DemonKia
Posts: 5521
Joined: 10/13/2007 From: Chico, Nor-Cali Status: offline
|
Nah, Holly, I'm on almost no Xmas Card lists, as a buddhist I get to duck out of all that . . . . . Angel, my biggest problem with that approach is it carries an implicit assumption that the not-fat people do not have issues related to taking care of themselves & are thus in some position to get all sanctimonious about self-care (not saying this applies to you, just the message that is carried in this 'fat is obvious lack of self-care' thinking) . . . . . . & of course, plenty of not-fat people are doing lousy jobs caring for self. Being skinny does not get in the way of being a (legal or illegal) drug addict, an abuser, or some other massive dysfunctionality . . . . In fact, knowing this context, fat people can be seen as easy pickings to get the focus off of the skinny people with self-control & self-care issues . . . . . . &, yes, that line of thinking also ignores that there are plenty of overweight people who are in better physical condition than plenty of people with 'normal body masses' but who lead sedentary lives & eat crap, but stay socially appropriately slender . . . . . The science on this issue is leaning towards fitness matters more than outright body mass & it's possible to be very healthy & overweight . . . . . . & to be relatively unfit but with a socially acceptable body size . . . . . . The fit but fat one will probably outsurvive the skinny but unfit one, actuarially speaking . . . . . .
|