A serious discussion about BDSM and weight

[Homburg]

Originally Posted by ownedsubgal
you keep calling yourself fat, but it's clear you're very active and fit. i can't see you getting winded weilding a flogger for instance...lol. the awareness you have of health and diet, and the self-discipline it takes to dedicate yourself to a fitness regimen like power lifting, are reflective of your dominance, even if your weight doesn't fall within what dated medical standards says it shoudld.

so, you would not fall under the category of seriously overweight and out-of-shape lifestylers, imho.

I didn't see this before. I don't tend to get winded with floggers, no. I have gotten sweaty, increased heart rate, and breathing a bit heavily from doing flogger florentine in an aggressive manner. Mostly though my wrist get tired =P

I have fucked until I was out of breath though. It tends to take more a bit of coitus for that to happen. Much of my lifting is hip-centric. It helps.

----

I have to say that this has been my impression as well. I believe there is a big difference between someone who is fit and large, and someone who is totally out of shape. I gave my friend as an example earlier in the thread. She's 200+ pounds, 5'3" and rides her bike 14 miles a day, 4 days a week on average. Hills, not flat road - she lives in the mountains. Can't lost weight. If I had to ride a bike a mile, I'd probably collapse. I'm in good enough shape to do some hiking, swimming, etc., but biking? Nope.

And if Etoile thinks you look like a linebacker, frankly, that's right up my personal preference alley.

Heh

14 miles on hills is some serious business. My long ride is about 5 miles, and only part of it is hilly. I'd sure look better if I did that four days a week though.

 

[YourCaptor]

I have to say that this has been my impression as well. I believe there is a big difference between someone who is fit and large, and someone who is totally out of shape. I gave my friend as an example earlier in the thread. She's 200+ pounds, 5'3" and rides her bike 14 miles a day, 4 days a week on average. Hills, not flat road - she lives in the mountains. Can't lost weight. If I had to ride a bike a mile, I'd probably collapse. I'm in good enough shape to do some hiking, swimming, etc., but biking? Nope.

And if Etoile thinks you look like a linebacker, frankly, that's right up my personal preference alley.

You know this is actually the best way to lose weight for a lot of people.

Simple endurance, lots of slow twitch muscle work, and that reserve energy gets taped.

It takes forever but you only lift about 50% of your max. So its like jogging for 2 hours or so.


PS. has your friend tried flat ground, that would probably work better.

 

[BeachGurl2]

PS. has your friend tried flat ground, that would probably work better.

She actually bikes to work, so she doesn't have a lot of options to choose from. She does this year round, so also does it in the snow in winter. She's having some medical tests done because her doc thinks she may have some hormonal stuff going on - she's in her early 50s.

 

[YourCaptor]

She actually bikes to work, so she doesn't have a lot of options to choose from. She does this year round, so also does it in the snow in winter. She's having some medical tests done because her doc thinks she may have some hormonal stuff going on - she's in her early 50s.

Hope shes ok.

To clarify.

Hills, or slopes or anything like that are counter intuitive when doing this kind of work out. They force you to work hard getting up that hill, so you use different muscle fibers which draw most of there energy form air.

So if you only go up and down, you're taping the wrong resource.

Swimming is great for loosing weight, I think Phelps when through about 120,000 calories a day.

Marathons do it too, that kind of stuff.

 

[VelvetDarkness]

I don't know what you edited, but just cause we don't agree and what you said irritated me (and probably what I said irritated you), doesn't mean I don't like you. I'd hope we're both mature enough to agree to disagree. What's said in this thread stays in this thread and all that. Well, unless you flat out call me a fat bitch, but even then I'd just put you on iggy.

I know. At the time, I saw what you said as bitchy and a personal attack rather than a discussion. I was grouchy, hung over and in need of coffee. It's very rare that I edit out posts but in this case, it was for the best and I'm certain I caused less offence by editing than I would have by letting things stand. Homburg was thankfully gracious enough not to quote the whole thing. I don't have any bad feeling towards anybody here. I guess I just got cross because I've sparred with Netz along this thread and she's very good with posts that basically say "Wood? I don't see any wood. All I see are all these trees." I guess that's her prerogative but it irked me this morning and I got itchy typing fingers.

My apologies.

 

[VelvetDarkness]

I know I've said this exact thing before. A thread's debate is just that, a thread's debate. Doesn't reflect how I feel about a person. And actually, I'd be mighty annoyed if someone called me a fat bitch, but I'd get over it in like three hours. (ADHD has its benefits!) Mostly I just love everybodyyyyyy!

ETA: Except that Princess person. She can fuck a duck.

*double checks username*

Phew.

 

[VelvetDarkness]

you keep calling yourself fat, but it's clear you're very active and fit. i can't see you getting winded weilding a flogger for instance...lol. the awareness you have of health and diet, and the self-discipline it takes to dedicate yourself to a fitness regimen like power lifting, are reflective of your dominance, even if your weight doesn't fall within what dated medical standards says it shoudld.

so, you would not fall under the category of seriously overweight and out-of-shape lifestylers, imho.

Like others, I would agree with this. Big does not equal unfit just as skinny does not equal healthy.

This is the trouble my guy is having right now because he used to be a big heavy guy with a lot of muscle and now he's been ill, he's a big fat guy with almost no muscle tone who finds exercise very challenging. He's also been depressed, which is a big factor.

Linebackers are my kinds nasty though, you should watch a little Rugby sometime.

 

[BeachGurl2]

Linebackers are my kinds nasty though, you should watch a little Rugby sometime.

Oh, yes. My favorite spectator sport. Actually, it's how I met my ex-husband. Rugby has its own little cult following in the US, since it's not a big sport over here.

 

[Homburg]

Flat ground vs hills:

Hill riding is essentially interval work, as you work like mad to get up the hills, and then have a much easier time getting down them. Interval work is generally better for metabolism, as it allows moments of far greater intensity. Intensity tends to bump up metabolic rate, and does so for a period of time after the effort has ended. This boost to continuing metabolic rate translate to good things vis a vis body composition.

Flat ground riding (assuming a steady pace) is steady state effort. It's certainly better than nothing, but less intense effort only results in metabolic shift during the effort. afterwards you return to normal fairly quickly.

Interestingly, while someone used to doing a lot of hill-climbing will do just fine on the (much easier) steady state flat ground riding, a pure flat ground rider will have a bear of a time working hills. If you've ever watched the Tour de France, you know how crucial climbing is, and how difficult it is compared to flat ground.

To get a pretty blatant example of the metabolic differences between intense interval work and steady state, compare how most sprinters look to how marathoners look.

Joan Benoit, winner of the 84 olympic women's marathon

Flo-Jo. Dayum.

Joan Benoit may be in good shape, but she's got nothing on Florence Griffith-Joyner. The men are the same way, and I'd much rather be in the sort of shape Shawn Crawford is in than Wanjiru of Kenya.

 

[BeachGurl2]

I've been thinking about some of the posts on this thread - dangerous business, me thinking - and have even more thoughts to add. It will be interesting to see the direction this takes, if anyone is still interested in the topic now that I'm changing it a bit.

Vices. We all have them. The things that get us through the rough patches. The things that have become so second nature we just do them blindly. I have a friend who when the going gets tough buys a half gallon of rocky road and stands at her kitchen window eating it out of the carton with a big spoon until it's gone. And she feels better when it's done. She hasn't solved anything, but she feels less stressed. She's not more than 10 pounds overweight, it's not a regular thing, so does that make it healthy versus the person who eats a half gallon of rocky road every single day and is 60 pounds overweight? Where's the line?

There are as many vices as there are people, probably. Food, alcohol, drugs, tobacco, exercise, sex, gaming, mindless activities that allow for escape, etc. I'm sure others can come up with many, many more. The question is, when is it an UNHEALTHY (I'm talking both physical and mental health here) vice versus just a way to let off steam? Exercise is good for you, right? My ex was obsessed with it, though. He came home from work every single day and went straight to the basement to ride the $700 computerized bike for 2 hours, then did another hour on the Bowflex. On the weekends, his workout time ranged from the standard 3 hours to as much as 7 hours. The other weekend time was spent in front the of TV watching sports, smoking cigars, drinking beer, eating junk food, and reading. He didn't really interact with the rest of the family, for the most part. I would imagine that his routine has varied little in the 5+ years since I left. The only difference is that we aren't there for him to yell at.

There are many who believe that pot isn't really a drug and shouldn't be categorized as such. I'm not one of those people, but I have a lot of friends who believe so. When does the use of that become a problem? Or unhealthy? I have friends who are very anti-tobacco, but smoke a joint everyday. Is any use unhealthy? What about other drugs? Where's the line between healthy and unhealthy use of drugs?

What about alcohol? I like a glass of wine or a margarita on occasion, I've even been known to drink entirely too much at parties and such. But I may often go a month or more between drinks. Alcohol used to hold big appeal for me, but really doesn't anymore. At what point is it unhealthy? When does it become alcohol abuse? I'm tipsy after 2 glasses of wine. Does that make 3 the limit for me between healthy and unhealthy?

And then there's tobacco - the big no-no in today's society. I started smoking at 16 when I went on my first trip to Europe. The Lido in Paris. Drinking champagne for the first time. And the really cool cigarette girl wandering through with her tray. Smoking helped my eating disorder - the more I smoked the less I ate. So I kept on smoking even after the trip. I've quit successfully twice for over a year each time. And then a hugely stressful event happens and I'm back at it. I now smoke about 1/2 a pack a day, on average. I don't smoke in my home, only smoke in my car if I'm alone and the windows are down, don't stay in smoking hotel rooms or sit in smoking sections in restaurants, and rarely smoke around any non-smokers. My friends call me a smoking non-smoker. So there are days I only smoke a handful and others when I may smoke a little more than 1/2 a pack. But on average it's about 1/2 a pack. And it's only when I have nothing to do. If I'm busy, I don't even think about. Driving to and from work on my commute, sitting at home reading, etc. I could probably quit completely again with only the 3-4 days of withdrawal being a problem. But between a messy continuing court battle with my ex over custody/money and my dad's cancer, I've let myself off the hook a little longer.

There are some here who would say that since I smoke, I have no right to say anything about anyone else's vice. I beg to differ. I think we all have the right, on some level. And I know that my admission will bring on some flames. Again, it's normal to think that way. So I don't blame anyone for that. But at the same time, I'd venture to guess that every single person here has at least one vice that is, on some levels, unhealthy.

At what point does the vice we have become either an obsession or just plain unhealthy? There has to be a point. And that point isn't a moving line, I don't think.

I think it was Velvet who brought up a good point earlier in this thread about how in the past, we watched out for each other but now everyone has the mentality that it's no one's business what they do. When I was a kid, I was 'parented' by all the adults in my life, not just by my parents. It was okay for another adult to call me on my bad behavior. And my mom didn't get all up in arms when someone did. She thanked them. If I got into trouble at school for talking in class or otherwise being a bitchy teenager, my mom didn't march down to the school to take the principal to task, she grounded me at home, too. If I see a friend sliding down the slippery slope of destructive behavior, what kind of friend would I be to just step back and let her slide on down? But that's the way the world is moving. It's not my business what anyone else does. We've become so me-centric in our thinking that I can do anything I want to do. Hell, people who break into someone's home to rob them can now sue the homeowner if they get hurt in the commission of the robbery. What kind of sense does that make? It doesn't. But that's the mentality that we've come to.

So I picked one thing that I've noticed growing significantly worse in society as the topic of this thread. But each of the things I've mentioned above are equally harmful at some point. There are some that would say some of these are harmful always. I'm partially on board with that, depending on the vice. I don't think any recreational drug use is good. And smoking is probably not good ever. So what about the rest? And what about other vices I haven't named?

 

[Netzach]

First of all it doesn't take a gallon of Rocky Road for most people to become 60 pounds overweight. It takes eating Rocky Road the way a half pack smoker smokes. It's not this dramatic and insane disregard for any and all things, it's the moment to moment decisions getting out from under you each day. Yes, I can quit and then after 3-4 days, I want some sugar again, bounce, back comes those same 2 pounds.

The supposition that to become 50 or 60 pounds overweight you have to be deliberately gorging every day on completely insane food - it's not accurate. For a period or two at a time some people say "oh shit" and they "quit." Some stay that way, most will go on and off.

Personally I think alcohol is a problem when it affects your relationships negatively, affects your job negatively, burns out your liver, or you decide to go for a drive.

I think pot is a problem when it's your primary recreation, kills all ambition except to smoke weed, and/or you decide to go for a drive.

Smoking is pretty much everyone's problem around you. I grew up with smokers and I've never been interested in it. It can't be that cool if my mother does it. They were SO MYSTIFIED as to why I was basically a walking ENT infection as a kid. *eyeroll*

The point is, most people on a roll are merely critical because the other person is picking a different poison.

 

[BeachGurl2]

First of all it doesn't take a gallon of Rocky Road for most people to become 60 pounds overweight. It takes eating Rocky Road the way a half pack smoker smokes. It's not this dramatic and insane disregard for any and all things, it's the moment to moment decisions getting out from under you each day. Yes, I can quit and then after 3-4 days, I want some sugar again, bounce, back comes those same 2 pounds.

The supposition that to become 50 or 60 pounds overweight you have to be deliberately gorging every day on completely insane food - it's not accurate. For a period or two at a time some people say "oh shit" and they "quit." Some stay that way, most will go on and off.

That wasn't what I was saying, actually. I was talking about where we draw the line on the vice. Something like what seri said earlier in the thread. She was treating herself to an ice cream after having lost a bunch of weight and people made fun of her without knowing that she had lost a bunch of weight and so was treating herself, they may have behaved differently had they known. So the question I was posing was, does the view of the vice make a difference when that is the situation - my friend gorging versus someone who is overweight gorging? I think our personal view of it is that when we see someone doing something we disagree with or find negative, we make assumptions based on a number of things, many of them on physical appearance alone.

Personally I think alcohol is a problem when it affects your relationships negatively, affects your job negatively, burns out your liver, or you decide to go for a drive.

I think pot is a problem when it's your primary recreation, kills all ambition except to smoke weed, and/or you decide to go for a drive.

Smoking is pretty much everyone's problem around you. I grew up with smokers and I've never been interested in it. It can't be that cool if my mother does it. They were SO MYSTIFIED as to why I was basically a walking ENT infection as a kid. *eyeroll*

The point is, most people on a roll are merely critical because the other person is picking a different poison.

My parents smoked inside the house and car with the windows rolled up. And my mom was a 3-packs-a-day smoker. When I did have kids and still smoked, I decided that it wasn't my place to turn them into smokers. So I've always smoked outside and not around them. But I also don't smoke around other non-smokers, either.

I'm not sure I get your meaning in the statement I bolded.

 

[Homburg]

The point is, most people on a roll are merely critical because the other person is picking a different poison.

I'm not sure I get your meaning in the statement I bolded.

Not to speak for Netz, but I will offer an example from this board. Ever wandered into the poly threads? Heated discussion almost always, and it is usually because someone just finds the whole idea to be wrong. You can interchange bestiality, poo play, etc for poly here. The bottom line is that it is a kink that is not universal, nor even mainstream BDSM, and people will be critical. Does it make sense for someone who likes to be dressed in diapers and calls his wife "mummy" to be critical of someone that plays brown? Not overly, but it happens.

 

[Etoile]

Not to speak for Netz, but I will offer an example from this board. Ever wandered into the poly threads? Heated discussion almost always, and it is usually because someone just finds the whole idea to be wrong. You can interchange bestiality, poo play, etc for poly here. The bottom line is that it is a kink that is not universal, nor even mainstream BDSM, and people will be critical. Does it make sense for someone who likes to be dressed in diapers and calls his wife "mummy" to be critical of someone that plays brown? Not overly, but it happens.

I'm not 100% sure the bestality thing fits into your scenario, Homs - that is never okay IMHO because it involves a party unable to provide consent. I am a strong believer in YKIOK but if your kink involves non-consenting parties (strangers, animals, retarded adults, children) then that ain't okay.

 

[Etoile]

Oh, and I'm totally not going to lose weight this week. I had a ton of drinks last night, a piece of pizza to keep from getting sick, and pancakes this morning. No idea how many points that all was. So I go a week without losing, oh well. Thanks to those of you who like my ticker!

 

[BiBunny]

I'm full of vices. I admit it. Of the Seven Deadly Sins, I engage in four of them regularly (gluttony, sloth, lust, and greed, though in my case, it's more like "conspicuous consumption" than actual greed) and the other three occasionally.

One thing I'm not known for is my impulse control. If I want something, it consumes my ENTIRE being until I have it. Usually, it's not that I want to eat a gallon of ice cream in one sitting. It's more like I decide I want a grilled cheese one day, some cashews the next day, and turkey and dressing the next. If you have the metabolism of a polar bear like I do, that shit sneaks up on you quickly.

Lack of impulse control is often considered to be a horrible thing, a moral failing if you will. But if you're able to channel it into things that society thinks are Good To Have, then you're considered Ambitious.

I've always been rewarded for my Ambition, since I want Good and Bad things pretty much equally. No self-respecting parent in his/her right mind is going to tell a child to slow the hell down when she says, "I'm going to make all As this semester, no matter what!" My insatiable desire for college degrees, for example, is a good illustration of me wanting something so badly that it consumes my entire being until I have it. I'm working on my second degree and planning on going for a third one. My desire for a high-paying job is another example. People who are ambitious like that are rewarded in society, generally.

Then, on the other hand, when I want Bad things, like unhealthy food, lots of casual sex, fast cars that I can drive wide-ass open on back country roads, powerful horses that do awe-inspiring things, alcohol, twelve-hour naps, visits to casinos, or just purely throwing money away like it's going out of style (all things I'm guilty of at least occasionally), then I'm immoral and lazy. It's a double-edged sword, really.

These Bad things are all rewards in their own way, though. I'm inclined to believe that Netz is right about the endorphin centers in the brain. Geez, if y'all think me being fat is bad, you oughta see me on a heavy maso kick.

 

[Homburg]

I'm not 100% sure the bestality thing fits into your scenario, Homs - that is never okay IMHO because it involves a party unable to provide consent. I am a strong believer in YKIOK but if your kink involves non-consenting parties (strangers, animals, retarded adults, children) then that ain't okay.

Case in point. I was listing thread topics that caused heated discussion because it is not everyone's kink. Even listing pooch-popping elicits comment.



to Etoile.

 

[Netzach]

That wasn't what I was saying, actually. I was talking about where we draw the line on the vice. Something like what seri said earlier in the thread. She was treating herself to an ice cream after having lost a bunch of weight and people made fun of her without knowing that she had lost a bunch of weight and so was treating herself, they may have behaved differently had they known. So the question I was posing was, does the view of the vice make a difference when that is the situation - my friend gorging versus someone who is overweight gorging? I think our personal view of it is that when we see someone doing something we disagree with or find negative, we make assumptions based on a number of things, many of them on physical appearance alone.



My parents smoked inside the house and car with the windows rolled up. And my mom was a 3-packs-a-day smoker. When I did have kids and still smoked, I decided that it wasn't my place to turn them into smokers. So I've always smoked outside and not around them. But I also don't smoke around other non-smokers, either.

I'm not sure I get your meaning in the statement I bolded.

I mean what I mean. I was just talking to M about smoking, and cutting down from his now pack-a-day and he was saying how he smokes more in the car running errands and in my mind I'm like "so just don't do it!"

It's not my poison of choice. I don't understand it. This is why cessation groups consist of smokers, not "people who don't smoke and think you should stop!"

 

[BeachGurl2]

Not to speak for Netz, but I will offer an example from this board. Ever wandered into the poly threads? Heated discussion almost always, and it is usually because someone just finds the whole idea to be wrong. You can interchange bestiality, poo play, etc for poly here. The bottom line is that it is a kink that is not universal, nor even mainstream BDSM, and people will be critical. Does it make sense for someone who likes to be dressed in diapers and calls his wife "mummy" to be critical of someone that plays brown? Not overly, but it happens.

Makes sense. The statement itself went totally over my head so I had no clue what direction she even intended it to go.

And I'm with Etoile on the bestiality thing - they can't consent so that takes it off the table in my opinion as well.

 

[BeachGurl2]

I mean what I mean.

I just meant that the statement went totally over my head and I didn't even get what the statement pertained to. If it's what Homburg mentioned, it's all good. Makes sense now.

 

[JMohegan]

I think it was Velvet who brought up a good point earlier in this thread about how in the past, we watched out for each other but now everyone has the mentality that it's no one's business what they do. When I was a kid, I was 'parented' by all the adults in my life, not just by my parents. It was okay for another adult to call me on my bad behavior. And my mom didn't get all up in arms when someone did. She thanked them. If I got into trouble at school for talking in class or otherwise being a bitchy teenager, my mom didn't march down to the school to take the principal to task, she grounded me at home, too. If I see a friend sliding down the slippery slope of destructive behavior, what kind of friend would I be to just step back and let her slide on down? But that's the way the world is moving. It's not my business what anyone else does. We've become so me-centric in our thinking that I can do anything I want to do. Hell, people who break into someone's home to rob them can now sue the homeowner if they get hurt in the commission of the robbery. What kind of sense does that make? It doesn't. But that's the mentality that we've come to.

My response to Velvet is my response to you.

In 1965, 41.5% of American adults were cigarette smokers. That rate fell steadily to 21.5% in 2003. Source. How did this happen?

People who were alarmed about the health effects of this "vice" fought for the Surgeon General's warning, and education programs in the public schools, and public awareness advertising, and the regulation of tobacco advertising, and the successful suit of tobacco companies, and a ban on smoking in restaurants, office buildings, public places, and so on.

Some of these people were well paid for their efforts, and some had motives that were purely self-serving. But the overwhelming majority of people who gave hours, weeks, months, years of their lives to this often frustrating and hard-fought effort were motivated by a desire to improve the health of those around them. The very opposite of the "me-centric" thinking that you decry.

 

[intothewoods]

The thing is, there are very few, if any, drinking in the bdsm scene threads, but there are all sorts of people who put varying degrees of unhealthy stuff in their bodies in the scene, and outside of the scene, of course.

If we attract more seriously obese people than, uh, not, I guess, I think it's just because we attract societal outcasts of all sorts (as someone else already said).

At any rate, I think this all boils down to, so, you don't find fat guys or chicks attractive. Okay. No one says you have to fuck them.

 

[BeachGurl2]

I'm inclined to believe that Netz is right about the endorphin centers in the brain. Geez, if y'all think me being fat is bad, you oughta see me on a heavy maso kick.

I agree that this theory has something to it.

If I had unlimited funds, I'd be a perpetual college student, but not to amass degrees. I'd just take every course on campus that interested me because I have an insatiable curiousity. My head is full of trivial stuff that no one cares about just because I have this weird memory and see things in patterns.

I spent a long time in my 20s collecting shoes. A huge weakness. I would go without food if I found a great pair of shoes. But my ex-husband cured me of that when he forced me to give all but 10 pair away after we got married. I was never allowed to have more than 10 pair at a time after that. If I wanted to buy a new pair, I had to get rid of a pair first. So I started wearing Birkenstocks and Tevas in the summer and Keds in the winter. Plus I had a pair of hiking boots and one pair of black pumps for dress up days. No point in obsessing over things I couldn't have, huh?

Point? Yes, I have one. It's interesting how external forces can enable your vices or disable them. I stopped expressing interest in much of anything while I was married because as soon as I expressed an interest in it, there were forces at work to keep me from having it. If you have no expectations, you can't be disappointed, right?

 

[fishercat]

The point is, most people on a roll are merely critical because the other person is picking a different poison.

That wasn't what I was saying, actually. I was talking about where we draw the line on the vice. Something like what seri said earlier in the thread. She was treating herself to an ice cream after having lost a bunch of weight and people made fun of her without knowing that she had lost a bunch of weight and so was treating herself, they may have behaved differently had they known. So the question I was posing was, does the view of the vice make a difference when that is the situation - my friend gorging versus someone who is overweight gorging? I think our personal view of it is that when we see someone doing something we disagree with or find negative, we make assumptions based on a number of things, many of them on physical appearance alone.

Taking my cue from both of the above, I'd like to bring in another thought. I was reading both of your posts, and BBs, and thinking of an earlier one, and somehow I was reminded of a passage from C.S. Lewis that I read eons ago.

Often those who are the most "concerned" or "judgmental" (depending on your perspective) are not those who practice a different vice, but the opposite side of the same vice.

Gluttony is defined only as an excess, usually of eating, and the same can be said of sloth, lust, etc. But those who practice an excess of denial could be considered to be equally in the grip of vice. Is the person who allows food, the type, amount and quality eaten, to consume them really any less in the grip of gluttony, only the opposite side of it? Is the person who exercises hours every day really different than the person who is a couch potato?

Neither person is living a balanced life in regards to their particular issue, and often their devotion or enslavement to it has a profound affect on their life and the lives of their families and friends.

I think that often, the person on one side of the coin is often the person who is the most vocally critical of people on the opposite side.

 

[BeachGurl2]

My response to Velvet is my response to you.

In 1965, 41.5% of American adults were cigarette smokers. That rate fell steadily to 21.5% in 2003. Source. How did this happen?

People who were alarmed about the health effects of this "vice" fought for the Surgeon General's warning, and education programs in the public schools, and public awareness advertising, and the regulation of tobacco advertising, and the successful suit of tobacco companies, and a ban on smoking in restaurants, office buildings, public places, and so on.

Some of these people were well paid for their efforts, and some had motives that were purely self-serving. But the overwhelming majority of people who gave hours, weeks, months, years of their lives to this often frustrating and hard-fought effort were motivated by a desire to improve the health of those around them. The very opposite of the "me-centric" thinking that you decry.

While this one effort may be an example against my point, it's only one example, JM. And while I could argue statistics on both sides of the fight, it would be silly to. Just as it's silly to argue whether the fast food industry needs the same sort of efforts against it. Or alcohol. Or other 'vices'. All of the above are harmful to society as a whole.

I never tried to say that my choice in smoking wasn't equally bad. That was, in fact, the point of my posting it. I had chosen one thing that I noticed as becoming an issue in today's society and my questions about it were directly in regards to BDSM. Obviously the other vices listed don't really have much to do with BDSM outside of how they may affect specific people.

Throughout the thread, people have said it's no one's business the choices they may in regards to their health. That was what my comment referred to. People get up in arms about a cause as long as the cause isn't something that messes with their own choices. When it's something that touches on their choices, then people better back off. Thus, the use of my made-up word 'me-centric'. So what's it going to take to change the trend toward obesity? Especially since we can't talk about it in mixed company?