From: fi@grebyn.com (Fiona Webster)
Subject: Re: Appreciation of the big & beautiful woman
Organization: Grebyn Timesharing
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 20:06:57 GMT

I wrote:
>>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.

Beth Mazur replies:
>A fetish can be pathological (surprisingly, few women are into fetishes).  
>If one likes to have sex while wearing rubber pants, that's preference.  If
>one can *only* have sex while wearing rubber, that's a fetish.  Similarly,
>a preference for fat people is not a fetish, but a requirement for such
>is, in my opinion, distasteful and could conceivably be a fetish.

I think the distinction you're making, between whether a fat sexual
partner is necessary for arousal, versus simply having a *preference*
for a fat sexual partner, is an interesting and perhaps valuable one,
but it bears little relation to the currently accepted meaning of
fetishism.  Here's the psychiatric (DSM-III-R) definition:

	Diagnostic Criteria for Fetishism

	A.  Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent intense
	    sexual urges and sexually arousing fantasies involving
	    the use of nonliving objects by themselves (e.g., female
	    undergarments).  Note: the person may at other times use
	    the nonliving object with a sexual partner.

	B.  The person has acted on these urges, or is markedly
	    distressed by them.

	C.  The fetishes are not only articles of female clothiing
	    used in cross-dressing (transvestic fetishism) or devices
	    designed for the purpose of tactile genital stimulation
	    (e.g., vibrator).

As you can see, the concept of a fetish depends on its being a
*nonliving* object that the person fantasizes about using, or does
use, *alone* (no person present).  A person who prefers, in fantasy
or in reality, women in six-inch high-heeled black leather boots,
is not a fetishist, because it's the woman *in* the boots they're
focused on, not the boots in and of themselves.  Moreover, the
person has to either act on the fantasy or be upset by it.  If they
privately fantasize about having sex, alone, with the boots, but
do not suffer in any way as a result of these fantasies, then they're
not a fetishist, either.  Finally, there's no requirement for
exclusivity: a shoe fetishist, for example, is not any less of a
fetishist if they occasionally have "normal" sex.  

Now there's diagnostic criteria, and there's practical application of
it, and as a shrink, I can tell you that the way fetishism is understood
in *practice*, there's really a need for the person involved to be hurt
in some way by what they're doing, or to be hurting someone else, or
both.  A shoe fetishist who buys their sexual fetishes *and* acts out
their urges in the privacy of their own bedroom may technically qualify
for the "pathological" definition of fetishism, but if it's not hurting
their marriage, their job, their self-esteem, etc., then they're never
going to show up in a psychiatrist's office, and thus whether or not
this is a "pathology" is irrelevant.  Shrinks are really much more
interested in helping people feel and function better, than they are
in labeling innocent behavior as pathological.  

I make a point of this, because it's relevant to having a preference
for fat sexual partners.  Whether or not the person's preference is
exclusive--whether or not they can also be aroused by smaller folks--
doesn't seem very important to me.  What's important, is whether 
their preference is hurting them, or someone else.  This is why
a sexual preference for children is not tolerated in our society:
it may be natural, understandable, common, etc., but it's not tole-
rated--and is defined as pathology--because it's harmful to others.

What are the circumstances under which a preference for fat people
would be harmful?  This seems to me a more important question than
whether it's fetishism (it's not), or pathological (it's not), or
exclusive (for some fat admirers it is, for some it's not).  When you
read the stories of fat admirers, you often encounter descriptions of
how painfully alone and misunderstood these people felt, especially
during adolescence, and how they felt that there was something wrong
with them.  In this narrow sense, being a fat admirer was harmful
to them.  But was this harm unavoidable?  Or was it an unwanted side
effect of a society that's absurdly focused on one body type to the
exclusion of others?  Compare the inner pain of a fat admirer to the
inner pain of a person who prefers members of the same sex, or people
with different-colored skin, or any other of a number of normal char-
acteristics, and at once it's obvious: the problem is not in the indi-
vidual fat admirer, it's in society at large.  If society changes in
such a way that fat admirers are exposed to positive images of sexy
fat people, then no one will find them odd, they themselves won't *feel*
odd, and the possibility for harm evaporates.

(And, of course, it goes without saying, in this newsgroup, that if
society changed in that way, it would benefit not only fat admirers,
but fat *people* as well.)

		*	*	*	*	*

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"?  What about
an exclusive preference for silly, empty-headed blonde bimbos?
I think there's a gradation here, a societal gradation, of what
sort of preferences we find distasteful.  And "distasteful" is,
of course, in the eye of the beholder.  I chose blonde bimbos
(I myself am a blonde, by the way (-:) as an example, because I,
personally, would find it distasteful for a man to only want sexual
partners who are less intelligent or weaker in some way, and whom he
feels he can dominate.  But, to paraphrase the well-known saying,
I would fight to the death his right to prefer them.

		*	*	*	*	*

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

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