than correlative.
A lot of folks in politics try to encourage
that particular mistake, trying to turn people
into "victims" of the media instead of the
media feeding people what they want to see.
So those who love violent movies may already
have an interest in violence, so the films are
not instilling an appetite that didn't already
exists, so it's correlative. I suspect a lot
of what gets bandied about claiming causality
for "aberrant behavior" is really merely simple
correlation.
In the case of fashion and diet fads, perhaps
the idjits get into reading such articles
because they're already having problems, so
it may be an early symptom of future problems?
We could always consider it a form of evolution
in action, too, and anyone failing the intelligence
test may cull themselves from the gene pool.
'Tis a pity the Darwin Awards don't include a big
section on anorectics and bulemics...
--
Jack C Lipton | cupasoup at pele dot cx | http://www.asstr.org/~CupaSoup/
"Windows XP attracts malware the way trailer parks attract tornadoes." - me
"I suspect that Vista, despite the new GUI features, will still have a
kernel of clay. Pity they can't afford a kiln..." - me
Alexis
Jack C. Lipton wrote:
<snip>
> We could always consider it a form of evolution
> in action, too, and anyone failing the intelligence
> test may cull themselves from the gene pool.
>
> 'Tis a pity the Darwin Awards don't include a big
> section on anorectics and bulemics...
Jack and I have (sort of) discussed this via e-mail, so my response
isn't so much directed *at* him as it is at those reading (and possibly
agreeing with) his expressed evaluation of the mental abilities -- or
lack thereof -- of those who experience/suffer from/fall prey
to/whatever the various eating disorders.
In my experience, using such broad brushstrokes in describing a group
of people usually does an injustice to the "group" as a whole. The
reasons that people develop eating disorders is a wide-ranging as the
"reasons" that people suffer from depression, alcoholism, drug
addiction, and a host of other health issues. Take, for example, the
person who is seriously injured and spends much time in a hospital
recovering. If that person develops a dependency on pain killers, are
we going to immediately assume that they're a slime-bucket drug addict
willing to sell out his/her own daughter to support the habit? Extreme
example, perhaps, but that doesn't make it any less valid.
Assuming, without knowing, that all anorexics (or other people
suffering from eating disorders of all kinds) are somehow failing in
intelligence, are idiots, and do the world a favor by [culling]
"themselves from the gene pool" is extreme, offensive, and smacks of
knee-jerk intolerance.
We all respond to the world around us in ways colored by our own
experiences. However, it behooves us as community members to realize
that our experience is not that of all people.
Alexis.
cmsix
"Alexis" <alexisi...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1168838871.8...@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
We should realize that of course, but we should also realize that we
can't do anything but assume about others because there simply isn't
time to learn about each of them.
People in general do a poor job of understanding the things that are
even possible for them to understand and even less of job of
understanding the things that are simply impossible for them to form a
coherent picture of.
We should also realize that not understanding something doesn't keep
most people from spewing their expert opinion.
cmsix
>
> Alexis.
>
0mn1vore
(in message
<1168865500.2...@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>):
[...]
>
> Eating disorder? I once was a size 6. There is way too much emphasis
> on the beautiful people.
[psst: Umm, they're only considered `the beautiful people' by
some grievous error in judgment which, unfortunately, a large
segment of the population seems to have fallen for. I mean,
what's so pretty about an armload of bones, anyway?]
> Bette
0mn1.
cmsix
"0mn1vore" <0mn1-s...@sneakyMail.com> wrote in message
> On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 4:51:40 -0800, Bette wrote
> (in message
> <1168865500.2...@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>):
>
> [...]
>>
>> Eating disorder? I once was a size 6. There is way too much
>> emphasis
>> on the beautiful people.
>
> [psst: Umm, they're only considered `the beautiful people' by
> some grievous error in judgment which, unfortunately, a large
> segment of the population seems to have fallen for. I mean,
>
Beauty really is in the eye of the beholder. So is stupidity, mostly.
cmsix
0mn1vore
(in message <slrneqi951....@pele.pele.cx>):
> 0mn1vore wrote:
>> Pure fiction, obvously unhealthy, but apparently
>> considered normal -- or at least, considered
>> normal by enough people to support a fashion
>> industry.
>
> I recall a quote, cite unknown, of:
>
> "Fashion is a form of ugliness so horrible that
> we have to change it every six months."
:-)
>
> To my eye, the originally quoted study may be
> trying to claim that the diet articles are
> effectively causitive rather than correlative.
> A lot of folks in politics try to encourage
> that particular mistake, trying to turn people
> into "victims" of the media instead of the
> media feeding people what they want to see.
I'm not so sure about that, but those with less confidence will
tend to fall for it more often. In general, young adolescents
want to be cool. They don't know what's happening to their
bodies, but they want to be attractive. And then there's the
hormones. Who can think straight with a head full of hormones?
What a perfect time to tell someone they need to lose weight.
BTW, have you not noticed that extreme weight-loss tends to
reverse the effects of puberty? A girl's tits disappear and she
stops menstrating. So it will happen more often, to girls who
are afraid of growing up, of their developing sexuality, of
trying to make it in a very competitive world, and whatever.
They might have good reason to be afraid. Wouldn't you be afraid
of adults and adulthood if, for example, you'd been abused?
Wouldn't want to grow up to be like *that* would you?
>
> So those who love violent movies may already
> have an interest in violence, so the films are
> not instilling an appetite that didn't already
> exists, so it's correlative. I suspect a lot
> of what gets bandied about claiming causality
> for "aberrant behavior" is really merely simple
> correlation.
Fair enough, but why is this particular aberration plastered all
over everything, from hair salons to sales flyers to... well,
I've already been over that. Why is it so strongly encouraged?
I mean if it's everywhere, it's not aberrant anymore, is it?
Right or wrong [and as far as I'm concerned, wrong] it's become
the norm.
How can you expect a twelve-year-old girl to know better, when
it's everywhere? That's when they're forming their ideas of what
an adult body should look like. That image sticks.
A different accepted standard for `beauty' wouldn't hurt. Or
better, an outright rejection of that one [exception for
naturally skinny girls, of course].
Sorry to rant, but that's just one more aspect of `normal' that
I can't fathom. Our idea of `normal' can't last even two more
generations. We just don't have the natural resources to keep
it up.
>
> In the case of fashion and diet fads, perhaps
> the idjits get into reading such articles
> because they're already having problems, so
> it may be an early symptom of future problems?
>
> We could always consider it a form of evolution
> in action, too, and anyone failing the intelligence
> test may cull themselves from the gene pool.
I like what Alexis said about that.
You must know that intelligence, or the lack thereof, has nothing
to do with it. Smart people do dumb things too, after all. They
just come up with better excuses for it.
BTW, are you still unhappy? Done anything about it, yet? Hmm...
But I won't insult your intelligence.
>
> 'Tis a pity the Darwin Awards don't include a big
> section on anorectics and bulemics...
Looks like we're all winning that one together.
0mn1.
Evil Nigel
> On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 10:27:45 -0800, Jack C. Lipton wrote
> (in message <slrneqi951....@pele.pele.cx>):
>
>
>>0mn1vore wrote:
>>
>>>Pure fiction, obvously unhealthy, but apparently
>>>considered normal -- or at least, considered
>>>normal by enough people to support a fashion
>>>industry.
>>
>>I recall a quote, cite unknown, of:
>>
>>"Fashion is a form of ugliness so horrible that
>>we have to change it every six months."
>
>
> :-)
>
>
>>To my eye, the originally quoted study may be
>>trying to claim that the diet articles are
>>effectively causitive rather than correlative.
>>A lot of folks in politics try to encourage
>>that particular mistake, trying to turn people
>>into "victims" of the media instead of the
>>media feeding people what they want to see.
>
>
> I'm not so sure about that, but those with less confidence will
> tend to fall for it more often.
I'm not so sure about that. The UK and US has a glut of overweight
teenagers and in my experience these tend to lacking in self-confidence
and self-esteem.
Personally I prefer women most people would rate as skinny, but only so
long as they seem reasonably healthy - Calista Flockhart, Nicole Richie
and Victoria Beckham are major turn-offs for me. (Of course, the right
personality and a killer sense of humour rate far more highly than
physical appearance.)
Evil Nigel
0mn1vore
(in message
<45aba625$0$8710$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net>):
[...]
>>
>> I'm not so sure about that, but those with less confidence will
>> tend to fall for it more often.
>
> I'm not so sure about that. The UK and US has a glut of overweight
> teenagers and in my experience these tend to lacking in self-confidence
> and self-esteem.
See, what they need is popularized images of great big beautiful
round women, to boost their confidence. Well okay, maybe not
that round. More of an Anna Nicole Smith sort of... nevermind.
Good point. The other end of the scale is another matter
entirely, but as soon as my imaginary ex-IRA gunners finish
rescuing Mr. Shafta, I'll send them after Ronald McDonald.
[...]
>
> Personally I prefer women most people would rate as skinny, but only so
> long as they seem reasonably healthy - Calista Flockhart, Nicole Richie
> and Victoria Beckham are major turn-offs for me. (Of course, the right
> personality and a killer sense of humour rate far more highly than
> physical appearance.)
Woohoo, yeah they do! And so they should! :-)
>
> Evil Nigel
0mn1 [sleeping well, and dreaming of strange women].
Leowulf
@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
> 0mn1vore wrote:
>> On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 4:51:40 -0800, Bette wrote
>> (in message
>> <1168865500.2...@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>):
>>
>> [...]
>> >
>> > Eating disorder? I once was a size 6. There is way too much emphasis
>> > on the beautiful people.
>>
>> [psst: Umm, they're only considered `the beautiful people' by
>> some grievous error in judgment which, unfortunately, a large
>> segment of the population seems to have fallen for. I mean,
>> what's so pretty about an armload of bones, anyway?]
>
>> 0mn1.
>
> (sighs) I walked around with enormous boobs, trying to hide beneath
> layers of clothing.
> I got whistled at, men made barking sounds, one man ever followed me
> home from the supermarket.
> That what I meant.
> Bette
>
That's not a fault of yours, it's a fault of the uncooth, uncivilized men
who responded in such a poor way to you. People like that just need to
grow up and stop treating people (especially my friends) like they are
something less than people.
LW
Leowulf
@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
> In my experience, using such broad brushstrokes in describing a group
> of people usually does an injustice to the "group" as a whole. The
> reasons that people develop eating disorders is a wide-ranging as the
> "reasons" that people suffer from depression, alcoholism, drug
> addiction, and a host of other health issues. Take, for example, the
> person who is seriously injured and spends much time in a hospital
> recovering. If that person develops a dependency on pain killers, are
> we going to immediately assume that they're a slime-bucket drug addict
> willing to sell out his/her own daughter to support the habit? Extreme
> example, perhaps, but that doesn't make it any less valid.
>
> Assuming, without knowing, that all anorexics (or other people
> suffering from eating disorders of all kinds) are somehow failing in
> intelligence, are idiots, and do the world a favor by [culling]
> "themselves from the gene pool" is extreme, offensive, and smacks of
> knee-jerk intolerance.
>
> We all respond to the world around us in ways colored by our own
> experiences. However, it behooves us as community members to realize
> that our experience is not that of all people.
>
> Alexis.
>
That's why we wanted you to talk to our daughter - you're awesome, Alexis.
Part of why our daughter is alive today is because she was able to talk to
folks like you.
LW
Leowulf
nntp-reader02.plus.net:
>
> I'm not so sure about that. The UK and US has a glut of overweight
> teenagers and in my experience these tend to lacking in self-confidence
> and self-esteem.
>
I've been thinking about this lately; is it really that these kids are
overweight, or is it just that they don't fall within what currently is
considered "normal" in our society?
After all, healthy kids who have more body mass than today's ethic would
demand are still healthy.
LW
0mn1vore
(in message <Xns98B96323A...@140.99.99.130>):
[...]
>
> That's why we wanted you to talk to our daughter - you're awesome, Alexis.
> Part of why our daughter is alive today is because she was able to talk to
> folks like you.
Wow. I remember that from AC, and hoped it turned out okay [and
figured since you and Sagi seemed fairly happy, it probably had],
but... Wow.
Thanks Alexis. I don't even know her, but thanks.
>
> LW
0mn1.
Evil Nigel
The weight charts have quite a wide band for what is considered
'normal'. Of course, there are exceptions to every rule and some heavily
muscled kids might qualify as slightly overweight. Perhaps I should have
said 'morbidly obese' because there are a growing number of kids who are
so overweight that they have to be excused physical exercise (that
sounds counter-productive, doesn't it!), and I believe they
substantially outnumber the kids who are significantly underweight.
Evil Nigel
Jack C. Lipton
> Jack C. Lipton wrote:
> Jack and I have (sort of) discussed this via
> e-mail, so my response isn't so much directed
> *at* him as it is at those reading (and
> possibly agreeing with) his expressed
> evaluation of the mental abilities -- or lack
> thereof -- of those who experience/suffer
> from/fall prey to/whatever the various eating
> disorders.
I finally had time to come back into the NG
after a busy week-end, though Alexis' note was
something of a wake-up call for me to pay more
attention to what was happening right under my
nose.
So let me extend and revise...
#1: Easting disorders are a symptom of deeper
emotional problems.
#2: Fashion tends to feed unrealistic expectations
w/r/t to "body shape".
#3: Those who take up the proferred meme(s) from
the fashion industry do so because the image
seems achievable. These are, in my belief,
not even a large part of the population.
#4: Most of those who choose self-destructive
behaviors are hurting from emotional scars--
and, when psychoactives are prescribed, they
are usually just to put a lid on the symptoms
rather than solving the basic problem(s).
#5: Some self-destructive behaviors will have
more immediate outcomes than others. We all
seem to have some aspect of these, too.
Anorexia and Bulimia aren't alone, you know.
And I was pretty damn brutal in my post, too,
and it took Alexis's courageous questioning of
me to get me to step back and understand *why*.
I can claim all kinds of reasons but it can be
boiled down to simple selfishness as my wife
seems to have gotten back into the "I can eat
and I don't have a problem" mindset.
Finally, as I told Alexis in our exchanges, a
good friend is one who will trust you enough to
disagree with you-- and one you trust enough to
listen to, especially when they disagree.
Jack C. Lipton
> I mean, what's so pretty about an armload of bones, anyway?
[HUMOR MODE="Sick"]
Well, masochists might like the bruising.
[/HUMOR]
(sighs)
I dunno... If I know someone who weighs almost nothing,
it bothers me and tends to bring out the paternal...
by wanting to get a decent meal into 'em.
Sagittaria
> I'm not so sure about that. The UK and US has a glut of overweight
> teenagers and in my experience these tend to lacking in
> self-confidence and self-esteem.
Their neuroses are being expressed in other ways, is all.
--
---->Sagittaria<----
http://sagittaria.livejournal.com
"There is no remedy for love but to love more." - Henry David Thoreau
Sagittaria
news:0001HW.C1D0DB44...@news-60.giganews.com:
> On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 4:51:40 -0800, Bette wrote
> (in message
><1168865500.2...@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>):
>
> [...]
>>
>> Eating disorder? I once was a size 6. There is way too much
>> emphasis on the beautiful people.
>
> [psst: Umm, they're only considered `the beautiful people' by
> some grievous error in judgment which, unfortunately, a large
> segment of the population seems to have fallen for.
True, true ...
> I mean,
> what's so pretty about an armload of bones, anyway?]
0, I'm gonna call you on this one. That's as offensive as saying large
women are automatically ugly, which of course a lot of people do say,
but luckily I haven't seen that attitude expressed on ASSD. KWIM?
--
---->Sagittaria<---- [not a size 6]
Alexis
Leo, you're very welcome, and I'm glad I could supply any small amount
of comfort to her or advice or whatever it was she needs. She knows,
hopefully, how to reach me should the need or desire arise again.
Alexis.
0mn1vore
(in message <slrneqndcq....@pele.pele.cx>):
[...]
>
> #5: Some self-destructive behaviors will have
> more immediate outcomes than others. We all
> seem to have some aspect of these, too.
>
> Anorexia and Bulimia aren't alone, you know.
>
> And I was pretty damn brutal in my post, too,
> and it took Alexis's courageous questioning of
> me to get me to step back and understand *why*.
Thanks. I did feel insulted, even though the girl at work isn't
exactly what I'd call a friend. She is a nice person though,
does have a good sense of humour, and seems pretty smart.
It's just too bad about her eating habits.
> I can claim all kinds of reasons but it can be
> boiled down to simple selfishness as my wife
> seems to have gotten back into the "I can eat
> and I don't have a problem" mindset.
Sorry to insult either one of you. Hope I didn't.
Best of luck, you might need it.
0mn1vore
(in message <slrneqndke....@pele.pele.cx>):
> 0mn1vore wrote:
>> I mean, what's so pretty about an armload of bones, anyway?
>
> [HUMOR MODE="Sick"]
> Well, masochists might like the bruising.
That's what the heavy leather with all the *studs* is for! Big,
elbow-sized studs, and those steel shin-guards with an edge on
'em... And the boots of course, can't forget the boots [but I'm
sure cmsix will never forget the boots].
But then, you need muscle to carry all that around...
> [/HUMOR]
>
> (sighs)
>
> I dunno... If I know someone who weighs almost nothing,
> it bothers me and tends to bring out the paternal...
> by wanting to get a decent meal into 'em.
Same. Or just make sure to be nice to them [I'm afraid the offer
of a meal, or filling snack would give offense]. Kind of hard to
convince someone they're likable, at whatever weight, when
they're already convinced otherwise.
Oh well,
0mn1vore
(in message <Xns98B973D904...@140.99.99.130>):
> 0mn1vore <0mn1-s...@sneakyMail.com> wrote in
> news:0001HW.C1D0DB44...@news-60.giganews.com:
>
>> On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 4:51:40 -0800, Bette wrote
>> (in message
>> <1168865500.2...@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>):
>>
>> [...]
>>>
>>> Eating disorder? I once was a size 6. There is way too much
>>> emphasis on the beautiful people.
>>
>> [psst: Umm, they're only considered `the beautiful people' by
>> some grievous error in judgment which, unfortunately, a large
>> segment of the population seems to have fallen for.
>
> True, true ...
>
>> I mean,
>> what's so pretty about an armload of bones, anyway?]
>
> 0, I'm gonna call you on this one. That's as offensive as saying large
> women are automatically ugly, which of course a lot of people do say,
> but luckily I haven't seen that attitude expressed on ASSD. KWIM?
Ow, good point.
In another post, I did make sure to say that what comes
naturally, is fine. It's the idea that anyone has to warp their
body into some shape that doesn't come naturally, or they're not
attractive, that bothers me.
Maybe you knew that, but thanks for calling me on it.
I'm pretty sure that if the `ideal' were heavier, but just as
intolerant of variation, you'd be hearing about emotionally
troubled girls who just can't seem to gain those last extra
pounds, force-feeding themselves in secret and having all kinds
of problems [mostly emotional, but some physical] because of
that.
Hmm,
0mn1 [still dreaming of strange women,
but not another Mz. Self Destruct,
please... of any size or shape].
Alexis
0mn1vore wrote:
<snip>
> BTW, have you not noticed that extreme weight-loss tends to
> reverse the effects of puberty? A girl's tits disappear and she
> stops menstrating. So it will happen more often, to girls who
> are afraid of growing up, of their developing sexuality, of
> trying to make it in a very competitive world, and whatever.
>
> They might have good reason to be afraid. Wouldn't you be afraid
> of adults and adulthood if, for example, you'd been abused?
> Wouldn't want to grow up to be like *that* would you?
Or, not necessarily being afraid of growing "into" that type of adult,
but growing up enough to remain in the radar of a sexually abusive
older person. You'll quite often find that the girls who fall into
the trap of anorexic eating disorders do so with the intent to avoid
the unwanted sexual advances of an adult or older
sibling/cousin/neighbor/whatever.
Although eating disorders can often be traced to beginning with a
"diet", we most often find that there were other precipitating events
happening around the same time. The extreme "dieting" is merely an
extermal, very visible symptom amongst a host of other symptoms. There
are several reasons why we tend to see eating disorders primarily among
teenagers and much more rarely among adults (not unheard of, but more
uncommon. And because it's less common, it's often harder to treat
adults with eating disorders).
Willingly giving up food gives a teen a sense of power (yes, as adults
we know that they've completely lost their power over food and that
food holds *all* the power over them, but that's not their perception).
Teens generally have very little true power in their lives. They're
at the cusp -- they can see adulthood, it's right in front of them, but
they can't touch it yet. They don't have the decision-making abilities
that are afforded adults. It feels as though they are being forced
into roles they don't choose for themselves. Being able to step on a
scale and say, "I will make that number go down three pounds by Friday"
and then have it actually _happen_ is *something* (and, perhaps it
should be noted, it's something that adults -- by virtue of metabolism
and lifestyle -- are much LESS likely to be able to do). Three pounds
become five more pounds. Which then becomes six or seven more. One
pound back up on the scale is an admission of defeat.
That's not the only reason or the only developmental process of eating
disorders, but it is a very common one.
As you might assume from my specific participation in this thread, this
*is* a subject of which I have quite an extensive amount of personal
experience. My own story is vastly different from that I've described
above, but I'm rarely one of the "normal" ones <g>
Alexis.
Jack C. Lipton
> She thought if she could loose weight she
> would lose her upper shelf.
Firesign Theater's album "Don't Crush That
Dwarf, Hand Me The Pliers" had a line from
"High School Madness" that went:
"That Louise Wong has a balcony you could
do Shakespeare from!"
> Her face was gaunt, she was almost skin
> and bones. She passed out in class. She
> was starving herself. She came home for a
> semester.
As has been explained to me, some do it for
control, others to "fit in"... or "fit into
something smaller"... or even other reasons.
(sighs)
I'll ignore those who manage their weight as a
means of asserting and/or demonstrating control
over SOMETHING in their lives, and slip into
something a little more roomy...
There are a surprising number of "killer memes"
out there, and, perhaps, we could use to step
back a short ways and look at *why* a "gift"
gets re-labelled as a curse.
Your daughter wanted to join a herd but her
physical gifts intimidated others in the group
she wanted to be a part of, so she was reminded
that they made her "someone who doesn't belong".
Mind you, I've been thinking for some time now
that human beings aren't as individualistic as
we think we are; I feel that we still have some
left-overs of the herding instincts, even if out
herds are memetic rather than genetic, and our
ability to move from herd-to-herd is probably
the mark of individuality. For instance, I am
comfortable in the memetic herd formed by the
denizens of La Taverna, simply because, whether
we all agree on something or not, we aren't
afraid to _talk_ about subjects others fear.
Frank Downey's "Heroes" reminded me that a gift
like a bright and facile mind is often seen as a
curse by the possessors thereof, all in an effort
to "fit in" or be accepted by one's apparent peers.
BT, DT, though I never got as far in my urges
towards self-destruction, instead choosing a
slightly slower road... like not taking meds for
hypertension. It's not suicide, after all, if I
neglect my health, now, is it?
The problem is that we all want to feel, to very
differing degrees, like we're a part of something.
Sadly, churches often fill this need, and may then
fill the herd therein with some pretty awful memes.
But that's neither here nor there, is it? I've
been going off and blathering again, right?
Some of us do stupid things because we think it
will help us be accepted by a larger group, all
in an effort to avoid a continued sense of
alienation.
That doesn't make us *stupid*, after all-- I do
sometimes think that you need to be pretty bright
to find discomfort-- but, no matter how bright
one may be, one still has a part of their mind
that is gonna be stupid.
Unfortunately for me, I think I have several.
Serene
wrote:
>I'm not so sure about that. The UK and US has a glut of overweight
>teenagers and in my experience these tend to lacking in self-confidence
>and self-esteem.
Gosh, do you think that could be because instead of seeing a natural
range of perfectly acceptable body sizes, people automatically label
them as "overweight"?
Serene
--
"I can't decide if I feel more like four ten-year-olds or ten four-year-olds." Laurie Anderson , on turning 40.
Serene
Leo, I think I *lurve* you!
*smooch*
Leowulf
news:pcsnq29l6ogfgcjmg...@4ax.com:
>>
>>After all, healthy kids who have more body mass than today's ethic
>>would demand are still healthy.
>
> Leo, I think I *lurve* you!
>
> *smooch*
>
> Serene
*blush* Thanks! *blush*
LW
Denny Wheeler
<cupa...@pele.cx> wrote:
>Finally, as I told Alexis in our exchanges, a
>good friend is one who will trust you enough to
>disagree with you-- and one you trust enough to
>listen to, especially when they disagree.
One of my pet lines is similar: "A good friend is someone to whom you
can say any damfool thing that comes into your head."
-Denny-
the curmudgeonly editor
--
"A tree is a tree - how many more do you need to look at?"
Ronald Reagan (When he was Governor of California)
0mn1vore
(in message <84eoq21nemnhae0l0...@4ax.com>):
> On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 17:10:50 +0000 (UTC), "Jack C. Lipton"
> <cupa...@pele.cx> wrote:
>
>> Finally, as I told Alexis in our exchanges, a
>> good friend is one who will trust you enough to
>> disagree with you-- and one you trust enough to
>> listen to, especially when they disagree.
>
> One of my pet lines is similar: "A good friend is someone to whom you
> can say any damfool thing that comes into your head."
>
> -Denny-
> the curmudgeonly editor
>
Hmm. Thanks, that gives me something to ponder.
0mn1 [can't decide if you're *all* good friends,
or if I'm just a damfool...].
Serene
>On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 17:10:50 +0000 (UTC), "Jack C. Lipton"
><cupa...@pele.cx> wrote:
>
>>Finally, as I told Alexis in our exchanges, a
>>good friend is one who will trust you enough to
>>disagree with you-- and one you trust enough to
>>listen to, especially when they disagree.
>
>One of my pet lines is similar: "A good friend is someone to whom you
>can say any damfool thing that comes into your head."
Welllll, yes, but a good friend is also one who will make every effort
*not* to say any damnfool thing that comes into their head if it's
going to hurt their friend. Yes?
Alexis
Serene wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 18:30:15 -0800, Denny Wheeler
> <den...@TANSTAAFL.zipcon.net.INVALID> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 17:10:50 +0000 (UTC), "Jack C. Lipton"
> ><cupa...@pele.cx> wrote:
> >
> >>Finally, as I told Alexis in our exchanges, a
> >>good friend is one who will trust you enough to
> >>disagree with you-- and one you trust enough to
> >>listen to, especially when they disagree.
> >
> >One of my pet lines is similar: "A good friend is someone to whom you
> >can say any damfool thing that comes into your head."
>
> Welllll, yes, but a good friend is also one who will make every effort
> *not* to say any damnfool thing that comes into their head if it's
> going to hurt their friend. Yes?
That was part of the conversation Denny and I just had -- the "can say
any damfool thing" reference was in response to Jack's comment that I
was concerned about overstepping the bounds of our friendship by
"calling him" on something he said that *I* perceived as being
unusually abrupt and intolerant (given what I know about him), not that
Jack had said something hurtful, and simply because he was my friend, I
should be somehow required to let it go without mention. A good friend
is one who won't be immediately offended and defensive when you say to
them, "what you just said (or did) was hurtful to me and here's
why...". That's a very dificult thing for many people to say -- even
to their friends.
Alexis.
Serene
wrote:
Yep. I am mostly talking about balance. I want to feel free to be
honest and forthright with my friends. I don't feel any need to feel
free to hurt them at will, and like you, I want them to tell me when
I've overstepped. That's where, I think, the damnfool thing rule
doesn't work for me. :-)
0mn1vore
(in message <r7moq2tsu2f06aagf...@4ax.com>):
[...]
>
> Yep. I am mostly talking about balance. I want to feel free to be
> honest and forthright with my friends. I don't feel any need to feel
> free to hurt them at will, and like you, I want them to tell me when
> I've overstepped. That's where, I think, the damnfool thing rule
> doesn't work for me. :-)
Thanks.
>
> Serene
0mn1.
Evil Nigel
> On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 16:04:57 +0000, Evil Nigel <use...@nospam.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>I'm not so sure about that. The UK and US has a glut of overweight
>>teenagers and in my experience these tend to lacking in self-confidence
>>and self-esteem.
>
>
> Gosh, do you think that could be because instead of seeing a natural
> range of perfectly acceptable body sizes, people automatically label
> them as "overweight"?
>
> Serene
No, not when they're too morbidly obese to take part in physical exercise.
You only get one body and it has to last you a lifetime - overeating or
undereating means you're abusing your body. Try running a car with no
oil, or towing a mobile home with a mini.
Evil Nigel
Evil Nigel
> On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 18:30:15 -0800, Denny Wheeler
> <den...@TANSTAAFL.zipcon.net.INVALID> wrote:
>
>>One of my pet lines is similar: "A good friend is someone to whom you
>>can say any damfool thing that comes into your head."
>
>
> Welllll, yes, but a good friend is also one who will make every effort
> *not* to say any damnfool thing that comes into their head if it's
> going to hurt their friend. Yes?
>
> Serene
No!
A good friend is someone you can ask "does my breath smell?", "is my
husband/wife/dog cheating on me?", "does my bum look big in this?" and
they'll give you an honest answer rather than tell you white lies.
Evil Nigel
Serene
wrote:
>Serene wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 18:30:15 -0800, Denny Wheeler
>> <den...@TANSTAAFL.zipcon.net.INVALID> wrote:
>>
>>>One of my pet lines is similar: "A good friend is someone to whom you
>>>can say any damfool thing that comes into your head."
>>
>>
>> Welllll, yes, but a good friend is also one who will make every effort
>> *not* to say any damnfool thing that comes into their head if it's
>> going to hurt their friend. Yes?
>
>No!
>
>A good friend is someone you can ask "does my breath smell?", "is my
>husband/wife/dog cheating on me?", "does my bum look big in this?" and
>they'll give you an honest answer rather than tell you white lies.
Sure, I agree with that. If you know that won't hurt your friend,
then that doesn't apply to my statement. I'm talking about saying
things that are truly hurtful, not about answering questions like the
ones you've posed.
Jack C. Lipton
> Serene wrote:
>> Evil Nigel remarked:
>>> I'm not so sure about that. The UK and
>>> US has a glut of overweight teenagers and
>>> in my experience these tend to lacking in
>>> self-confidence and self-esteem.
>>
>>
>> Gosh, do you think that could be because
>> instead of seeing a natural range of
>> perfectly acceptable body sizes, people
>> automatically label them as "overweight"?
>
> take part in physical exercise.
Or walk across the parking lot to the grocery
store without wheezing and looking for the
electric scooter in the lobby.
> You only get one body and it has to last
> you a lifetime - overeating or undereating
> means you're abusing your body.
Actually, undereating-- i.e. "caloric
restriction"-- has, IIRC, been seen as a means
of life extension. I can't recall the cite
but it seems that when on a "starvation diet"
the human body goes into "somatic protection"
mode to protect the individual until more food
becomes available.
I do NOT know the current status of this line
of thinking... like whether it applies to
human beings or not. Some of the compounds
under study as a means to block the caloric
substances in the body rather than starving
someone, IIRC, were damnably touchy and toxic...
...but my memory t'ain't the best, y'know?
The problem is when food restriction happens
at a more "formative" age. My mom tells me
of how hungry things got when Belgium was
occupied in 1940 and how people were on the
edge of starvation for four and a half years.
She was lucky, I think, since she was 16 when
the shortages of food hit; those who were
rather younger must've had some developmental
complications.
Mind you, some people go rather farther than
most of us would be comfortable with...
Serene
wrote:
>Serene wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 16:04:57 +0000, Evil Nigel <use...@nospam.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I'm not so sure about that. The UK and US has a glut of overweight
>>>teenagers and in my experience these tend to lacking in self-confidence
>>>and self-esteem.
>>
>>
>> Gosh, do you think that could be because instead of seeing a natural
>> range of perfectly acceptable body sizes, people automatically label
>> them as "overweight"?
>>
>> Serene
>
>No, not when they're too morbidly obese to take part in physical exercise.
*sigh* Okay, so now we're not talking about a "glut of overweight
teenagers... lacking in self-confidence", but about people who are by
your account too fat to move?
>You only get one body and it has to last you a lifetime - overeating or
>undereating means you're abusing your body. Try running a car with no
>oil, or towing a mobile home with a mini.
You know what? My body is mine. I get to decide what is good
treatment of it. It's mine. Your body is yours. Is that much
something we can agree on?
Serene
<cupa...@pele.cx> wrote:
>Evil Nigel wrote:
>> Serene wrote:
>>> Evil Nigel remarked:
>>>> I'm not so sure about that. The UK and
>>>> US has a glut of overweight teenagers and
>>>> in my experience these tend to lacking in
>>>> self-confidence and self-esteem.
>>>
>>>
>>> Gosh, do you think that could be because
>>> instead of seeing a natural range of
>>> perfectly acceptable body sizes, people
>>> automatically label them as "overweight"?
>>
>> No, not when they're too morbidly obese to
>> take part in physical exercise.
>
>Or walk across the parking lot to the grocery
>store without wheezing and looking for the
>electric scooter in the lobby.
Et tu, Jack? I'm really disappointed.
0mn1vore
(in message
<45acca81$0$8714$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net>):
> Serene wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 16:04:57 +0000, Evil Nigel <use...@nospam.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I'm not so sure about that. The UK and US has a glut of overweight
>>> teenagers and in my experience these tend to lacking in self-confidence
>>> and self-esteem.
>>
>>
>> Gosh, do you think that could be because instead of seeing a natural
>> range of perfectly acceptable body sizes, people automatically label
>> them as "overweight"?
>>
>> Serene
>
> No, not when they're too morbidly obese to take part in physical exercise.
>
> You only get one body and it has to last you a lifetime - overeating or
> undereating means you're abusing your body.
In a manner of speaking, yes. Pushing your body too hard to lose
weight, by eating too little [sometimes way too little], will
fool your system into taking famine measures; slowing metabolism
to a crawl, becoming much more efficient at storing fat, etc.
This is why, after a crash diet, people will often gain back more
than they lost.
In many cases, fast food might start the problem, but the celery,
just the celery, and nothing but the celery only makes it worse.
So I guess you're right; morbid obesity is often caused by poor
diet, but not necessarily the poor diet you meant.
> Try running a car with no
> oil, or towing a mobile home with a mini.
Exactly.
>
> Evil Nigel
0mn1vore
to correct a previous statement.
On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 9:09:21 -0800, Evil Nigel wrote
(in message
<45abb53e$0$8715$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net>):
> Leowulf wrote:
>
>> Evil Nigel <use...@nospam.com> wrote in news:45aba625$0$8710$ed2619ec@ptn-
>> nntp-reader02.plus.net:
>>
>>
>>> I'm not so sure about that. The UK and US has a glut of overweight
>>> teenagers and in my experience these tend to lacking in self-confidence
>>> and self-esteem.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I've been thinking about this lately; is it really that these kids are
>> overweight, or is it just that they don't fall within what currently is
>> considered "normal" in our society?
>>
>> After all, healthy kids who have more body mass than today's ethic would
>> demand are still healthy.
>>
>> LW
>
> The weight charts have quite a wide band for what is considered
> 'normal'. Of course, there are exceptions to every rule and some heavily
> muscled kids might qualify as slightly overweight. Perhaps I should have
> said 'morbidly obese' because there are a growing number of kids who are
> so overweight that they have to be excused physical exercise (that
> sounds counter-productive, doesn't it!), and I believe they
> substantially outnumber the kids who are significantly underweight.
>
> Evil Nigel
Evil Nigel
> Actually, undereating-- i.e. "caloric
> restriction"-- has, IIRC, been seen as a means
> of life extension. I can't recall the cite
> but it seems that when on a "starvation diet"
> the human body goes into "somatic protection"
> mode to protect the individual until more food
> becomes available.
I've seen that study too, but I don't understand how it can be
consistent with a recent study showing that underweight people have a
shorter than average life expectancy.
I've just read an article about how overweight people have more than
their share of illness (eg diabetes) and gobble up scarce healthcare
resources. I seem to remember a proposal that people with self-inflicted
illnesses should have to pay for their healthcare eg if you get hurt
participating in dangerous sports, or if you develop illnesses related
to your smoking, or being under- or over-weight.
Evil Nigel
Evil Nigel
> On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 13:24:42 +0000, Evil Nigel <use...@nospam.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Serene wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 18:30:15 -0800, Denny Wheeler
>>><den...@TANSTAAFL.zipcon.net.INVALID> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>One of my pet lines is similar: "A good friend is someone to whom you
>>>>can say any damfool thing that comes into your head."
>>>
>>>
>>>Welllll, yes, but a good friend is also one who will make every effort
>>>*not* to say any damnfool thing that comes into their head if it's
>>>going to hurt their friend. Yes?
>
>
>>No!
>>
>>A good friend is someone you can ask "does my breath smell?", "is my
>>husband/wife/dog cheating on me?", "does my bum look big in this?" and
>>they'll give you an honest answer rather than tell you white lies.
>
>
> Sure, I agree with that. If you know that won't hurt your friend,
> then that doesn't apply to my statement. I'm talking about saying
> things that are truly hurtful, not about answering questions like the
> ones you've posed.
>
> Serene
In that case I'm confused. Agony Aunts (yes, I'm that sad!) commonly
recommend not telling a friend if her husband is cheating on her because
your friend might prefer to believe her husband's lies and then you'll
both be losers. (Personally I'd rather know the truth, no matter how
hurtful.)
Do you mean hurtful in the sense of untrue?
Evil Nigel
Evil Nigel
> You know what? My body is mine. I get to decide what is good
> treatment of it. It's mine. Your body is yours. Is that much
> something we can agree on?
>
> Serene
Absolutely. I'm not a 'body nazi'. What you do with your body is your
choice and your choice alone, provided you a) handle all the
consequences and b) if your choices are unhealthy you don't try to
promote your choices as a role model, especially to impressionable
youngsters.
Evil Nigel
carl...@inbox.com
The study I read was performed using rats. Their caloric intake was
reduced by about 30%, and they lived up to 35% longer (i think). So my
theory is-- it has someth'n to do with the tail.
(-:arl
Serene
>
>
>> Evil Nigel wrote:
>> > Jack C. Lipton wrote:
>> > > Actually, undereating-- i.e. "caloric
>> > > restriction"-- has, IIRC, been seen as a means
>> > > of life extension. I can't recall the cite
>> > > but it seems that when on a "starvation diet"
>> > > the human body goes into "somatic protection"
>> > > mode to protect the individual until more food
>> > > becomes available.
>> >
>> > I've seen that study too, but I don't understand how it can be
>> > consistent with a recent study showing that underweight people have a
>> > shorter than average life expectancy.
>> >
>> > I've just read an article about how overweight people have more than
>> > their share of illness (eg diabetes) and gobble up scarce healthcare
>> > resources. I seem to remember a proposal that people with self-inflicted
>> > illnesses should have to pay for their healthcare eg if you get hurt
>> > participating in dangerous sports, or if you develop illnesses related
>> > to your smoking, or being under- or over-weight.
>> >
>> > Evil Nigel
>
>Hi Evil,
>
>How come you are so centered and smart?
Is centered and smart the same as bigoted and short-sighted? Will
homeless people not get medical care because it's their fault they
don't have money to pay for doctors? What about mothers who have
difficult childbirths? Will they have to pay their own way because,
after all, if they'd just used birth control, they wouldn't be in this
predicament? If you cut your hand cooking, you're on your own? What
if you rescue someone from a burning building and need care for your
own burns -- that's self-inflicted, surely?
0mn1vore
(in message <2a3rq2hv85p3s3q35...@4ax.com>):
> On 16 Jan 2007 17:27:13 -0800, "Bette" <bette...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>> Evil Nigel wrote:
>>>> Jack C. Lipton wrote:
>>>>> Actually, undereating-- i.e. "caloric
>>>>> restriction"-- has, IIRC, been seen as a means
>>>>> of life extension. I can't recall the cite
>>>>> but it seems that when on a "starvation diet"
>>>>> the human body goes into "somatic protection"
>>>>> mode to protect the individual until more food
>>>>> becomes available.
>>>>
>>>> I've seen that study too, but I don't understand how it can be
>>>> consistent with a recent study showing that underweight people have a
>>>> shorter than average life expectancy.
>>>>
>>>> I've just read an article about how overweight people have more than
>>>> their share of illness (eg diabetes) and gobble up scarce healthcare
>>>> resources. I seem to remember a proposal that people with self-inflicted
>>>> illnesses should have to pay for their healthcare eg if you get hurt
>>>> participating in dangerous sports, or if you develop illnesses related
>>>> to your smoking, or being under- or over-weight.
>>>>
>>>> Evil Nigel
>>
>> Hi Evil,
>>
>> How come you are so centered and smart?
>
> Is centered and smart the same as bigoted and short-sighted?
Just a quick FAQ quote;
: People are accepted as they are. Personal attacks are definitely
: considered rude. It is acceptable to admit someone's lifestyle makes
: you uncomfortable or even offends you. It is not, however, acceptable
: to attack a person based on that. Debate the subject, not the person.
> Will
> homeless people not get medical care because it's their fault they
> don't have money to pay for doctors?
I thought they already didn't, in the US. In Canada you can get
medical help, sort of, but the only dental care you can get is an
emergency extraction, and then only if the condition's `painful
enough' to warrant it.
Ever had a bad tooth? Awful, wasn't it?
And if you've got mental problems, you're shit out of luck. The
supports are suposed to be there, but aren't.
> What about mothers who have
> difficult childbirths? Will they have to pay their own way because,
> after all, if they'd just used birth control, they wouldn't be in this
> predicament? If you cut your hand cooking, you're on your own? What
> if you rescue someone from a burning building and need care for your
> own burns -- that's self-inflicted, surely?
Serene, I totally agree with you, but why the flamage?
>
> Serene
0mn1.
Serene
wrote:
>Serene wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 13:24:42 +0000, Evil Nigel <use...@nospam.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Serene wrote:
>>>
>>>>Welllll, yes, but a good friend is also one who will make every effort
>>>>*not* to say any damnfool thing that comes into their head if it's
>>>>going to hurt their friend. Yes?
>>
>>
>>>No!
>>>
>>>A good friend is someone you can ask "does my breath smell?", "is my
>>>husband/wife/dog cheating on me?", "does my bum look big in this?" and
>>>they'll give you an honest answer rather than tell you white lies.
>>
>>
>> Sure, I agree with that. If you know that won't hurt your friend,
>> then that doesn't apply to my statement. I'm talking about saying
>> things that are truly hurtful, not about answering questions like the
>> ones you've posed.
>>
>> Serene
>
>In that case I'm confused.
I can understand your confusion, because I don't think I'm being
especially good at articulating what I mean in this case.
>Agony Aunts (yes, I'm that sad!) commonly
>recommend not telling a friend if her husband is cheating on her because
>your friend might prefer to believe her husband's lies and then you'll
>both be losers. (Personally I'd rather know the truth, no matter how
>hurtful.)
>
>Do you mean hurtful in the sense of untrue?
No, I mean hurtful in the sense of mean-spirited or unnecessarily
hurtful. If someone I care about and trust tells me, "Serene, did you
know you have a hole in your skirt?" or "I really hate to tell you
this, because I don't want to hurt you, but your partner is cheating
on you," that feels like it's not intended to harm, but to help. If
someone calls me a tramp because I sleep with multiple people, or says
something like "Well, fat people aren't attractive" when I'm fat, that
just feels plain hurtful.
Serene
<0mn1-s...@sneakyMail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 18:45:09 -0800, Serene wrote
>(in message <2a3rq2hv85p3s3q35...@4ax.com>):
>
>> On 16 Jan 2007 17:27:13 -0800, "Bette" <bette...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> Hi Evil,
>>>
>>> How come you are so centered and smart?
>>
>> Is centered and smart the same as bigoted and short-sighted?
>
>Just a quick FAQ quote;
>
>: People are accepted as they are. Personal attacks are definitely
>: considered rude. It is acceptable to admit someone's lifestyle makes
>: you uncomfortable or even offends you. It is not, however, acceptable
>: to attack a person based on that. Debate the subject, not the person.
You have a fair point. I retract any implication about Evil Nigel's
personality or person. I find the ideas he has put forth here in the
last couple of days to be reprehensible, but that's no excuse for me
to toss around insults. Thanks for the reminder.
>> Will
>> homeless people not get medical care because it's their fault they
>> don't have money to pay for doctors?
>
>I thought they already didn't, in the US. In Canada you can get
>medical help, sort of, but the only dental care you can get is an
>emergency extraction, and then only if the condition's `painful
>enough' to warrant it.
Here, emergency care and lots of other things are covered if one's
income falls below a certain level, or if one is on public assistance.
I'm not claiming it's excellent care, but for example, the free clinic
here will do four dental visits (including extractions if necessary),
and people on public assistance can see doctors for non-emergency
care, though the procedures that are covered usually don't include
preventive or cosmetic stuff.
>Ever had a bad tooth? Awful, wasn't it?
Are you intending to be condescending, or am I imagining it?
>
>And if you've got mental problems, you're shit out of luck. The
>supports are suposed to be there, but aren't.
*nod* That's certainly the case here, and I think it sucks. Then
again, I don't think mental illness qualifies under what we were
talking about, which was "stuff that's the person's own fault".
>> What about mothers who have
>> difficult childbirths? Will they have to pay their own way because,
>> after all, if they'd just used birth control, they wouldn't be in this
>> predicament? If you cut your hand cooking, you're on your own? What
>> if you rescue someone from a burning building and need care for your
>> own burns -- that's self-inflicted, surely?
>
>Serene, I totally agree with you, but why the flamage?
See above.
Desideria
"0mn1vore" <0mn1-s...@sneakyMail.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.C1D18FEB...@news-60.giganews.com...
> Hmm. Thanks, that gives me something to ponder.
>
>
>
> 0mn1 [can't decide if you're *all* good friends,
> or if I'm just a damfool...].
Yes.
(to quote denny)
Desideria
cmsix
"Evil Nigel" <use...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:45acca81$0$8714$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...
Your one body will always last you through your lifetime.
cmsix
>
> Evil Nigel
>
cmsix
Well of course they should. Why waste money on healthcare when it
could be spent on something important, like protecting the interest of
oil companies. I think the soldiers should pay for their own
artificial limbs. No one ordered them to get their legs blown off, now
did they.
Of course McDonalds has no responsibility for all the extra diabetics.
They just spend those millions on advertising to alert children to the
fun available with a happy meal, they don't actually intend to make
much money on the sales, and they aren't responsible for creating
palatable poison.
cmsix
>
> Evil Nigel
>
0mn1vore
(in message <958rq29osd2uvu445...@4ax.com>):
Cosmetic I can understand, but preventative?
It might sound callous, but that's one thing I've never
understood about where, and how health services have been cut
here. `We can't afford to do [fitb, preventative] due to the
budget, so you'll have to wait until it's full-blown [fitb,
emergency] before we can do anything about it.'
But [fitb, emergency] is *way* more expensive than just
preventing it in the first place!
For example...
Drug and alcohol rehab costs a lot less than sending someone to
prison [which is where people often end up, if they can't get
help].
Homeless shelters are also a lot cheaper than prisons.
Affordable housing is a lot cheaper than homeless shelters.
Proper mental health support is a lot cheaper to run than a
`revolving door' psychiatric hospital [and usually, patients can
only get in if they're an immediate danger to themselves, or
others].
So all those trips to the emergency room, for health problems
caused by sleeping outdoors, to overdoses, to injuries caused by
tangling with a grouchy cop, are all pointless and unnecessary
expenses. Not to mention cruel and unusual.
But of course, if someone's getting something at the taxpayers'
expense, they have to pay for it somehow, don't they? Payment by
the proverbial pound of flesh, or something. Yes I'm disgusted.
>
>> Ever had a bad tooth? Awful, wasn't it?
>
> Are you intending to be condescending, or am I imagining it?
No, just a `put yourself in someone else's position' sort of
question.
This also seems cruel and unusual, especially having had a
toothache that almost kept me from sleeping, for almost a week.
[Wasn't that bad most of the time, but as you probably already
know, lying down will tend to `balance out' your overall blood
pressure; lowering it around your feet, raising it around your
head. And that's when it really throbbed.]
>
>>
>> And if you've got mental problems, you're shit out of luck. The
>> supports are suposed to be there, but aren't.
>
> *nod* That's certainly the case here, and I think it sucks. Then
> again, I don't think mental illness qualifies under what we were
> talking about, which was "stuff that's the person's own fault".
Course not, it's all in their heads [Reagan quote].
BTW, you know I read this thing five times over, before I finally
clued-in and snipped your `see above'? ;-)
0mn1vore
(in message <ws-dnT0ugcuBPjDY...@comcast.com>):
Thanks for clearing that up. :-)
>
> Desideria
suzee
> Jack C. Lipton wrote:
>> Actually, undereating-- i.e. "caloric
>> restriction"-- has, IIRC, been seen as a means
>> of life extension. I can't recall the cite
>> but it seems that when on a "starvation diet"
>> the human body goes into "somatic protection"
>> mode to protect the individual until more food
>> becomes available.
>
> I've seen that study too, but I don't understand how it can be
> consistent with a recent study showing that underweight people have a
> shorter than average life expectancy.
It depends on how they got underweight. If through anorexia or bulemia,
then that's a dangerous way to go. If just eating less than than normal
healthy calories, i could see where you could extend the life expectancy.
suzee
Serene
>Your one body will always last you through your lifetime.
Thank you, cmsix. You made my evening. (With this and another post.)
Yotna
wrote:
>Welllll, yes, but a good friend is also one who will make every effort
>*not* to say any damnfool thing that comes into their head if it's
>going to hurt their friend. Yes?
>
>Serene
Sometimes it's best said; then you know if they are a real friend,
being hurt is part of being human, unfortunately just as much as being
loved is.
Signed someone who can be a friend *and a pain in the ass* (I have no
illusions about myself *lol*)
Yotna
wrote:
>Yep. I am mostly talking about balance. I want to feel free to be
>honest and forthright with my friends. I don't feel any need to feel
>free to hurt them at will, and like you, I want them to tell me when
>I've overstepped. That's where, I think, the damnfool thing rule
>doesn't work for me. :-)
>
>Serene
A guess you are female?
Males are different, um how to I put this - More stupidly hotheaded
and in love with their own opinions.
Signed repentant of Oxford <whistle>
Evil Nigel
> On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 23:32:14 +0000, Evil Nigel <use...@nospam.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>Do you mean hurtful in the sense of untrue?
>
>
> No, I mean hurtful in the sense of mean-spirited or unnecessarily
> hurtful. If someone I care about and trust tells me, "Serene, did you
> know you have a hole in your skirt?" or "I really hate to tell you
> this, because I don't want to hurt you, but your partner is cheating
> on you," that feels like it's not intended to harm, but to help. If
> someone calls me a tramp because I sleep with multiple people, or says
> something like "Well, fat people aren't attractive" when I'm fat, that
> just feels plain hurtful.
>
> Serene
Thanks, I think I understand now.
Personally I tend to find very large people physically unattractive -
sorry Jo Brand, I think you're a brilliant comedienne but in this case
humour isn't quite enough.
I would tell 'good friends' that in my opinion they were overweight or
that I didn't find them physically attractive, but to use unnecessarily
derogatory terms or to generalise as though everyone has the same
opinion as me is something a 'good friend' wouldn't do.
Actually, that's a load of sanctimonious bullshit. I've got a circle of
friends who drink far too much and have very pronounced beer-bellies and
I'm always making fun of them. Heck, they're always making fun of
themselves! One of them whipped his shirt up the other night and said
"What do you think? Eight and a half months?"
(me in hole, slowly realising I need to stop digging)
Evil Nigel
Evil Nigel
> On 16 Jan 2007 17:27:13 -0800, "Bette" <bette...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>>Evil Nigel wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>I've just read an article about how overweight people have more than
>>>>their share of illness (eg diabetes) and gobble up scarce healthcare
>>>>resources. I seem to remember a proposal that people with self-inflicted
>>>>illnesses should have to pay for their healthcare eg if you get hurt
>>>>participating in dangerous sports, or if you develop illnesses related
>>>>to your smoking, or being under- or over-weight.
>>>>
>>>>Evil Nigel
>>
>>Hi Evil,
>>
>>How come you are so centered and smart?
>
I have strong views, but is it smart to keep pushing them if it upsets
others in La Taverna? After all, we're supposed to be discussing sex
stories.
>
> Is centered and smart the same as bigoted and short-sighted? Will
> homeless people not get medical care because it's their fault they
> don't have money to pay for doctors? What about mothers who have
> difficult childbirths? Will they have to pay their own way because,
> after all, if they'd just used birth control, they wouldn't be in this
> predicament? If you cut your hand cooking, you're on your own? What
> if you rescue someone from a burning building and need care for your
> own burns -- that's self-inflicted, surely?
>
> Serene
None of those cases meet the article's criteria for self-infliction.
However, if you cut your hand cooking, that's an accident. If you do it
a second time, that's a bit dodgy. But if you're told it's bad for you
and you keep on doing it, should taxpayers have to fund your 'habit'?
(This may not make sense in the US, or countries where private health
insurance is obligatory)
Evil Nigel
Evil Nigel
> I think the soldiers should pay for their own artificial
> limbs. No one ordered them to get their legs blown off, now did they.
You jest, but some brit soldiers are having to pay for their own
healthcare back in the UK because our rotten government won't fund
lifelike artificial limbs, or treatment for mental health problems for
war veterans.
Health and Safety jobsworths are making inroads into the military -
officers now have to conduct risk assessments before exercises and have
a 'duty of care' for their troops.
Can you imagine a battlefield scenario:
General: "Attack that Taliban stronghold."
Jobsworth: "I'm sorry sir, my risk assessment shows that one or more
soldiers might be injured so I can't allow it."
In any case, soldiers and firemen etc are doing a civic duty (no matter
how much I disagree with it) and the injuries aren't exactly self-inflicted.
On the other hand, nobody has a civic duty to smoke forty cigarettes a
day or drink ten pints of beer every night or go the toilet after every
meal and stick their fingers down their throat.
Evil Nigel
Evil Nigel
> The study I read was performed using rats. Their caloric intake was
> reduced by about 30%, and they lived up to 35% longer (i think). So my
> theory is-- it has someth'n to do with the tail.
> (-:arl
>
The study showed that the rats' metabolic rate was slower. So they lived
longer but had the same amount of 'life', if you get my meaning.
The reduced metabolic rate would be accompanied by reduced blood
pressure, and that's BAAAAAAD news for your sex life, which depends on
high blood pressure in the penis and clitoris etc for the fun bits.
I think the rats can keep their extra life expectancy!
Evil Nigel
Evil Nigel
> Serene wrote:
> Bette wrote:
>
>
>>>How come you are so centered and smart?
>>
>>Is centered and smart the same as bigoted and short-sighted? Will
>>homeless people not get medical care because it's their fault they
>>don't have money to pay for doctors?
>
>
> Hey Serene,
> Blah, blah, blah! Give it a rest!!!
> Why do you like to bully the women.
> KNOCK IT OFF!!!!
> Bette
>
Hey Bette,
I'm guessing Serene considers herself overweight and has mixed feelings
about it. Please don't take it personally, she has no issues with you.
She is welcome to call me what she likes, I think I've proved I have a
thick skin (to match my thick head!)
By the way, my muse has me working on a new story. My alter-ego has just
sent a synopsis to someone privately as part of a request for advice,
and the opening sounds not too far from something you might be working on!
"A brattish city kid is farmed out to her grandparents in the middle of
nowhere for the summer."
And then our stories diverge .....
Evil Nigel
Evil Nigel
> Evil Nigel wrote:
>
>>Bette wrote:
>
>
>>Hey Bette,
>>
>>I'm guessing Serene considers herself overweight and has mixed feelings
>>about it. Please don't take it personally, she has no issues with you.
>>
>>She is welcome to call me what she likes, I think I've proved I have a
>>thick skin (to match my thick head!)
>>
>>By the way, my muse has me working on a new story. My alter-ego has just
>>sent a synopsis to someone privately as part of a request for advice,
>>and the opening sounds not too far from something you might be working on!
>>"A brattish city kid is farmed out to her grandparents in the middle of
>>nowhere for the summer."
>>And then our stories diverge .....
>>
>>Evil Nigel
>
>
> Have you seen her picture? She is beautiful. I don't believe she's
> overweight.
No I haven't, do you have a link?
I don't care what Serene looks like - we're here because of a common
interest, and I hope that expressing my opinions so robustly doesn't
drive her away.
> I am way more interested in your story. No coming attractions? Not
> even a hint?
> (sighs)
>
Frayed knot, that wouldn't be fair. I've already stalled on two series
and my 'nasty, derivative, exploitative pedo story' and there's no
guarantee I'll finish this one either :(
> Thanks Evil for your direct, kindness. You remind me of Brit's version
> of Chess.
> That was a compliment.
> Bette
>
You mean I take after my dad? I think Chess might be insulted by that!
Evil Nigel
vin...@vinnietesla.com
Evil Nigel wrote:
> Serene wrote:
>
> > You know what? My body is mine. I get to decide what is good
> > treatment of it. It's mine. Your body is yours. Is that much
> > something we can agree on?
> >
> > Serene
>
> Absolutely. I'm not a 'body nazi'. What you do with your body is your
> choice and your choice alone, provided you a) handle all the
> consequences and b) if your choices are unhealthy you don't try to
> promote your choices as a role model, especially to impressionable
> youngsters.
>
> Evil Nigel
Are you suggesting that the cause of the 'obesity epidemic' is all
those fat media stars?
Evil Nigel
No, far from it, the media star population is very skewed from real life
in that respect, and celebs who are overweight usually have to be twice
as good as normal or underweight equivalents to get the same
recognition. Take the singer Kirsty McColl, for example, or comedienne
Jo Brand.
However I wouldn't want either portrayed to kids as an ideal body shape.
Evil Nigel
vin...@vinnietesla.com
May I suggest, then, that vigilance against fat role models might not
be a good use for your energy?
cmsix
"Bette" <bette...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1169003771....@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>
> Serene wrote:
> Bette wrote:
>
>> >How come you are so centered and smart?
>>
>> Is centered and smart the same as bigoted and short-sighted? Will
>> homeless people not get medical care because it's their fault they
>> don't have money to pay for doctors?
>
> Hey Serene,
> Blah, blah, blah! Give it a rest!!!
> Why do you like to bully the women.
> KNOCK IT OFF!!!!
> Bette
Bette, who in the fuck do you think you are to be telling someone to
knock it off. Please, you bable out both end all day and night and no
one says a cross word to you and here you are tying to be the damned
assd sherrif.
There ain't no fucking sherrif in assd and if there was it damned sure
wouldn't be you.
cmsix
>
Serene
wrote:
I suppose it will be no surprise to anyone here that I disagree with
your generalization. The men I know and care about are not like that.
cmsix
No, they don't, but people are not bastions of mental health and stoic
independance. Adevertisers spend billions convincing the public to do
things that are not good for them in the name of the almighty free
market. Don't they have any responsibility for what they convince
others to do.
You might have noticed that lately tobacco companies have been finding
out that sooner or later they are going to have to pay for hoodwinking
large portions of the populace. Seems some juries have decided that
they do have a little responsibility for the scams they pulled on the
way to making their billions.
Of course that is small consolation to the people that were
systematically badgered into being "hooked" on their addictive drug
and who later lost body parts or their lives because of it.
If citizens are going to be set back to the time when the total
responsibility for their wellbeing is on them again, then what in the
fuck are we paying all those taxes for? The government has taken
larger and larger responsibility on itself and has started taking more
and more money from the citizens, ostensibily to pay for it.
I don't think it is too much to ask of them to at least do the fucking
job they are drawing the money for.
Personally, I think the government has promoted itself beyond its
competence, ala "The Peter Principle" but see if you can get one of
the bastards to admit it.
cmsix
>
> Evil Nigel
>
Serene
wrote:
>Bette wrote:
>
>> Serene wrote:
>> Bette wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>How come you are so centered and smart?
>>>
>>>Is centered and smart the same as bigoted and short-sighted? Will
>>>homeless people not get medical care because it's their fault they
>>>don't have money to pay for doctors?
>>
>>
>> Hey Serene,
>> Blah, blah, blah! Give it a rest!!!
>> Why do you like to bully the women.
>> KNOCK IT OFF!!!!
>> Bette
>>
>
>Hey Bette,
>
>I'm guessing Serene considers herself overweight and has mixed feelings
>about it
You're wrong on both counts. I'm not overweight (over *whose*
weight?) -- I'm fat, and I love my body. A lot. So do my lovers, all
three of them. I'm really open about that, and have been for years.
> Please don't take it personally, she has no issues with you.
My issue above was not with Bette -- it was with the person she was
responding to, who as far as I know is not a woman, but I could be
wrong.
serene
Serene
wrote:
>Bette wrote:
>
>>
>> Have you seen her picture? She is beautiful. I don't believe she's
>> overweight.
Thank you, Bette, that's very kind of you. (And by the way, I wasn't
picking on you -- I was disagreeing with your assessment of someone
else's words. I do think I have a tendency to say things in a way that
makes you feel picked on. Please tell me if you would prefer that I
not respond to your posts. I'm not being sarcastic here -- if you feel
it would help, I'd be happy to do that.)
>
>No I haven't, do you have a link?
I do. http://pics.livejournal.com/serenejournal
>
>I don't care what Serene looks like - we're here because of a common
>interest, and I hope that expressing my opinions so robustly doesn't
>drive her away.
Not in the slightest. I've been on Usenet 10 years; I wouldn't have
lasted if I were a shrinking violet.
cmsix
"Serene" <ser...@serenepages.org> wrote in message
news:j2krq2tvaioeq7h42...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 04:48:01 GMT, "cmsix" <cm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Your one body will always last you through your lifetime.
>
> Thank you, cmsix. You made my evening. (With this and another
> post.)
You're very welcome. As I'm sure anyone in here will tell you, I live
to serve.
cmsix
0mn1vore
(in message <cntrh.60598$qO4....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net>):
Hey, no need to get snarly, sherrif.
>
> cmsix
cmsix
> On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 11:25:59 GMT, Yotna <yotna_...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 20:49:00 -0800, Serene <ser...@serenepages.org>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Yep. I am mostly talking about balance. I want to feel free to be
>>>honest and forthright with my friends. I don't feel any need to
>>>feel
>>>free to hurt them at will, and like you, I want them to tell me
>>>when
>>>I've overstepped. That's where, I think, the damnfool thing rule
>>>doesn't work for me. :-)
>>>
>>>Serene
>>
>>A guess you are female?
>>
>>Males are different, um how to I put this - More stupidly hotheaded
>>and in love with their own opinions.
>
> I suppose it will be no surprise to anyone here that I disagree with
> your generalization. The men I know and care about are not like
> that.
Funny, the men that I know usually think all men are mostly like them
and tend to project what they think of as their natural inclinations
onto most other men. I'll admit that it is easier to do than it seems
it should be.
cmsix
vin...@vinnietesla.com
I see your response to criticism of your ideas is to insult the critic.
cmsix
"0mn1vore" <0mn1-s...@sneakyMail.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.C1D3A9B1...@news-60.giganews.com...
I didn't.
cmsix
cmsix
> Serene wrote:
>
>> On 16 Jan 2007 17:27:13 -0800, "Bette" <bette...@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>Evil Nigel wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I've just read an article about how overweight people have more
>>>>>than
>>>>>their share of illness (eg diabetes) and gobble up scarce
>>>>>healthcare
>>>>>resources. I seem to remember a proposal that people with
>>>>>self-inflicted
>>>>>illnesses should have to pay for their healthcare eg if you get
>>>>>hurt
>>>>>participating in dangerous sports, or if you develop illnesses
>>>>>related
>>>>>to your smoking, or being under- or over-weight.
>>>>>
>>>>>Evil Nigel
>>>
>>>Hi Evil,
>>>
>>>How come you are so centered and smart?
>>
>
> I have strong views, but is it smart to keep pushing them if it
> upsets others in La Taverna? After all, we're supposed to be
> discussing sex stories.
Maybe, but name me anything that doesn't have sex, or pointers to sex,
or mentinos of sex or sexual inuendo.
cmsix