HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: vcsc1169@sfsuvax1.sfsu.edu (Ruth Anne Ladue)
Subject: Clothes
Followup-To: alt.support.big-folks
Summary: Looking for dressy type clothes
Originator: vcsc1169@sfsuvax1.sfsu.edu
Keywords: Help appreciated
Organization: San Francisco State University
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 18:24:47 GMT

I'd like to thank all of you who posted about the PS Stores, especially
Elfcat, who posted the location of the San Lorenzo store. I went there
last week and found lots of wonderful turtlenecks, on sale!

I am having a clothes problem. I have been looking for weeks for a pair
of nice black dress slacks in 22W SHORT. The short is the problem. Very
few makers do a short size, and lately, I haven't been able to find any
of them.

I am also looking for a dressy, flashy, low-cut blouse with a sweetheart
or scoop neckline.

Doea anybody know where I might be able to find these items in the San
Francisco Bay Area? I have already looked in my standard places (Sizes,
Modern Woman, Gitano and others) to no avail. Since I would like to have
them for the holidays, I need a place that I can walk in and get them
(mail order would be a little slow right now :-) ). 

Any suggestions? You can e-mail me the answers, or, since your
suggestions might be helpful to others, post here.

Thanks in advance!
RA

-- 
Ruth Anne   vcsc1169@sfsuvax1.sfsu.edu
"If you want to learn the art of breathing, why, I'll do everything I
can to help. After all, I've been breathing for years!"
                                           -- Palmer Cortlandt
Newsgroups: alt.support.big-folks
From: marty@world.std.com (Marty M HaleEvans)
Subject: Re: Christmas Shopping (was Re: "fat", a four letter word)
Organization: Cicely Public Access UNIX, Cicely, AK
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 04:29:13 GMT

krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:

>In article <1992Dec9.222840.4495@wkuvx1.bitnet> ryanpa@wkuvx1.bitnet writes:
>>
>>Hey, ya'll got your Christmas shopping done??  I haven't started
>>yet!!!
>>
>>Jessi Ann
>>Bowling Green, KY

>I'm hoping to get mine finished tonight! (Dec.11)  I know!  You guys all 
>hate me ;)


No, I don't hate you Ted....
I finished mine last week....
By mail.  :->

Furthermore, I ordered the bulk of my gifts from the Christian Children's Fund
and similar groups, so I feel I gave many of my gifts twice. And I paid for 
them by check, so no after-Christmas credit hangover. And I had them sent to 
my mother's house, so I don't have to worry about packing them.

Ah, the holidays! If I'd sprung to have them wrapped, life would be 
perfect. :->

(Believe me, I'm not always this disgusting; I just want to wallow in it 
because I managed to get it together this year!)

Marty


=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
"Seems like there ought to be a way we could look each other in the eye
To see we're all in this together, and put all thoughts of victory aside.
Seems like there ought to be a way we could turn this fear into trust;
No matter what you say, there has to be a way --
Every living thing is counting on us."      

Marty Hale-Evans                                 M   @   *   O   %   8   U
89 Mass. Ave., Ste. 199, Boston, MA 02115       \|/ \|/ \|/ \|/ \|/ \|/ \|/


Newsgroups: alt.support.big-folks
From: fi@grebyn.com (Fiona Webster)
Subject: Re: Appreciation of the big & beautiful woman
Organization: Grebyn Timesharing
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 15:35:59 GMT

I wrote:
>>That's enough blather from me, though.  What do *y'all* think?

Michelle writes:
>I think I like your above paragraph very much.

I like *that*.  An appropriate rejoinder to an over-long posting!  :-)

>Also, the little pathology discussion was a bit disturbing in that I
>would prefer that psychology only recognize fetishism as a disorder if
>the individual was bothered by it (and a successful resolution of the
>problem would include the individual's acceptance of their desires as
>well as a conventional "cure").  We do so love to persecute.

Gosh.  I thought if anything I went to the length of overkill, in making
just that very point.  Try harder next time, I guess.  

Oh, and for whatever it matters, and I guess it matters to me, it's
*psychiatry*, not psychology.

						--Fiona
						    (a psychiatrist)
From: Andy.Behrens@coat.com
Newsgroups: alt.support.big-folks
Subject: Re: Burlington Coat Factory (was: Clothing and sizes)
Date: 16 Dec 92 00:17:02 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse

Marty Hale-Evans writes:
> Don't we have a Burlington Coat Factory outlet around somewhere? After
> all, the store originates in this area, doesn't it? I'm in near-
> downtown Boston (well, I live within walking distance of the T), and
> I'd love any coat info anybody finds, especially regarding BCFO from
> this recommendation.

Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse doesn't have any stores in downtown
Boston, but there are a number of our stores within driving distance.

	Granite Plaza
	705 Granite St, Braintree, Mass.
	(617) 848-3200

	Cloverleaf Marketplace
	Speen St at Rte 9, Natick, Mass.
	(508) 651-2526

	Tower Outlet Mill
	599-657 Quarry St, Fall River, Mass.

	Dow & Canal St, Manchester, N.H.
	(603) 622-3718

	Nashua Mall
	Broad & Coliseum St, Nashua, N.H.
	(603) 889-9233

You can also call our automated store locater at (800) 444-COAT for the
address of the store nearest you.

Andy

-- 
Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.        (Anne Herbert)

Andy Behrens
P.O. Box 116, South Strafford, Vt.                            (802) 765-4138
Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse, Lebanon, N.H. 03766        (603) 448-5000
From: dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer)
Newsgroups: alt.support.big-folks
Subject: Re: Appreciation of the big & beautiful woman
Date: 14 Dec 92 03:20:00 GMT
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA

In article <1992Dec14.025054.20004@netcom.com> avery@netcom.com (Avery Ray Colter) writes:
>I dunno, I suppose there might be something hamfisted about describing
>what is enjoyable, IMHO, about sex with people of certain archetypes,
>but it really seems like just a mild form of erotica to me.

Autoerotica.

-- 
Steve Dyer
dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer
From: atchampion@cudnvr.denver.colorado.edu
Newsgroups: alt.support.big-folks
Subject: Re: Appreciation of the big & beautiful woman
Date: 14 Dec 92 15:49:54 GMT

In article <1992Dec13.025800.11506@netcom.com>, artemis@netcom.com (Michelle Dick) writes: 

> Yes, I think you did make that point.  Sorry.  My comments were
> directed at the part of the DSM (or whatever the initials were) that
> said the diagnoses was made if the individual was upset with the urges
> *or* acted upon them.  If the individual where happy about the desires
> and acted upon them, I might use the term fetishist colloquially but I
> wouldn't consider it a problem or a pathology.

According to the DSM III, we're ALL nuts.

Pass the sundae, please.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Alex Champion
atchampion@cudnvr.denver.colorado.edu

"Ahh, but it IS the size that counts."
From: crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford)
Newsgroups: alt.support.big-folks
Subject: Re: Appreciation of the big & beautiful woman
Date: 15 Dec 92 20:21:19 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1992Dec11.223809.5824@inmet.camb.inmet.com> mazur@bluefin.camb.inmet.com (Beth Mazur) writes:

Interesting thread!  Think I'll jump in:

>Frankly, I do not
>find a requirement for same sex partners to be analogous to a requirement
>for fat partners or for blonde partners.  

Nor do I.

>I guess the distinction I was trying to make is that I find a "requirement"
>for a physical property--any physical property--to be objectifying.  I am a 
>person who is more than the sum of my hair color, eye color, and body weight.
>I "prefer" curly dark-haired, blue-eyed men.  But it seems to me to be
>a) shallow, b) impractical, and c) yes, distasteful to rule out men who don't
>fit this criteria.

I agree.  It seems to me that the point is -- what's my focus here?  If I
date someone because of his size, I'm essentially focusing on myself:  I
like men who look like [whatever]; this guy looks like [whatever]; I'm
therefore interested in him.  I'm actually not interested in _him_, per
se, I'm interested in satisfying my own penchant for men with a certain
trait.  That's, as Beth puts it, shallow and objectifying; it's also
selfish.  

A friend of mine recently married someone who liked women who looked a
certain way (I think this is typical, by the way).  At one point during
their engagement, she said to him "The way I see it, you've got your life
planned out before you like a puzzle.  Which piece fits here, which piece
fits there?  The house in the country, the job, the wife ... all pieces of
this puzzle that you envision.  But I'm not just a piece in your puzzle,
and if we get married, it's going to mean throwing away your puzzle and
building a new one _together_, piece by piece."

To his everlasting credit, he saw her point, and they're in the difficult
process of doing just that.

>I have no problem with someone having preferences, but my
>own (perhaps warped) value system leads me to believe that *requiring*
>a physical property to be limiting in the long run.  I'm certainly not
>interested in someone who is primarily interested in my body weight, whether
>it is high or low.

Amen.



-- 
The trick of reason is to get the imagination to seize the actual world --
if only from time to time.     -- Annie Dillard, "An American Childhood"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Crawford  //  crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu
Newsgroups: alt.support.big-folks
From: dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer)
Subject: Re: Appreciation of the big & beautiful woman
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 21:41:07 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.132058.11652@grebyn.com> fi@grebyn.com (Fiona Webster) writes:
>Another point: the words "lurking fetishist" and the analogy to
>pedophilia clearly imply pathology.  There's nothing pathological
>about being sexually attracted to fat people.  I'm amazed that you
>would suggest such a thing.

I didn't.  I'm amazed that such would occur to you.  There's nothing
pathological about my being attracted to men with beards either, but
if I started writing a series of articles on the wondrousness of having
sex with men with beards, it might strike some people as a bit unseemly,
and a rather hamfisted attempt at seduction.

>I do appreciate your "I could be all wet" qualifier, though.  If you'd
>restricted your comments to an aesthetic objection to "eyelash batting
>and sweet talk," what you say wouldn't have bothered me.  After all,
>it's equally self-serving, and equally valid as a course of behavior,
>to object to what you *don't* like (e.g., eyelash batting), as it is
>to praise what you do like.  This newsgroup is for all of us, not
>just for those who appreciate Avery's charm.  

My concern was for those women who might feel uncomfortable with such
articles. _I_ felt uncomfortable and I wasn't even on the receiving end
of the attention.


-- 
Steve Dyer
dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer
Newsgroups: alt.support.big-folks
From: dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer)
Subject: Re: Appreciation of the big & beautiful woman
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 19:36:48 GMT

In article <BEH.92Dec12122253@kropotkin.gnu.ai.mit.edu> beh@kropotkin.gnu.ai.mit.edu (various Howellses) writes:
>The idea of being sought simply because of what I do or don't look like
>(i.e., because I'm fat or very thin, or blonde, or... you name it) has
>always been a great turn-off to me.

Well, I don't think it's necessary to see attraction in such polar terms.
The way people look is just one more thing which attracts someone, though
it's usually (not always) the first thing.  Someone who gets into a relation-
ship with someone else ends up with the "whole package", and it's this that
people ultimately make their decisions about.

Listen, men who don't have at least a moustache (with beards preferred)
simply do not register on my personal scale of attractiveness, and I
wouldn't go too far out of my way to date someone who didn't have
facial hair.  Of course, there are undoubtedly people _with_ facial
hair that I wouldn't want to get to know better, whether it be other
attributes of their appearance, their personality, the fact that they
might smoke cigarettes, or any number of other things.  So, it's not a
"fetish", but a "filter", if you will.  There might be some wonderful
people I have dismissed as potential partners, but I'm pretty happy
with my partner of 13 years.  If he shaved his beard for a frivolous
reason, I'd be dismayed for a bit, but I'd also manage.  I also doubt
that would ever happen.

As I said before, there's a thin line between this and fetishism which
is hard to define, but you usually know when it's been crossed.  I think
the fetishistic aspect of attraction, when the danger of objectivization
is greatest, is when you're first meeting someone, and responding to only
those initial visual or verbal cues.  I do recall being solicited for a
membership of the local "Girth and Mirth" by one of its members, and
feeling like a particularly inviting chocolate eclair sitting on a plate.

-- 
Steve Dyer
dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer
From: smith@mscf.med.upenn.edu (Amelia T. Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.support.big-folks
Subject: Re: Clothes
Date: 17 Dec 92 20:50:10 GMT
Followup-To: alt.support.big-folks
Organization: Medical School Computer Facility, UPENN

In article <1992Dec16.182447.20343@csus.edu>, vcsc1169@sfsuvax1.sfsu.edu (Ruth Anne Ladue) writes:
[...] 
> I am having a clothes problem. I have been looking for weeks for a pair
> of nice black dress slacks in 22W SHORT. The short is the problem. Very
> few makers do a short size, and lately, I haven't been able to find any
> of them.
>
> I am also looking for a dressy, flashy, low-cut blouse with a sweetheart
> or scoop neckline.
 
Sorry, I'm not in the Bay Area, but you might want to try Sears 
catalogue, J.C. Penney's catalogue, and stores like K-Mart. (*IS* 
there a K-Mart in San Francisco? I know there is one *somewhere* in 
Northern California, I got new underwear there in September ...)

Any store that carries "Chic" clothes should have slacks in the 
size you seek. (I think they call that size 22WP (for "petite").)

Good luck!

Amelia

                   ----- Amelia T. Smith -----
University of Pennsylvania     Internet: smith@mscf.med.upenn.edu 
Opinions: MINE! MINE! MINE!    NBCS: H-f-t-w++d-s+(+)k+p++e++g+  
Newsgroups: alt.support.big-folks
From: avery@netcom.com (Avery Ray Colter)
Subject: Re: Problem - a "paksu" husband
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 05:44:34 GMT

fi@grebyn.com (Fiona Webster) writes:

>Nancy (Leinonen) Howells writes:
>>>(once a finn, always a finn, even if only by birth.  And may I never forget
>>>it.)

>Avery Colter writes:
>>Ventral or dorsal? <running for cover>
>>;)

>I thought it was obvious from context that she meant *pelvic* fin.  :-)

Ohhhh, so THAT's what that is! <slapping own forehead>
<scribbling notes in anatomy notebook...>
-- 
Avery Ray Colter ("Elfcat") - 	avery@netcom.netcom.com (IP 192.100.81.100)
(510) 656-1902 
"Heaviness is the root of lightness; calmness is the controller of haste"
From: avery@netcom.com (Avery Ray Colter)
Newsgroups: alt.support.big-folks
Subject: Re: Problem - a "paksu" husband
Date: 14 Dec 92 02:58:05 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

beh@kropotkin.gnu.ai.mit.edu (various Howellses) writes:

>--Nancy (Leinonen) Howells
>(once a finn, always a finn, even if only by birth.  And may I never forget
>it.)

Ventral or dorsal? <running for cover>

;)

>Seriously, however.  It really isn't funny to joke about shade.  Nor being
>flattened.  After all.... *shudder*  it could happen to my husband.  ANd,
>while I'm thinking of it, it *is* my Fadder (Ensio Leinonen, tat kuy from
>Finland) who is the heavy gene contributor to my makeup.

-- 
Avery Ray Colter ("Elfcat") - 	avery@netcom.netcom.com (IP 192.100.81.100)
(510) 656-1902 
"Heaviness is the root of lightness; calmness is the controller of haste"
Newsgroups: alt.support.big-folks
From: fi@grebyn.com (Fiona Webster)
Subject: Re: Appreciation of the big & beautiful woman
Organization: Grebyn Timesharing
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 21:55:59 GMT

The topic of erotica about fat women has reminded me of a book I
wanted to recommend to y'all: _Body_ by Harry Crewes.  But it's not
erotica at all--it's a light, if occasionally a bit shocking and
weird novel--a zip to read and most entertaining.  The setting is
a "Ms. Cosmos" (i.e., Ms. Universe) bodybuilding tournament in
Florida.  The characters are various bodybuilding contestants,
their trainers, their relatives, and employees of the hotel.
And one sister of a Ms. Cosmos contender is a lovely fat woman
from rural Georgia, who has been sheltered enough, she hasn't
really discovered her sexuality and her beauty.  In a delightful
sequence, one of the male bodybuilders falls head over heels in
love with her--everything about her--her smile, her goodness,
but most of all, her large lovely body.  It amounts to a comic
paean to fatness.  And it's sexy in a sweet, silly, bubble-bath
sort of way.  The meta-message of the book--that being a "perfect
body" is a constricting trap, whereas being happy and fat is free-
dom--is right on target.  Look for it in the trade paperback section
of your bookstore, if you can't find it at the library...

							--Fiona
From: beh@kropotkin.gnu.ai.mit.edu (various Howellses)
Newsgroups: alt.support.big-folks
Subject: Re: Appreciation of the big & beautiful woman
Date: 12 Dec 92 20:22:53 GMT
	<1992Dec11.151720.20839@inmet.camb.inmet.com>
	<1992Dec11.200657.16849@grebyn.com>
	<1992Dec11.223809.5824@inmet.camb.inmet.com>
Organization: Internet access via the Free Software Foundation
NNTP-Posting-Host: kropotkin.gnu.ai.mit.edu
In-reply-to: mazur@bluefin.camb.inmet.com's message of Fri, 11 Dec 1992 22:38:09 GMT


The idea of being sought simply because of what I do or don't look like
(i.e., because I'm fat or very thin, or blonde, or... you name it) has
always been a great turn-off to me.

I mean.. my heaviness is partially a result of a medical problem.  What if
we solve that problem?  Then I may be thin.  And so if I were deeply
involved with a man who liked be because I was fat, then what?  And what if
I got thin, and then found someone who thought I was gorgeous, and then I
gained the weight back?  Then what?  I don't believe in multiple affairs
for me.  I wanted ONE person... someone who looked at WHO I was,
emotionally, intellectually, and loved me for those traits, not for what
the shell that carries me around looks like.

Hair color is another issue.  I was born blonde, and my hair has darkened
with age... what if I dyed it back?  Would someone who liked mousy hair be
turned off?  

I don't know.. I think men who "prefer" one thing or another are allowed to
do so... it is their life after all.  But I sure as hell hope that they
don't force their preferences onto me.  Because I don't want them.

---N
(married to a man who loves me for me.)
--
If it's me, it's not the other one.  If it's the other one, it's not me.
But then again, we're basically one and the same... oh bother, we're
--Various Howellses (Bruce and/or Nancy)
beh@gnu.ai.mit.edu
Newsgroups: alt.support.big-folks
From: fi@grebyn.com (Fiona Webster)
Subject: Re: Appreciation of the big & beautiful woman
Organization: Grebyn Timesharing
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 15:56:35 GMT

Avery writes:
>>I dunno, I suppose there might be something hamfisted about describing
>>what is enjoyable, IMHO, about sex with people of certain archetypes,
>>but it really seems like just a mild form of erotica to me.

Steve writes:
>Autoerotica.

Ah, but isn't *all* erotica, first and foremost, autoerotica?  Just
as writing is for the writer before it's for anyone else, art is
for the artist, and so on.  

							--Fiona
Newsgroups: alt.support.big-folks
From: mazur@bluefin.camb.inmet.com (Beth Mazur)
Subject: Re: Appreciation of the big & beautiful woman
Organization: Intermetrics, Inc.
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 22:38:09 GMT

In <1992Dec11.200657.16849@grebyn.com> fi@grebyn.com (Fiona Webster) writes:
>OK, so that's one angle on it.  But there's something else in what
>Beth says, that's also worth looking at.  She says she would find
>an exclusive preference for fat sexual partners, to be "distasteful."
>I'm not at all trying to pick on Beth here in making an issue out
>of this--indeed, I think her comments contribute a lot to this dis-
>cussion.  But let's look at this word: distasteful.  Is an exclusive
>preference for members of the same sex "distasteful"?

Well, actually I used the word "requirement" which (to me) implies an
inflexibility that I (still) find "distasteful".  Frankly, I do not
find a requirement for same sex partners to be analogous to a requirement
for fat partners or for blonde partners.  

I guess the distinction I was trying to make is that I find a "requirement"
for a physical property--any physical property--to be objectifying.  I am a 
person who is more than the sum of my hair color, eye color, and body weight.
I "prefer" curly dark-haired, blue-eyed men.  But it seems to me to be
a) shallow, b) impractical, and c) yes, distasteful to rule out men who don't
fit this criteria.

I have a friend who believes he is "genetically" attracted to Scandanavian
women.  This makes me laugh.  I prefer chocolate to vanilla, but I doubt
it's genetic.  I have no problem with someone having preferences, but my
own (perhaps warped) value system leads me to believe that *requiring*
a physical property to be limiting in the long run.  I'm certainly not
interested in someone who is primarily interested in my body weight, whether
it is high or low.

Beth Mazur                   "...life is more than a vision.  The sweetest
mazur@inmet.inmet.com         part is acting after making a decision."
...!uunet!inmet!mazur                                  -- The Indigo Girls
Newsgroups: alt.support.big-folks
From: fi@grebyn.com (Fiona Webster)
Subject: Re: Appreciation of the big & beautiful woman
Organization: Grebyn Timesharing
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 20:10:29 GMT

Oops!  In the penultimate line of my previous posting, I meant to
say "I would fight to the death *for* his right to prefer them."
A slip o' the tongue... :-)

							--Fiona
Newsgroups: alt.support.big-folks
From: artemis@netcom.com (Michelle Dick)
Subject: Re: Appreciation of the big & beautiful woman
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 02:58:00 GMT

In article <1992Dec12.153559.5815@grebyn.com> fi@grebyn.com (Fiona Webster) writes:
>Michelle writes:
>>Also, the little pathology discussion was a bit disturbing in that I
>>would prefer that psychology only recognize fetishism as a disorder if
>>the individual was bothered by it (and a successful resolution of the
>>problem would include the individual's acceptance of their desires as
>>well as a conventional "cure").  We do so love to persecute.
>
>Gosh.  I thought if anything I went to the length of overkill, in making
>just that very point.  Try harder next time, I guess.  

Yes, I think you did make that point.  Sorry.  My comments were
directed at the part of the DSM (or whatever the initials were) that
said the diagnoses was made if the individual was upset with the urges
*or* acted upon them.  If the individual where happy about the desires
and acted upon them, I might use the term fetishist colloquially but I
wouldn't consider it a problem or a pathology.

>Oh, and for whatever it matters, and I guess it matters to me, it's
>*psychiatry*, not psychology.

Do people ever come to you wanting help with an irrational prejudice
against psychology and psychiatry?  :-)

--
Michelle Dick
artemis@netcom.com