Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Thoughts on the “glamourizing/normalizing” obesity vs body positivity conversations
Options
Replies
-
L1zardQueen wrote: »Tell me how you think that prohibition did work?
If this is my question... I was agreeing with you. I don’t think it did work... hellooo, moonshine! Just as there was a black market during WWII rationing.
If this is directed at those who hit the disagree button... I too await their response...
We are on the same page❤️2 -
L1zardQueen wrote: »Tell me how you think that prohibition did work?
It actually did, in a way. Read the book "Last Call: The Rise and Fall of Prohibition" by Daniel Okrent (it is a great book!) The US used to have a serious, serious alcohol problem. The temperance movement didn't just come out of nowhere -- it was a response to out-of-control alcohol use issues in US society. While the temperance movement didn't stop alcoholism or alcohol use entirely, it did help with the problematic drinking culture that had taken root in the US, and alcohol use levels have never since reached the levels where they were at in the 1800s. It also popularized the concept of "alcoholism" and the idea of treatment for alcohol use disorder.1 -
L1zardQueen wrote: »Prohibition didn’t work, it backfired. I picture an underground network of people selling loaves of bread and skittles.
Absolutely... Which is exactly what happened when rationing was done during WWII...
Yep, it's a great way to create a black market for Wonder Bread and Mountain Dew.
While food rationing was implemented during WWII, there's a huge difference in context. For one, the goal was never to require certain people to consume fewer calories. In fact, people were ENCOURAGED to do things like plant gardens to ensure they had sufficient food to eat. The rationed items weren't chosen because the government decided that we should eat less of them, it was about preserving resources for the war effort or the literal limited availability of certain foods. Also key was that it was always conceived of as a limited duration plan that was required by the war, not a general strategy for requiring people to eat in a government-approved fashion. The idea that I need permission from the government to put a teaspoon of sugar in my coffee . . . I just don't see that going over.11 -
janejellyroll wrote: »For one, the goal was never to require certain people to consume fewer calories. In fact, people were ENCOURAGED to do things like plant gardens to ensure they had sufficient food to eat.
Calorie-dense items and addictive processed foods weren't being grown in those gardens. It was mostly fruits and vegetables.The rationed items weren't chosen because the government decided that we should eat less of them, it was about preserving resources for the war effort or the literal limited availability of certain foods.
They WERE chosen because the government decided that we should eat less of them. They just wanted people to eat less of them for a different reason than preventing obesity. This would be about preserving life for the anti-COVID/anti-dying of preventable causes in general effort. I don't see how the difference in aims makes it unworkable.The idea that I need permission from the government to put a teaspoon of sugar in my coffee . . . I just don't see that going over.
Yet the idea that we need permission from the government to have Thanksgiving dinner with relatives, go to a friend's house, or even GO OUTSIDE FOR A WALK is perfectly fine?3 -
siberiantarragon wrote: »L1zardQueen wrote: »Tell me how you think that prohibition did work?
It actually did, in a way. Read the book "Last Call: The Rise and Fall of Prohibition" by Daniel Okrent (it is a great book!) The US used to have a serious, serious alcohol problem. The temperance movement didn't just come out of nowhere -- it was a response to out-of-control alcohol use issues in US society. While the temperance movement didn't stop alcoholism or alcohol use entirely, it did help with the problematic drinking culture that had taken root in the US, and alcohol use levels have never since reached the levels where they were at in the 1800s. It also popularized the concept of "alcoholism" and the idea of treatment for alcohol use disorder.
That is a great book, although Okrent disagrees with you that Prohibition could be said to have worked.
From an interview: "I don't see how anyone can successfully argue that it was worth it, because the other consequences were so severe."
https://www.vox.com/2015/10/19/9566935/prohibition-myths-misconceptions-facts
While we may not be drinking at the levels we were in the 1800s, we have had national periods where we were drinking at pre-Prohibition levels so I'm not sure how you can conclude that it "worked."10 -
janejellyroll wrote: »That is a great book, although Okrent disagrees with you that Prohibition could be said to have worked.
From an interview: "I don't see how anyone can successfully argue that it was worth it, because the other consequences were so severe."
https://www.vox.com/2015/10/19/9566935/prohibition-myths-misconceptions-facts
While we may not be drinking at the levels we were in the 1800s, we have had national periods where we were drinking at pre-Prohibition levels so I'm not sure how you can conclude that it "worked."
The temperance movement did have an effect on alcohol consumption levels, though. Alcohol consumption levels had already fallen significantly by the 1920s, as a result of the temperance movement. Perhaps it was a victim of its own success, in a way.
Also note that this article ALSO says: "But one thing many don't know is that Prohibition did, in fact, reduce alcohol consumption: As Okrent told me, tax stamps from before and after Prohibition's passage suggest there was, indeed, a decline in drinking — one that was sustained for several years. "
The problem was it also caused other secondary effects such as an increase in crime, but, hey, nobody cared about secondary effects when it came to lockdown because "if it saves just one life," right? (Says the person who had to move due to a lockdown-induced crime spike in the area in which I used to live.)
Also, Prohibition involved banning alcohol entirely. Whereas this rationing plan wouldn't involve banning junk food entirely, just limiting it. I think that's an important distinction. Moderation and prohibition are two very different things. I'm not even sure why people are comparing the two, really, as it's a totally false comparison.
1 -
siberiantarragon wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »For one, the goal was never to require certain people to consume fewer calories. In fact, people were ENCOURAGED to do things like plant gardens to ensure they had sufficient food to eat.
Calorie-dense items and addictive processed foods weren't being grown in those gardens. It was mostly fruits and vegetables.The rationed items weren't chosen because the government decided that we should eat less of them, it was about preserving resources for the war effort or the literal limited availability of certain foods.
They WERE chosen because the government decided that we should eat less of them. They just wanted people to eat less of them for a different reason than preventing obesity. This would be about preserving life for the anti-COVID/anti-dying of preventable causes in general effort. I don't see how the difference in aims makes it unworkable.The idea that I need permission from the government to put a teaspoon of sugar in my coffee . . . I just don't see that going over.
Yet the idea that we need permission from the government to have Thanksgiving dinner with relatives, go to a friend's house, or even GO OUTSIDE FOR A WALK is perfectly fine?
People were specifically encouraged to grow potatoes due to their relative calorie density. Yeah, they grew fruits and vegetables -- what ELSE are you going to grow in a backyard garden? The goal of food rationing was never, for a moment, designed to limit the number of calories in the American diet. You're talking about taking a limited duration ban designed exclusively to preserve resources for the war effort and using it as a template to force weight loss on the population.
I am not sure what area you are referencing when people cannot walk outside. Even in California, where restrictions are pretty tight, there is a specific exemption for people walking or hiking outside. There may be areas in the US right now where people are not allowed to walk outside, but that would not be the norm. To use that to make the case that the federal government should artificially restrict my access to white flour seems like an overreaction.11 -
janejellyroll wrote: »People were specifically encouraged to grow potatoes due to their relative calorie density. Yeah, they grew fruits and vegetables -- what ELSE are you going to grow in a backyard garden? The goal of food rationing was never, for a moment, designed to limit the number of calories in the American diet. You're talking about taking a limited duration ban designed exclusively to preserve resources for the war effort and using it as a template to force weight loss on the population.
I really doubt people are going to get obese off of backyard-grown potatoes and I also don't see how this has anything to do with the discussion. I also really doubt people are going to starve to death if they're only allowed to buy a limited number of desserts and fast-food meals per week.I am not sure what area you are referencing when people cannot walk outside. Even in California, where restrictions are pretty tight, there is a specific exemption for people walking or hiking outside. There may be areas in the US right now where people are not allowed to walk outside, but that would not be the norm. To use that to make the case that the federal government should artificially restrict my access to white flour seems like an overreaction.
Restrictions on outdoor exercise up to and including outright bans have occurred in the UK, Australia, France, Italy, Spain, China, and probably some other places I'm missing. Sure, they're not in the US, but they still count as places, right? (And many people say we should have followed their example.) In my area they also closed all the parks for a couple of months, which effectively banned outdoor exercise for anyone who doesn't live in a walkable neighborhood. They also banned driving unless you're going to the store or somewhere else "essential," so, no driving to a more walkable neighborhood either. They reversed those restrictions for now, but if it happened once, it can happen again.
3 -
siberiantarragon wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »That is a great book, although Okrent disagrees with you that Prohibition could be said to have worked.
From an interview: "I don't see how anyone can successfully argue that it was worth it, because the other consequences were so severe."
https://www.vox.com/2015/10/19/9566935/prohibition-myths-misconceptions-facts
While we may not be drinking at the levels we were in the 1800s, we have had national periods where we were drinking at pre-Prohibition levels so I'm not sure how you can conclude that it "worked."
The temperance movement did have an effect on alcohol consumption levels, though. Alcohol consumption levels had already fallen significantly by the 1920s, as a result of the temperance movement. Perhaps it was a victim of its own success, in a way. Also note that this article ALSO says: "But one thing many don't know is that Prohibition did, in fact, reduce alcohol consumption: As Okrent told me, tax stamps from before and after Prohibition's passage suggest there was, indeed, a decline in drinking — one that was sustained for several years. "
Also, Prohibition involved banning alcohol entirely. Whereas this rationing plan wouldn't involve banning junk food entirely, just limiting it. I think that's an important distinction. Moderation and prohibition are two very different things. I'm not even sure why people are comparing the two, really, as it's a totally false comparison.
That alcohol consumption levels dropped due to the Temperance movement's pre-Prohibition efforts to persuade people to voluntarily limit their drinking is not a reason to conclude that Prohibition itself worked. I do note that the article itself notes that the decline was sustained for "several years." It caught my attention because of your claim that we never returned to 1800s level drinking levels and I realized what you were trying to do there -- make it seem like Prohibition itself had permanently caused the drinking level to decline. It didn't. And Prohibition itself had terrible consequences. I know you WANT it to have worked because it fits nicely with what you want to do to my pantry. That doesn't mean it DID work.
Also, Prohibition didn't entirely ban alcohol. It was allowed for medicinal and sacramental use. I think Okrent even discusses this in his book. In fact, you could even HAVE alcohol, there were just restrictions on the sale, production, and transport. It is more similar to what you're proposing than you seem to realize.9 -
janejellyroll wrote: »That alcohol consumption levels dropped due to the Temperance movement's pre-Prohibition efforts to persuade people to voluntarily limit their drinking is not a reason to conclude that Prohibition itself worked. I do note that the article itself notes that the decline was sustained for "several years." It caught my attention because of your claim that we never returned to 1800s level drinking levels and I realized what you were trying to do there -- make it seem like Prohibition itself had permanently caused the drinking level to decline. It didn't. And Prohibition itself had terrible consequences. I know you WANT it to have worked because it fits nicely with what you want to do to my pantry. That doesn't mean it DID work.
We didn't return to 1800s level drinking levels, as a result of the temperance movement. Prohibition came after the drinking levels had already significantly dropped from their peak in the 1830s...as a result of the temperance movement. Drinking levels reduced DURING Prohibition, and then went back up several years after it ended...because there was no more Prohibition. So, at the time the policy existed, it did reduce drinking levels. And drinking levels also reduced in the decades beforehand due to the actions of the people who supported the policy.
So you think we should have an analogue of the temperance movement instead of outright rationing to reduce obesity? I mean, I'm just wondering, I'm literally the only person coming up with solutions here and you're all trashing me, but do you have any better ideas? Or do you want the obesity levels to keep going up until we're at 100% obesity? What is your great idea for solving the problem?
(Let's ignore the fact that the entire food-rationing thing started as a criticism of lockdowns in the first place and wasn't even meant to be serious!)Also, Prohibition didn't entirely ban alcohol. It was allowed for medicinal and sacramental use. I think Okrent even discusses this in his book. In fact, you could even HAVE alcohol, there were just restrictions on the sale, production, and transport. It is more similar to what you're proposing than you seem to realize.
That's kind of the difference between Zoom Thanksgiving and actual Thanksgiving, isn't it?
The concept of junk-food speakeasies is pretty amusing though. Wasn't that an episode of The Simpsons?2 -
siberiantarragon wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Yes, you can choose to just not touch alcohol. Choosing to not drink for an extended period or control the situations in which you drink is a method that you can use to reduce the risk of developing an alcohol dependency. That's not an option we have with food -- even if you know that it is hard for you to stop eating once you start, you've still got to start eating. Some people worry about developing an alcohol dependency. We literally all have a food dependency and that is the complicating factor for those who have to focus on controlling their food intake.
There's really not that much difference between making the choice not to go to the liquor store or not to have a drink at a party, and making the choice to avoid foods you're likely to binge on or to only eat a certain portion. I think you are overcomplicating it.Using your lack of an alcohol dependency to congratulate yourself on the self-control of not having an alcohol dependency is a curiously circular argument.
Not really. It's better to nip a problem in the bud before it becomes a problem. I did the same with food years ago. Maybe if more people did that, we wouldn't be in this health situation now.Given that all the chatter about food is accompanied by a focus on lockdown related weight gain and new exercise routines, I would not argue that obesity is being normalized. Your experience and social interactions is valid, but in my circles I hear a lot of negative talk from those who have gained weight. It is not seen as a positive or even neutral thing.
There has also been a lot of romanticizing binging on takeout, "quarantinis," stress baking, etc. and a lot of excuse-making for those who have gained weight ("what can you expect during these trying times?") even in this very discussion thread.And I'll note we're having this conversation on a whole forum that is dedicated to weight management and most users are either seeking to lose weight or looking to maintain weight loss.
Which is what makes it especially disturbing that people are getting mad at me on this forum of all places for saying that obesity has negative effects on health (COVID).In the world in which I live, weight loss is seen as a positive thing, something that people get congratulated and complimented for. When celebrities gain weight, they're often discussed negatively.
Celebrities are held to much higher standards than the "average person," and even so, an increasing number of them also now follow the "fat acceptance" movement. People congratulate others for weight loss (usually) but they also don't usually encourage weight loss or have an intervention or something when someone clearly has a problem with food. They just let the problem happen for years. The only time it really gets to intervention level usually is when the person gets into the super-morbidly obese range.but it isn't true that education has been banned (some schools are meeting in person, some are online).
Even the NYTimes agrees that online education is a poor substitute for in person, and that kids have basically lost a year of learning.Work hasn't been banned. Lots of people are working. Obviously not everyone, but a lot of people are working!
Work has been banned for a lot of people. There were many jobs that it was illegal to have for a large portion of last year, and the ripple effects of that still last.Socializing hasn't been banned. Some people never stopped, others are meeting in smaller groups, lots of people are socializing online.
There's been messaging all year that anyone who socializes in-person, even in small groups, is a psychopathic murderer. Also, for several months in my area, you weren't allowed to socialize with anyone outside your household. There are still many places around the world where you aren't allowed to socialize with anyone outside your household, or can only socialize with one other person/household, and people even get arrested or fined for it. So to say "socializing hasn't been banned" is simply untrue.
Online socializing is not the same as in-person -- again, something which most researchers agree on.That you can't even articulate how food rationing to force weight loss would work makes it self-evident that lockdowns are not equally ridiculous. We can discuss how lockdowns are functioning in various areas, as well as understand when behavior is or isn't compatible with local guidelines. We can discuss how they can be improved or what is working well. You can't even outline a basic concept of how government-enforced calorie limits would work.
I already told you, food rationing has been done many times throughout history in many societies, including in the US as recently as WWII. It could work similarly now as it did then, with the addition of technology (ie. a refillable card or something like that) for better tracking and to avoid fraud. We could probably get results even just by rationing certain foods like they did during WWII -- specifically, those foods that people are most likely to binge on (which ironically, seem to be the foods that tended to get rationed during wars, also). We could probably even start out just by rationing foods that contain white flour, refined sugar, hydrogenated oils, etc. and see how it goes, and even that might be enough to help -- since people generally don't tend to binge on lentils, rice, vegetables, etc.
But I'm sure whatever answer I come up with won't be good enough for you people because you all just hate me.
Disagreeing is not the same as hating. I don't hate you; I don't even know you. But I don't agree with most of what you are saying.18 -
https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/21/health/fat-but-fit-study-scli-intl-wellness/index.html
Sounds like body fat is a factor of concern when it comes to health.2 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/21/health/fat-but-fit-study-scli-intl-wellness/index.html
Sounds like body fat is a factor of concern when it comes to health.
Nothing new here. Glad there are more sources researching this and calling it out.3 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/21/health/fat-but-fit-study-scli-intl-wellness/index.html
Sounds like body fat is a factor of concern when it comes to health.
Prefacing this by saying I appreciate studies that confirm common sense (sometimes common sense is wrong), this does seem like common sense. Selectively quoting the article:After investigating the associations between BMI, activity level and risk factors, researchers concluded that any level of activity meant it was less likely that an individual would have any of the three risk factors compared with no exercise, with the risk of high blood pressure and diabetes decreasing with increased activity levels.
. . .the study showed greater cardiovascular risk for overweight and obese participants compared with those of a normal weight, regardless of how much exercise they did.
. . .
Lucia underlined that it is "equally important" to fight obesity and inactivity.
"Weight loss should remain a primary target for health policies together with promoting active lifestyles," he said.
Well, *yeah*. Having been a fat athlete (obese BMI, but training and even competing for over a decade before weight loss), I lived that out in full color.
For health, if fat, it's better to be fit than unfit;
. . . if unfit, it's better to be a healthy weight than fat;
. . . but of course the best course is to be a healthy weight, and fit, both.7 -
I’m trying to understand why someone who takes such issue with the government dictating how you can socialize, would be okay with them taking such control over things like “mandatory food rationing.” It’s an asinine suggestion that fining or throwing people in jail for being obese will really prevent that problem. People still get DUIs. People still use heroin. People still shoplift. The government rationing our basic needs would create far larger problems while putting very little dent in an obesity problem.
I'm trying to understand why someone who supports making socializing and working illegal in order to "save lives" would NOT support mandatory food rationing, fines, etc. in order to save lives. Socialization is a basic need and working for a living is necessary, yet both have been rationed for the past year while putting very little dent in our COVID problem. It's necessary to health to socialize, whereas it isn't necessary to health to be obese (quite the opposite actually).
Of course I don't support fining people for being obese or rationing food, even if it saves lives. But I also don't support making socializing and work illegal to save lives. I'm just pointing out an inconsistency in logic here. Why do most people think the one is ok, but not the other?As I already mentioned, I’m someone who also lives with PTSD and OCD, so I say this with the best of intentions. If you are not already doing so, I urge you to get in touch with your mental health provider. In a couple posts you’ve expressed you’re struggling with your mental health and the lack of socialization that usually helps you cope.
What mental health provider? A mental health provider over Zoom who is already booked with patients because 25% of the country now want to kill themselves? (https://qz.com/1892349/cdc-depression-and-anxiety-rises-for-us-adults-since-covid-19/) And what advice are they going to give? Getting out and about, and establishing social connections, is a necessary part of treatment for both PTSD and OCD. If that's not allowed, then what advice can they possibly give?I feel like you’ve gone down what I like to call “the rabbit hole” and have found comfort in focusing on the fixable “obesity” issue being the larger issue than the overall pandemic and struggle that’s come with it. The “fat people” have given you something to focus on and blame and it’s not healthy or helpful for you, or others.
No, I'm just pointing out facts that people don't want to hear even though they're supported by evidence. Don't mistake someone having an unpopular opinion with that opinion being based on emotions rather than facts. I think it's a testament to the normalization of obesity in our culture that people are clinging on to their right to be obese much more tightly than they are on their right to socialize and work.
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs... socialization is not a basic need. Is working necessary? For most in the general public, absolutely. However, nobody has made working illegal. You still never clarified where you live. I live in Chicagoland/suburbs and we’ve had a significant amount of “lockdowns” and it’s not as bad as you keep mentioning. Since March 2020 I’ve gone to the grocery store multiple times a week and I’ve socialized with a few friends (responsibly) and never had an issue. Everything I’ve seen about people getting arrested or fined for violating social distancing/stay-at-home orders/lockdowns is due to large gatherings, events, etc. If anything more extreme then it’s been in large cities such as NYC.
I’m a mental health professional. Mental health providers have always been backed up or there’s been lack of access. (That’s a whole different topic!) If you’ve been diagnosed with PTSD/OCD I assume you have a provider. Getting out and about and socialization have never been a part of my treatment plan. So that’s not a one size fits all necessity for PTSD or OCD treatment. If I’m being honest, I’ve actually done better not getting out and socializing everyday. If socialization is part of your treatment plan, zoom/FaceTime/Skype with your friends, plan to see a couple of them- wear mask and social distance. Talk to the cashier at the grocery store, get a job at the grocery store and socialize with the general public.
I’m not obese, so I’m not defending “my right to be obese” over “my right to socialize.” I haven’t seen anyone on this thread do so. I defended the idea that people should have access to food (and basic needs) without that being rationed. As you see in the pyramid, health and safety trump socialization and sense of connection. Do I like that there are lockdowns and possible fines for gatherings? No. But that’s how things are being handled, so I deal with it. There are many people unsatisfied with that idea, just as there were people upset over seatbelt laws and mandatory health insurance. But what do we do? We carry on and accept it. [/quote]
I know you claim to be a mental health professional but you lost all credibility and I'm embarrassed for you. My Bachelor's Degree is in psychology. Let me educate you! All aspects under the color yellow titled Love and Belonging fall under socialization, every single one. Not seeing the actual word 'socialization' must have confused you tremendously. Friendship,intimacy, family, sense of connection[ that fall under the yellow category of 'Love and Belonging' all require socialization. Socialization is a need in order to achieve esteem and self-actualization. Are you able to understand that? Maybe you should read research on how a lack of socialization can...2 -
I’m trying to understand why someone who takes such issue with the government dictating how you can socialize, would be okay with them taking such control over things like “mandatory food rationing.” It’s an asinine suggestion that fining or throwing people in jail for being obese will really prevent that problem. People still get DUIs. People still use heroin. People still shoplift. The government rationing our basic needs would create far larger problems while putting very little dent in an obesity problem.
I'm trying to understand why someone who supports making socializing and working illegal in order to "save lives" would NOT support mandatory food rationing, fines, etc. in order to save lives. Socialization is a basic need and working for a living is necessary, yet both have been rationed for the past year while putting very little dent in our COVID problem. It's necessary to health to socialize, whereas it isn't necessary to health to be obese (quite the opposite actually).
Of course I don't support fining people for being obese or rationing food, even if it saves lives. But I also don't support making socializing and work illegal to save lives. I'm just pointing out an inconsistency in logic here. Why do most people think the one is ok, but not the other?As I already mentioned, I’m someone who also lives with PTSD and OCD, so I say this with the best of intentions. If you are not already doing so, I urge you to get in touch with your mental health provider. In a couple posts you’ve expressed you’re struggling with your mental health and the lack of socialization that usually helps you cope.
What mental health provider? A mental health provider over Zoom who is already booked with patients because 25% of the country now want to kill themselves? (https://qz.com/1892349/cdc-depression-and-anxiety-rises-for-us-adults-since-covid-19/) And what advice are they going to give? Getting out and about, and establishing social connections, is a necessary part of treatment for both PTSD and OCD. If that's not allowed, then what advice can they possibly give?I feel like you’ve gone down what I like to call “the rabbit hole” and have found comfort in focusing on the fixable “obesity” issue being the larger issue than the overall pandemic and struggle that’s come with it. The “fat people” have given you something to focus on and blame and it’s not healthy or helpful for you, or others.
No, I'm just pointing out facts that people don't want to hear even though they're supported by evidence. Don't mistake someone having an unpopular opinion with that opinion being based on emotions rather than facts. I think it's a testament to the normalization of obesity in our culture that people are clinging on to their right to be obese much more tightly than they are on their right to socialize and work.
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs... socialization is not a basic need. Is working necessary? For most in the general public, absolutely. However, nobody has made working illegal. You still never clarified where you live. I live in Chicagoland/suburbs and we’ve had a significant amount of “lockdowns” and it’s not as bad as you keep mentioning. Since March 2020 I’ve gone to the grocery store multiple times a week and I’ve socialized with a few friends (responsibly) and never had an issue. Everything I’ve seen about people getting arrested or fined for violating social distancing/stay-at-home orders/lockdowns is due to large gatherings, events, etc. If anything more extreme then it’s been in large cities such as NYC.
I’m a mental health professional. Mental health providers have always been backed up or there’s been lack of access. (That’s a whole different topic!) If you’ve been diagnosed with PTSD/OCD I assume you have a provider. Getting out and about and socialization have never been a part of my treatment plan. So that’s not a one size fits all necessity for PTSD or OCD treatment. If I’m being honest, I’ve actually done better not getting out and socializing everyday. If socialization is part of your treatment plan, zoom/FaceTime/Skype with your friends, plan to see a couple of them- wear mask and social distance. Talk to the cashier at the grocery store, get a job at the grocery store and socialize with the general public.
I’m not obese, so I’m not defending “my right to be obese” over “my right to socialize.” I haven’t seen anyone on this thread do so. I defended the idea that people should have access to food (and basic needs) without that being rationed. As you see in the pyramid, health and safety trump socialization and sense of connection. Do I like that there are lockdowns and possible fines for gatherings? No. But that’s how things are being handled, so I deal with it. There are many people unsatisfied with that idea, just as there were people upset over seatbelt laws and mandatory health insurance. But what do we do? We carry on and accept it. [/quote]I’m trying to understand why someone who takes such issue with the government dictating how you can socialize, would be okay with them taking such control over things like “mandatory food rationing.” It’s an asinine suggestion that fining or throwing people in jail for being obese will really prevent that problem. People still get DUIs. People still use heroin. People still shoplift. The government rationing our basic needs would create far larger problems while putting very little dent in an obesity problem.
I'm trying to understand why someone who supports making socializing and working illegal in order to "save lives" would NOT support mandatory food rationing, fines, etc. in order to save lives. Socialization is a basic need and working for a living is necessary, yet both have been rationed for the past year while putting very little dent in our COVID problem. It's necessary to health to socialize, whereas it isn't necessary to health to be obese (quite the opposite actually).
I know you claim to be a mental health professional but you lost all credibility and I'm embarrassed for you. My Bachelor's Degree is in psychology. Let me educate you! All aspects under the color yellow titled Love and Belonging fall under socialization, every single one. Not seeing the actual word 'socialization' must have confused you tremendously. Friendship,intimacy, family, sense of connection[ that fall under the yellow category of 'Love and Belonging' all require socialization. Socialization is a need in order to achieve esteem and self-actualization. Are you able to understand that? Maybe you should read research on how a lack of socialization can...1 -
Not entirely sure what's being discussed here but I'm always down for usage of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs in regular conversation so kudos @LovelyChar4
-
I know you claim to be a mental health professional but you lost all credibility and I'm embarrassed for you. My Bachelor's Degree is in psychology. Let me educate you! All aspects under the color yellow titled Love and Belonging fall under socialization, every single one. Not seeing the actual word 'socialization' must have confused you tremendously. Friendship,intimacy, family, sense of connection[ that fall under the yellow category of 'Love and Belonging' all require socialization. Socialization is a need in order to achieve esteem and self-actualization. Are you able to understand that? Maybe you should read research on how a lack of socialization can...
You’re entitled to feel that way, but I don’t need you to educate me and I don’t need to throw my degree around.
I understand socialization is necessary for a sense of love and belonging. I said socialization wasn’t a basic need and it would create problems if the government tried to ration our food as they have our ability to socialize in our preferred way. (This was a response to prior debate in the thread). “Socialization being illegal” during the pandemic was compared to people in solitary confinement... they are far different. We still have the ability to socialize, maybe not in the way we prefer.7 -
I know you claim to be a mental health professional but you lost all credibility and I'm embarrassed for you. My Bachelor's Degree is in psychology. Let me educate you! All aspects under the color yellow titled Love and Belonging fall under socialization, every single one. Not seeing the actual word 'socialization' must have confused you tremendously. Friendship,intimacy, family, sense of connection[ that fall under the yellow category of 'Love and Belonging' all require socialization. Socialization is a need in order to achieve esteem and self-actualization. Are you able to understand that? Maybe you should read research on how a lack of socialization can...
You’re entitled to feel that way, but I don’t need you to educate me and I don’t need to throw my degree around.
I understand socialization is necessary for a sense of love and belonging. I said socialization wasn’t a basic need and it would create problems if the government tried to ration our food as they have our ability to socialize in our preferred way. (This was a response to prior debate in the thread). “Socialization being illegal” during the pandemic was compared to people in solitary confinement... they are far different. We still have the ability to socialize, maybe not in the way we prefer.
Yes, my brother, who is mentally ill, has been in true solitary confinement.
What we are experiencing during the pandemic is not at all the same.9 -
It’s funny to me, having been homeschooled, to hear so many people downplaying limited socialization. We got SO many comments and lectures on how we were being and would be permanently socially damaged, unable to find good jobs or have healthy relationships, none of which actually became true. It’s a silver lining, at least, to hear the opposite tune being sung by society now, or that different kinds or levels of socialization may not end in complete social dysfunction.8
-
I thought of this thread when this article came across my feed on Google. I hope the poster, SiberianT, does not return. She wasn’t cool.
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/amp/ncna1255408
8 -
L1zardQueen wrote: »I thought of this thread when this article came across my feed on Google. I hope the poster, SiberianT, does not return. She wasn’t cool.
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/amp/ncna1255408
Thanks for sharing this article! Found it interesting, and so fitting for the recent topic in this thread.
I was just given a (possible) opportunity to get vaccinated (military) and declined since I feel like the roll out has been a bit butchered. I know part of this is due to demand. But knowing my 70+ y/o MIL has been really looking forward to getting vaccinated but hasn’t been given the opportunity, (she was going to look further into this), it didn’t feel right to take a really valuable vaccine when there’s people who would have greater benefit at this time. At 31, no serious health conditions, overall “healthy” weight, unemployed, and no serious “high risk” factors... I felt there were others out there that could really benefit from it right now, and I could wait a bit longer until it becomes a bit more accessible. I’m all for a “fat person” having my dose! Lol
ETA: I agree with your second statement as well...2 -
L1zardQueen wrote: »I thought of this thread when this article came across my feed on Google. I hope the poster, SiberianT, does not return. She wasn’t cool.
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/amp/ncna1255408
Even though I didn't agree with them, I guess she has the same right to her opinions as anyone else. 🤷♀️
I do agree with keeping the obesity factor in the prioritization as a potential co-morbidity. It is one, and I don't think of it as shameful/blameful. Emphysema is still a potential co-morbidity, for example, even if some individuals probably got it from smoking (or at least materially increased their risk of emphysema that way). Heck, I have a potential co-morbidity (that I didn't report when putting myself in the vaccine queue BTW): I have early COPD. Probably I wouldn't have it if I had nobly decided not to live most of my life with people who were smokers. (They're both dead. One - husband - died of something that quite possibly was at least exacerbated, if not caused, by smoking.)
That said, I feel like the article you linked goes a little far itself in some spots, and I say that as someone who was obese for 30 years or so myself, and who agrees with the points about poverty, trauma, etc., as issues related to obesity in a societal sense.
For example, the article says "It’s not at all clear that being clinically obese correlates with poor health". I think there are pretty strong correlations between obesity and worrisome health conditions, if not a tightly proven case that obesity is a cause. Even in cases where someone has good health markers at the moment, it can be that the consequences of excess weight haven't come home to roost, yet. In reality, the fact that obese people are more likely to die of Covid (or more likely to need to be put on a ventilator, even if surviving) is itself a health consequence of obesity. The correlation of obesity with various dangerous health conditions is a statistical thing, not "proof" . . . but likewise so is the correlation of obesity with worse Covid outcomes. IMO, the writer is making asymmetric arguments here.
And someone who (unironically?) types " . . .some of us live comfortably, donning Lululemon yoga pants and sipping our celery juice after a safe run through our neighborhood . . ." while essentially saying we shouldn't be stereotyping or shaming people? Hmm.6 -
My point was from that of compassion.6
-
L1zardQueen wrote: »I thought of this thread when this article came across my feed on Google. I hope the poster, SiberianT, does not return. She wasn’t cool.
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/amp/ncna1255408
That sounds like a dangerous position to take because you disagree with someone.4 -
L1zardQueen wrote: »My point was from that of compassion.
I understand. The focus on scapegoating fat people for everything bad that is now going on was disturbing.9 -
L1zardQueen wrote: »My point was from that of compassion.
I don't disagree with that at all, in fact I do agree. It's unreasonable and inappropriate to blame fat people for the pandemic, or for the restrictions.
I just disagree with with some of the perspectives in the linked article, despite agreeing with its core point (as I read it) that it's appropriate for obese people to be at a higher priority for vaccinations than otherwise similar people who are not obese.
4 -
It was a crappy article and it was click bait. I thought it would be about compassion but as I read along, it wasn’t that at all.8
-
It depends on culture as well...many cultures define extra weight as a symbol of wealth etc...and some cultures like Japan have rules about being under a certain weight especially in a corporate world. Airplanes used to have much bigger seats in the past though
, nowadays its just about making more money with more passengers so even people at a healthy weight find it uncomfortable with such little space in an airplane seat. When I see someone obese or overweight ( I am very overweight myself ) I just think, that they know how big they are , and that they are probably wanting to do something about it...and either don't have the motivation or are in an unhealthy environment at home or mentally. For me it was circumstantial depression, so I needed to pull myself out of it somehow, but with no one supportive around me I came to MFP! This whole community , if it was a city or a country, would have such mentally and physically supportive and healthy citizens! 6 -
I mean, I don't pay as much attention as I used to, but I don't see many (if any) magazines putting 350lb women on the cover, certainly not health or fashion related publications. Most "plus-size" models are just in the overweight range, and it's rare to see them on the cover of anything, except as a token "here, don't tell us we don't represent real women anymore, okay?" one off. There have been one or two actresses I can remember off the top of my head that did a lot of publicity at one point with the requisite admiration for their beauty, but no one holding them up as examples of good health.
ETA: One of the reasons Ashley Graham gets so much media attention and controversy is because she is unique. Her weight is always being praised/criticized/argued about, and I'm not even sure if she is technically obese or not.
I think they mean a Tess Holiday with those stats. It would make sense I remember for a short time a while ago she was on magazine covers and tv adds but she is definitely a good example of the body positivity gone too far.3
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 396.2K Introduce Yourself
- 44.1K Getting Started
- 260.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.3K Food and Nutrition
- 47.6K Recipes
- 232.8K Fitness and Exercise
- 448 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.3K Motivation and Support
- 8.2K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 4.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 18 MyFitnessPal Academy
- 1.4K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions