Fatphobia in the glb community. Although big women are gaining wide acceptance
in the glb community, big men, it seems, are not. For instance, whenever I
feel the urge to browse the gay personal ads, I am always reading No fats or
fems, ectect...Even Harvy Fierstein commented on the phenomenon in the recent
edition of BTL (or at least he was quoted from another newspaper). Even while
reading the responses in the glb conf, a few times I have read the response
"I like my women nice and plump, but I like men are thin." What is up with
that? This seems to me to be an unfair double standard. Big men are sexy too.

135 responses total.

I guess I would like to hear people's input on this issue. Why are big gay
viewed so negatively in the glb community. It doesn't seem to be as harsh in
the hetero community.

Could it be that men in general tend to be more averse to fat than women in
general?

It's possible, but I wouldn't know.  A friend of mine told me the women
noticed me more when I was leaner (but I don't know if I trust his opinion).

Could gender stereotypes have something to do with it; i.e. desireable men
being seen as powerful or strong, and a plump physique might diminish that?

Plumpness enhances women's ability to bear and nurse children, it does not
enhance men's ability to help in conceiving them.  Men are valued more for
their ability to acquire food and other resources, and in former times
plumpness was proof of this ability.  I would expect that standards in male
beauty among the gay community have changed over the centuries.

Unless the food supply is *very* reliable, being really lean is a big
liability - you might not make it through the next food shortage.  But
a guy who's more than just somethat plump may also be Darwin's last choice: 
In primitive societies, getting food was (usually) an athletic event for 
men, and being too plump was a really bad sign.  (Fatso ain't gonna be
able to run down any deer and drag it home for dinner, for sure!)  In
somewhat later societies, obesity was more likely to signify that the
guy was rich & powerful.  (He doesn't have to drag home the bacon - he 
snaps his fingers and his servants rush to prepare a feast.)  These days,
in most Western societies, virtually no one starves and all but a *very*
few men can afford enough junk food to get fat - "too" fat is undesirable, 
but almost no one's too unfit to survive, and it's more a matter of tastes. 

I guess it is a matter of taste, sadly enough. I also agree with your
cultural anthropological view. What is rare in a society is often associated
with beauty. In cultures where food is rare, fat people are often considered
the most beautiful. However, in a wealthy, food-abundant culture like the US,
the ultra-thin are considered the most beautiful since there are vanishingly
few people who actually meet our idealized standards of beauty. I'm a firm
believer in genetics, however, and I think that most people are genetically
predisposed to being fat. Most of the fat people that I know eat no more than
the skinny people I know, and in some cases less. The stereotype is that big
people eat large amounts of food. Some do, but I think that most eat just like
anyone else. Most of the health problems associated with obesity could more
easily be associated with yo-yo dieting. Yet, when people look at a fat
person, they think, "How unhealthy.", while a perfectly skinny person could
be very unhealthy and no one thinks twice about it. Who should conform? Should
fat people spend their entire lives dieting trying to conform to these
standards, risking their physical and mental health in an endeavor to do so,
or should the rest of society accept big people as they are and expand their
"tastes" to include a much neglected, minority within a minority? My dream
is that the latter will happen.

Amen.

Again, agreed.

most of the UNhealthiest people i know have been the thinnest...
getting to be OVERLY-small.....
hmm, society...

super skinny people..ew.  Well, I do know that there are some people who have
disorders that keep them thin.  I've heard of one who has to take meds just
to keep some meat on his bones.  But they just aren't as discriminated
against as much as those who were born to carry more fat or have a disorder.

I think the bottom line we just discussed is simply that people are
underinformed about what is healthy and what is not, especially because it
can't be based on appearance alone.

agreed!

I am one of the people who said that my main attraction is to slender to
average men.  I apologize if I hurt anyone with that remark.  I certainly find
fat men attractive in many cases -- it's just that the physical thing isn't
there gor me.  Perhaps because I'm fat myself and the logistics are harderwith
two big bellies.  ;)

I agree that we all have to work to change the common public perception of
fat as being unattractive, unhealthy, and a sign of sloth.  What a load!  

So if i said that my ideal man had peppered red hair, was 45, balding,
green eyed, 5'2", with an slight arab accent and his left leg amputated
at the knee, is there anyone on the entire planet who wouldn't feel
offended?

How much of this sillyness a product of big media and city life?  Back 
in the everybody-knows-everybody small town days, people and families 
had well-established (good or bad) reputations, and a girl who dated the
*really* handsome Haskell brother (good for nothing but drinking, just
like his grandfather) was quickly labeled a fool herself.  Then the silver
screen came along (and/or city life) came along, and well-known suddenly
meant "for 5 minutes" instead of "for 5 decades", and slick appearance &
superficial mannerisms were *everything* (as opposed to "nice, but not
worth trading a load of hay for").  How many of the people who aren't
happy with their looks really *want* to pick up total strangers in a few
minutes without even needing to mention their own names?  (And how many of
them would never want to do that, but just crave the superficial social
status that goes with being able to?)  

Actually, I think you're right that in decades and centuries past people
probably judged each other on more rational standards in choosing a mate --
but I don't think Hollywood is entirely at fault in the change.  The way we
increasingly live is at least as much at fault -- how many people do you know,
who are of appropriate age for you to marry/have a relationship with, whom
you've known for more than a few years?  Whose family and family background
are well known to you?  If you grew up in a smallish town and still live
there, you may be able to answer with a positive number, though the number
may be small.  If, like many of us, you didn't grow up in a small town, or
in any one town at all, you may not know *anyone* fitting that description.
So, you have to use somewhat more shallow criteria to pick your mate.  I will
grant you, however, that Hollywood has encouraged us to use the shallowest
of all criteria: how nice is this person to look at?  How prosperous does
he/she seem?

I read that women (read heterosexual women) use different criteria for picking
mates (people they will live with and who will help raise their children) and
lovers (who will provide sperm but little else).  THe mates are chosen for
being kind, considerate, dependable, and having a high social status and
control of a lot of resources, i. e., they will stick around and make sure
the kids survive to adulthood.  The sperm-donors (they actually asked women
what they would look for in a sperm donor) were tall, broad-shouldered,
muscular, etc., and their character was unimportant.  So different criteria
are used by women for choosing male mates or lovers.  Men supposedly chose
women for their child-bearing abilities - youth, health (as evidence by
regularity of features, glossy hair), but not control of resources.
        I don't know how many heterosexuals actually follow this pattern, but
the Ann Arbor personals seem to agree with it.
        I am wondering how gay men and women choose their mates and their
lovers, and whether gay men choose more for youth and beauty (mates and lovers
- is there some difference in criteria), or for social status and wealth, or
whether couples tend to be mixed in this regard, with older richer men
preferring younger and more attractive mates or lovers.  Do women choose other
women for their youth and looks, or for less visible qualit  In other words,
do gays follow a different pattern of mate selection than straights of the
same sex?  From other discussions in this conference, I get the impression
that a lot of gay men choose their lovers for youth and beauty, and a lot
fewer gay women do.  

I've heard the line, "Men choose women for their child bearing hips," before,
and I'm sure if I buy it. A great deal of male friends are straight and by
far the most common desirable female image that they've expressed to me is
the ultra-thin look (with perhaps large breasts). Then again, I know too many
guys who hang out at the Vu. Of course, not all guys are the same. There are
plenty of guys out there who love women, and even fewer gay/bi men who love
big men (though they are scarce). In the gay male community, I've noticed this
annoying trend: perfection. It seems that many, many young gay males want it
all: perfect body, cute face, flawless hair, great clothes, and money. In
fact, it seems that the three main qualities that I look for in a mate are
rarely important for most guys: intelligence, personality, and empathy. Again,
this brings me to my original question: why are (many) gay males so shallow?

Actually, I don't wonder if it's peer pressure, or something.
What I've noticed (in my rather limited experiance) in the two
'lgb' groups I've hung on the fringes of, is that most lesbians
are looking for either a. the right 'tude (and/or look)' or
money.  <shrug>  I stayed out of the main stream in HS 
to avoid the similar aditutes.  (tho I must say it's amusing,
but in the one group that had gay males in it, they actually seemed
more open minded than the lesbians: being more friendly towards bis
and accepting towards well padded people.  I didn't see any overweight
lesbians in this group.  I was probably the largest woman there...
and I wear a size 12  [go figure!])

By the last comment (rather confusing, I admit) I was refering
to "go figure [that out!] as opposed to me cheering on my
particular body shape. :-)

hmmm
nobody ever asked what *i'd* want in a sperm donor..oh, wait..
<giggle>

To what degree are those young gay males who just look for perfect looks
and big money also just looking for one-night stands and status?  Real
character doesn't matter much if you're figuring on the relationship 
ending in a few hours.  (From what i know of young hetero males, most of
them are just as shallow.)

that is my BIGGEST pet peeve on the gay community
that damned 1 track mind!!!!!!!!!

Re 16, I agree with Blob that the gay males you refer to may not be looking
for mates, as much as for short-term lovers, and would possibly have criteria
more similar to yours (intelligence and personality) if they actually had to
live with the person.  I suspect that hetero males would also choose their
mates (rather than their lovers) using your criteria.  Re 21, Bob, you might
encounter fewer 1-track minds if you were physically unattractive and/or
older.  Looks like you both answered my question - gay males tend to use the
same criteria a straight males to select lovers, and another set to select
mates (which is probably also the same as used by straight men).
        In the personals, many women seem to prefer older men.  Is it also
common for gay women to prefer older women as mates, because of their
increased earning potential and status?  Are there many gay women who prefer
younger women (which would mean their criteria would more resemble those of
hetero men than hetero women)?
        

I have noticed an interesting comparison, something that I was talking to a
friend about recently. Green Blob just mentioned it in #20. Heterosexual males
are as equally shallow as their gay counterparts. It's a forgone conclusion
that males view females as sex objects in our culture, the more glamorous and
beautiful and thin the better (as per cultural stereotypes). Just because
they're gay, does it make them any better? Oh sure, they may be OH so
supportive of women and their plight to gain body acceptance (when they're
not desiring it), but yet they still buy into stereotypes of male beauty. I'm
not saying that gay males are bad by nature, I'm just saying that there really
isn't a whole of effort going on right now to eradicate these images (when
every gay periodical has pics of half naked men, even Out and Advocate).

Well, it would seem then that some men in general view potential lovers as
sex objects.

Actually, why doesn't society get real and be honest with itself?  It would
seem that many confuse the difference between a lover and a mate, or they
don't separate the two.  Of course, I think this confusion results due to an
inequality of power-- how many people can afford lovers, and how many can't
afford not to have mates?

Women can be just as guilty when they start gaining power and wealth.

Re #15.
Hey, does that mean that men being scum is women's fault?  If the women
are selectively mating with guys looking for a quick lay on a character-
doesn't-matter basis (note that the scummier the male, the more likely
he is to go along with this), then women are selectively breeding men to
be scum, no?  Could you give us your source on that, keesan?

Blob, my source on what?  I don't think I used the word scum.  

The bit on women having very different criteria when it comes to picking a
spouse vs. picking a sperm donor.

Of course you didn't.  I'm doing some amusing and anti-PC extrapolation
in hopes of stirring up some interesting discussion.

on #24, I couldn't have said it better. If we think of our lovers as sex
objects, then it stands to reason that we think of our pontential lovers as
sex objects. Anyone we find attractive becomes a sex objects.
I just wanted to say that I didn't begin this discussion a male-bashing item.
I don't think that men are scum (otherwise I'd have to think that I was scum
by default). I feel that there is a serious image problem in the community,
and I wanted to see what other's felt about the issue and it has been
enlightening. 

Blob, it was in a library book which I can't find (under the bed?).
The book simply pointed out that there are different mating strategies used
by both sexes.  There are some members whose physical properties you might
like, but they would make terrible parents, so some women try to have it both
ways by marrying good parent material but finding a lover to get pregnant by
who has preferred physical characteristics.  (I don't see how this is
male-bashing, if anything it is female bashing.)  I doubt that they had a
questionnaire on men for their preferences for spouses versus those for egg
donors, since this is still rather uncommon.

Woah...deep....
<Starwolf digs around for scuba gear>

um..I don't know what criteria other people use to look for mates/lovers with.
I can guess, and indulge my cynical side, but I doubt this would help
the discussion about the communities immage problem.  Truth be told, most
of the people I know personally seem to be looking for all the right things.
It's just when I tried to be a member of one or two of the different 
LGB groups around town I was embarrassed and ashamed by their behaviour...
being very discriminatory, if you ask me. (anti straight, weight bashing,
bibashing, etc)  I'm just sick of it. <font hides in her shell>

It is too bad when groups can only stay together by finding things in common
to dislike.  The members must not have much in common with each other, or
maybe they are insecure?

        Hmm, well, it wouldn't be good to have a partner who wasn't attracted
to you.  If it's that much of a societal factor, why not just lose the weight?

Because it's not as easy as just deciding to lose weight.

95% of all weight loss plans fail within the first five years, and when 
the weight returns it usually brings some extra with it.

That's because the weight loss is too sudden-- and the body perceives an
emergency.  It therefore stores more fat to be ready for the next one.

You're right. The body does begin to store fat the moment you begin to lose
weight because it's preparing for the possibility of starvation. We still have
stone age chemistry, which is why our bodies react that way. Losing weight
is not a wonderful way to survive in the stone age. Once we reach our natural
weight, and it is different for each person, then it becomes very difficult
to lose weight. In a 1995 report, the National Institute for Health
recommended against dieting until further evidence can be found that proves
that dieting works.  Yes, it is true that some people lose weight and keep
it off, which represents about 5% of all the people that attempt to diet, some
50-70 million Americans each year.  This is not a good ratio.  The health and
fitness industries, which gross between 30-90 billion each year, stand to lose
a lot if Americans wised up and stopped believing the lies that they've been
told.

I could bear their discomfort with vast fortitude.

Absolutely right, Joe.  To say nothing of all the health problems we incur
when we put our bodies through artificial famine: raised blood pressure,
malnutrition, and the increased set point that \results in most of us gaining
more back than we had lost in the first place.

amen!!

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss