From: fi@grebyn.com (Fiona Webster)
Subject: appreciation of big beautiful people
Summary: change in subject heading for obvious reasons 
Organization: Grebyn Timesharing
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 17:45:37 GMT


Beth Mazur writes:
>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.

Nancy Howells writes:
>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.

Well, in the trivial sense that a requirement for a physical property
might entail, for example, a requirement for the person to have a
penis, it seems that a requirement for same-sex partners *is* in the
same category as one for fat people or blondes.

But...the real issue here is whether you feel you're being viewed as
an "object," not a whole person.

When I seek my own position in this interesting comparison of
opinions, I realize that although I intuitively agree with both of
you, I've got some other considerations as well.  One is that if
someone were attracted to me because I'm fat, at least they are
bothering to approach me in the first place, and to get to know what
I'm like.  If I were still searching for a partner, I'd appreciate the
attentions of fat admirers, because unlike those who are prejudiced
*against* fat people, they're not dismissing me out of hand on the
basis of my physical appearance.  It seems to me, in other words, that
being *rejected* because you're fat, is much more objectifying than
being *sought*out* because you're fat.  At least in the latter case,
the person may fall in love with you as a whole person, and then come
to view your physical appearance as only part of the whole picture,
and then accept the inevitable changes that come with time.

This issue that Nancy raises of being allowed to change, after all,
applies to more than physical appearance.  It goes without saying that
we all change in many ways during the course of a lifetime.  I,
personally, have to admit (with no small amount of chagrin) that I
have an absolute requirement for someone to be of high intelligence,
in order for me to be attracted to them.  This, too, is objectifying.
However, if my husband, to whose mind I was initially attracted,
should (goddess forbid) have a brain illness of some kind that caused
him to lose his intelligence, I would not be any less loving, or any
less committed to him--because I've come to love all of him--not just
his brain.  (We've been married for nearly 15 years.)

Steve Dyer writes:
>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 relationship with someone else ends up with the "whole
>package", and it's this that people ultimately make their decisions
>about.

Many schemes of characterizing that "package" are possible, of course,
but I like the one that's embodied in the four suits of the Tarot
deck: we are 1) physical, 2) emotional, 3) mental, and 4) spiritual
beings.  My strict requirement for number #3, during the years I was
dating, no doubt prevented me from getting to know many men--and
women--who might have had strong appeal for me, as potential mates, on
physical, emotional, and spiritual levels.  But at least I know that
intellect wasn't *all* I was looking for--just the one thing that
*had* to be there for me to fall in love.

The four-fold scheme also brings up another consideration, which is
where I differ with Nancy in characterizing her body as a "shell."
That seems really sad to me.  All four spheres are avenues for
expression of the self, including the body.  Our bodies don't stand
stock still like 3-D photographs: they're in constant, expressive
motion.  I enjoy dancing a great deal, and I view that as an equally
valid (if not as adept (-:) means of expressing myself, as talking and
writing and other facets of myself.  My body is not a "shell" for
"me."  It *is* me--just as my mind is me, my heart is me, and my soul
is me.  And being "me," in this area, includes being a natural blonde,
being short, being fat, having large blue eyes, and so on.  Would I
still be "me" if my hair color changed, or if I lost weight?  Of
course.  But I would be different--and I would feel different.  It
would be a change that would ramify to all the other rts of me.  Not
an unwelcome change--just a change.

                    *    *    *    *    *    *

On a lighter note, Michelle queries:
>Do people ever come to you wanting help with an irrational prejudice
>against psychology and psychiatry?  :-)

I most often hear that complaint from the ones who've been
involuntarily committed to my care.  Somehow I don't think that counts
as "coming to me."  :-) :-)

                                                  --Fiona
Newsgroups: alt.support.big-folks