Please understand. This is coming from someone who is genuinely attracted to large women.
I guess the place to start is to explain why some men buy into Fat Is Beautiful, since the reason some women buy into it should be obvious.
Please remember this phrase: "I like her the way she is, why can't she like her the way she is?" Most of the time when I use that phrase around other heterosexual men, their eyes kind of light up and they will say something like "That's a great way to put it" or "I never could put that feeling into words." I think that this is a very common relationship frustration among heterosexual men, but, well, we're not very good at talking about or even thinking about our feelings.
Anyway, most of us are aware that society damages your self image with all that nonsense about appearance, we don't like that it hurts you, and we are painfully aware that most of you will take it out on us (generally the one person in the world who disagrees with society the most on this issue), which complicates the relationship.
I think any man in a relationship with a large woman would be sorely tempted to grasp onto the idea of the Fat Is Beautiful movement as a way to protect his special someone's feelings from the ravages of society's attitudes about women and appearances.
So let's look at society's view of large women as a syllogism:
Premise 1: The only thing that matters about a woman is her looks.
Premise 2: Large women are unattractive.
Conclusion: Therefore, large women are worthless.
I think we can all agree that the conclusion is bullshit and needs to be stomped out of existence, but the problem with the Fat Is Beautiful movement is that it focuses entirely on premise 2. You know what? Premise 2 is completely subjective. You'll never convince people of that. You can't talk most people into or out of a subjective opinion.
Not only is it useless to attack premise 2, but premise 1 is a much, much bigger problem because premise 1 negatively impacts all women. Every single one. And it's wrong. Incredibly wrong. Hell, even very sexist men will value non-physical attributes in women (although they might value non-physical things like "She makes me sandwiches" or "She has a low self image and is thus easier to control," but I digress). Get rid of premise 1 and the conclusion goes poof just as surely as it would if you got rid of premise 2.
Worse, I think premise 1 is incredibly pervasive and ubiquitous in our society. After all, no one in the Fat Is Beautiful movement thought to attack premise 1 instead of premise 2.
Think about what happens when there is a news announcement about a woman winning any of the Nobel prizes. No matter what part of the world you are from, chances are you heard someone respond to that news with "Yeah, but how good-looking is she?" as if making an important intellectual or sociopolitical contribution to humanity is of no import. That's premise 1 driving the train.
The worst example of premise 1 is the way Jenny McCarthy is treated by the public and the media. Jenny McCarthy has endangered the health of countless children with her stupidity just by expressing her belief that vaccines are dangerous and discouraging parents from vaccinating their children.
To any heterosexuals reading this: can you honestly think of an attribute in a potential lover less sexy or more repulsive than endangering the lives of many children? Any at all? Because I sure as fuck can't. We may not like to admit it, but children can affect a lot of our sex and relationship choices more than we realize, and I cannot look at that woman without thinking about how many children she may have harmed with her stupidity.
Instead of becoming a social pariah, people still care what she thinks. Why? Because she happens to be considered physically attractive.
Think about how this whole mess subtly sends the message to everyone that looks are the only thing that matters about a woman. Somewhere out there is a woman who is smart, kind, funny, and having a really positive impact on the world around her who feels that she is less than Jenny McCarthy because she happens to be less physically good-looking. How fucked up is that?
Premise 1 needs to die.
I guess the place to start is to explain why some men buy into Fat Is Beautiful, since the reason some women buy into it should be obvious.
Please remember this phrase: "I like her the way she is, why can't she like her the way she is?" Most of the time when I use that phrase around other heterosexual men, their eyes kind of light up and they will say something like "That's a great way to put it" or "I never could put that feeling into words." I think that this is a very common relationship frustration among heterosexual men, but, well, we're not very good at talking about or even thinking about our feelings.
Anyway, most of us are aware that society damages your self image with all that nonsense about appearance, we don't like that it hurts you, and we are painfully aware that most of you will take it out on us (generally the one person in the world who disagrees with society the most on this issue), which complicates the relationship.
I think any man in a relationship with a large woman would be sorely tempted to grasp onto the idea of the Fat Is Beautiful movement as a way to protect his special someone's feelings from the ravages of society's attitudes about women and appearances.
So let's look at society's view of large women as a syllogism:
Premise 1: The only thing that matters about a woman is her looks.
Premise 2: Large women are unattractive.
Conclusion: Therefore, large women are worthless.
I think we can all agree that the conclusion is bullshit and needs to be stomped out of existence, but the problem with the Fat Is Beautiful movement is that it focuses entirely on premise 2. You know what? Premise 2 is completely subjective. You'll never convince people of that. You can't talk most people into or out of a subjective opinion.
Not only is it useless to attack premise 2, but premise 1 is a much, much bigger problem because premise 1 negatively impacts all women. Every single one. And it's wrong. Incredibly wrong. Hell, even very sexist men will value non-physical attributes in women (although they might value non-physical things like "She makes me sandwiches" or "She has a low self image and is thus easier to control," but I digress). Get rid of premise 1 and the conclusion goes poof just as surely as it would if you got rid of premise 2.
Worse, I think premise 1 is incredibly pervasive and ubiquitous in our society. After all, no one in the Fat Is Beautiful movement thought to attack premise 1 instead of premise 2.
Think about what happens when there is a news announcement about a woman winning any of the Nobel prizes. No matter what part of the world you are from, chances are you heard someone respond to that news with "Yeah, but how good-looking is she?" as if making an important intellectual or sociopolitical contribution to humanity is of no import. That's premise 1 driving the train.
The worst example of premise 1 is the way Jenny McCarthy is treated by the public and the media. Jenny McCarthy has endangered the health of countless children with her stupidity just by expressing her belief that vaccines are dangerous and discouraging parents from vaccinating their children.
To any heterosexuals reading this: can you honestly think of an attribute in a potential lover less sexy or more repulsive than endangering the lives of many children? Any at all? Because I sure as fuck can't. We may not like to admit it, but children can affect a lot of our sex and relationship choices more than we realize, and I cannot look at that woman without thinking about how many children she may have harmed with her stupidity.
Instead of becoming a social pariah, people still care what she thinks. Why? Because she happens to be considered physically attractive.
Think about how this whole mess subtly sends the message to everyone that looks are the only thing that matters about a woman. Somewhere out there is a woman who is smart, kind, funny, and having a really positive impact on the world around her who feels that she is less than Jenny McCarthy because she happens to be less physically good-looking. How fucked up is that?
Premise 1 needs to die.