tales from the dark site - It's a Matter of Time Now...

Home

You are viewing the community

sgirls
Log in Create a LiveJournal Account Learn more

Explore LJ: Life Entertainment Music Culture News & Politics Technology

Previous Entry | Next Entry

It's a Matter of Time Now...

Nov. 17th, 2003 at 12:30 PM

A thread about Curvy SGs (or the lack thereof) + a fat positive feminist= I'm sure I'll be booted by this afternoon.

okay, while the fatphobia on this thread is making me a little sick, some of the fat-positivity on this board is rather nice. I've had the "YES THERE ARE PLUS-SIZED SGs!" argument one too many times with people. As beautiful as all the SGs are, the only one who even looks like she's close to my size is Holly. She absolutely gorgeous, and she's the first girl's set that made me sit up and go "WOW! I could probably wear her clothes!"

And the fucked-up part is, I'm about a size 10 or 12.

There are no fat SGs. There just aren't. A lot of girls are curvy. A couple of girls have a few smidgens of chub here and there, but there are not girls on the site that could truly and without-a-doubt be fat.

And that sucks.

I know a lot of gorgeous fat girls who have applied to this site with good photography, and then as soon as SG sees the rest of their body (in their photo sets) they get rejected. That's fucking bullshit.

The fatphobia by which this site chooses its models sucks.

Period. End of story.

I will probably get the royal boot for saying this, but I don't fucking care. SOMEBODY needed to say it goddammit.

Mood: angry
Music:Tegan and Sara- Divided

Comments

( Leave a comment )

xaoswolf wrote:

Nov. 17th, 2003 06:40 pm (UTC)

No, it's just that nobody that matters wants to look at fatties naked.

Link | Reply | Thread

dykestar wrote:

Nov. 17th, 2003 06:47 pm (UTC)

you're a fucking asshole. you're the reason that girls get creeped out by the people who watch porn.

Link | Reply | Parent | Thread

(no subject) -

xaoswolf - Nov. 17th, 2003 07:11 pm (UTC)

(no subject) -

dykestar - Nov. 17th, 2003 07:37 pm (UTC)

(no subject) -

xaoswolf - Nov. 17th, 2003 07:55 pm (UTC)

(no subject) -

dykestar - Nov. 17th, 2003 08:10 pm (UTC)

(no subject) -

xaoswolf - Nov. 17th, 2003 08:16 pm (UTC)

(no subject) -

dykestar - Nov. 17th, 2003 08:19 pm (UTC)

lisadarling wrote:

Nov. 17th, 2003 07:32 pm (UTC)

nobody that matters

you sure do have a way with words.
I guess that according to your standards, I don't matter then.

Link | Reply | Parent | Thread

(no subject) -

dykestar - Nov. 17th, 2003 07:45 pm (UTC)

(no subject) -

xaoswolf - Nov. 17th, 2003 07:57 pm (UTC)

(no subject) -

lisadarling - Nov. 17th, 2003 09:11 pm (UTC)

(no subject) -

xaoswolf - Nov. 17th, 2003 09:28 pm (UTC)

(no subject) -

dykestar - Nov. 18th, 2003 12:16 am (UTC)

(no subject) -

nullcherri - Nov. 18th, 2003 12:26 am (UTC)

(no subject) -

dykestar - Nov. 18th, 2003 12:46 am (UTC)

(no subject) -

nullcherri - Nov. 18th, 2003 12:50 am (UTC)

(no subject) -

zizek - Nov. 18th, 2003 05:25 am (UTC)

(no subject) -

nullcherri - Nov. 18th, 2003 06:51 am (UTC)

(no subject) -

dykestar - Nov. 18th, 2003 08:47 am (UTC)

(no subject) -

nullcherri - Nov. 18th, 2003 09:49 am (UTC)

(no subject) -

xaoswolf - Nov. 18th, 2003 07:30 pm (UTC)

(no subject) -

nullcherri - Nov. 18th, 2003 11:04 pm (UTC)

(no subject) -

dykestar - Nov. 19th, 2003 12:06 am (UTC)

(no subject) -

nullcherri - Nov. 19th, 2003 12:33 am (UTC)

(no subject) -

dykestar - Nov. 19th, 2003 07:16 am (UTC)

(no subject) -

nullcherri - Nov. 19th, 2003 09:06 am (UTC)

(no subject) -

xaoswolf - Nov. 18th, 2003 12:44 am (UTC)

therealduckie wrote:

Nov. 17th, 2003 06:44 pm (UTC)

I'm all for Rubenesque women getting a fair shake.

And yes, some veluptious women are not respected nearly enough.

I even agree that there are beautiful women of of a large nature.

But, Fatphobia?

Do we REALLY need to invent another word for the issue?

and xaoswolf's comment is not the popular belief, but it is proof of the close mindedness...

Link | Reply | Thread

dykestar wrote:

Nov. 17th, 2003 06:46 pm (UTC)

fatphobia is a word that's exsisted in leftist, radical, and fat-positive spaces for many, many years now. Plug it into Amazon, I'm betting you'll find books.

If I were going to make up a word, I'd just tell you ;)

Link | Reply | Parent | Thread

(no subject) -

therealduckie - Nov. 17th, 2003 06:50 pm (UTC)

(no subject) -

dykestar - Nov. 17th, 2003 07:04 pm (UTC)

xaoswolf wrote:

Nov. 17th, 2003 07:16 pm (UTC)

and xaoswolf's comment is not the popular belief

Really?

Not the popular belief?

Then please explain why porn stars and strippers everywhere are mostly thin? And why aren't the minority of fat ones getting paid out the ass (no pun intended) and in a much higher demand? Could it be bacause only a few people want to look at them?

Link | Reply | Parent | Thread

(no subject) -

therealduckie - Nov. 17th, 2003 07:21 pm (UTC)

(no subject) -

dykestar - Nov. 17th, 2003 07:26 pm (UTC)

(no subject) -

xaoswolf - Nov. 17th, 2003 07:31 pm (UTC)

(no subject) -

therealduckie - Nov. 17th, 2003 07:34 pm (UTC)

(no subject) -

xaoswolf - Nov. 17th, 2003 07:55 pm (UTC)

(no subject) -

therealduckie - Nov. 17th, 2003 07:57 pm (UTC)

Line by line then? -

xaoswolf - Nov. 17th, 2003 08:06 pm (UTC)

Re: Line by line then? -

dykestar - Nov. 17th, 2003 08:22 pm (UTC)

Re: Line by line then? -

xaoswolf - Nov. 17th, 2003 08:24 pm (UTC)

Re: Line by line then? -

dykestar - Nov. 17th, 2003 08:29 pm (UTC)

Re: Line by line then? -

thegirlgotsoul - Nov. 17th, 2003 10:45 pm (UTC)

Re: Line by line then? -

xaoswolf - Nov. 17th, 2003 11:37 pm (UTC)

Re: Line by line then? -

thegirlgotsoul - Nov. 18th, 2003 12:10 am (UTC)

Re: Line by line then? -

sister_anne - Nov. 20th, 2003 07:27 am (UTC)

(no subject) -

nemesticide - Nov. 18th, 2003 07:48 am (UTC)

(no subject) -

dykestar - Nov. 18th, 2003 08:43 am (UTC)

(no subject) -

nemesticide - Nov. 19th, 2003 03:32 pm (UTC)

lisadarling wrote:

Nov. 17th, 2003 07:07 pm (UTC)

oh, I like Amina.

Link | Reply | Thread

lisadarling wrote:

Nov. 17th, 2003 07:18 pm (UTC)

...and, that site is starting to look like a cult where the same mantra is done over and over again.
only at SG could you get told off and kicked out for saying chocolate is nice, cause the cult's theme is vanilla is tasty.

when will some of the kids realize that a request is a request and not a bashing of what's already there. just because I think Amina is hotter than snot, doesn't necessarily mean I think Morgan is a stickfigure.

Link | Reply | Parent | Thread

(no subject) -

diamentia - Nov. 18th, 2003 11:14 pm (UTC)

xhelx wrote:

Nov. 17th, 2003 08:00 pm (UTC)

ok i just wanna say this... i may be in the archives but i was an sg for quite a while, and i'm on alot of other sites... and i am NOT thin... you say your about a ten or 12.. well i'm about a 13... so heres the deal... alot of bigger girls just don't apply because they think they're too big... and i've seen some very cute bigger girls apply, but their photo quality was crap or their sets were unoriginal... and the first thing they blame it on when they don't get accepted is.. oh, i'm too big... now i'm not one to stick up for sg... they fucked me over... BUT i'm a bigger girl... i weigh about 170, and i was an sg... and i'm continuing to be successful on plenty og other sites... ok i'm done

Link | Reply | Thread

dykestar wrote:

Nov. 17th, 2003 08:14 pm (UTC)

As far as the photosets go, I know that I used my size as an example, but really when I'm looking at photos I'm thinking about visible fat. I honestly had no idea you were a size 13. It totally rocks that you're cool with it and that you've had a lot of success. But what I'm saying is, I don't see many girls on the site who are visibly fat, to the point that nobody could mistake it. I also know, from firsthand experience because a good portion of them have ended up on sites with me, that there have been more than one or two bigger girls with really quality, cute photosets (that are of a higher techincal quality both in terms of lighting and clarity and in terms of artistic composition) that have been rejected from the site with no reason given when they ask.

I just wish things like that had more of an explanation and less of a defensive "WE ARE SO TOTALLY NOT SIZIST!" cover-up.

Link | Reply | Parent | Thread

(no subject) -

oneevlktty - Nov. 17th, 2003 08:34 pm (UTC)

(no subject) -

dykestar - Nov. 17th, 2003 09:18 pm (UTC)

(no subject) -

dykestar - Nov. 17th, 2003 09:18 pm (UTC)

pragmatix wrote:

Nov. 17th, 2003 11:55 pm (UTC)

HOLY HEL!
You totally don't look it.
I might have to re-evaluate. I would have guessed you were about a size 6.
Maybe there are more girls than I thought that are over 125 lbs.

Link | Reply | Parent | Thread

(no subject) -

xhelx - Nov. 18th, 2003 03:18 am (UTC)

(no subject) -

pragmatix - Nov. 18th, 2003 08:28 am (UTC)

(no subject) -

toreeena - Nov. 18th, 2003 07:38 am (UTC)

(no subject) -

pragmatix - Nov. 18th, 2003 08:28 am (UTC)

(no subject) -

toreeena - Nov. 18th, 2003 08:31 am (UTC)

(no subject) -

pragmatix - Nov. 18th, 2003 08:36 am (UTC)

(no subject) -

dykestar - Nov. 18th, 2003 09:01 am (UTC)

(no subject) -

dykestar - Nov. 18th, 2003 08:45 am (UTC)

(no subject) -

toreeena - Nov. 18th, 2003 08:52 am (UTC)

veryacidic wrote:

Nov. 18th, 2003 07:16 am (UTC)

Since when is size 13 considered "big??"

Seriously, the average size of women today is 12. You're slightly above average. Big deal. You're not fat, you never were, so there's no point to your little testimony.

Link | Reply | Parent | Thread

(no subject) -

dykestar - Nov. 18th, 2003 08:46 am (UTC)

(no subject) -

xaoswolf - Nov. 18th, 2003 03:07 pm (UTC)

(no subject) -

dykestar - Nov. 18th, 2003 05:54 pm (UTC)

(no subject) -

forest_creature - Nov. 18th, 2003 04:07 pm (UTC)

(no subject) -

munkimunki - Nov. 19th, 2003 02:22 am (UTC)

diamentia wrote:

Nov. 18th, 2003 11:18 pm (UTC)

I'm sure that there were a few other girls that were around the same size as you too, Ma'am (thinking, my ex-roommate SG, not Bugster mind you, for one, was a 10-12, and had to be around 160+, dunno for sure, we did the clothes shopping thing a few times together though).

We might not agree on much, but, I'm with you on this.

When did you stop sticking up for SG? Glad, you seemed so above it.

Link | Reply | Parent | Thread

(no subject) -

thelasttear - Dec. 18th, 2004 01:11 am (UTC)

(no subject) -

diamentia - Dec. 18th, 2004 02:58 am (UTC)

take_apart wrote:

May. 2nd, 2006 12:43 am (UTC)

I'm the same size. What other site(s) are you on?

Link | Reply | Parent | Thread

kowst wrote:

Nov. 17th, 2003 08:19 pm (UTC)

i hate the word 'fat' it makes me think of a hugely overweight person.
and i don't mean to sound rude or discriminative but PERSONALLY i do not find really really large women attractive, and I don't find their bodies sexy or beautiful. I'm sorry if that offends you, but it is my opinion. Anyway, the point is I can kind of understand why they would reject people above a certain weight.
Hel who posted above looked really really good, but I wouldn't have called her fat anyway.

Link | Reply | Thread

dykestar wrote:

Nov. 17th, 2003 08:32 pm (UTC)

the thing is, though, that is your personal attraction. You have every right to like who you like, but other people feel differently. I've seen members express an interest in seeing larger women on the site multiple times and they are by-and-large ignored. They seem to sort of put 1 or 2 plus-sized women on the site so they can drag them out and go "SEE! WE HAVE SOME!" and hope that quells the requests.

Link | Reply | Parent | Thread

(no subject) -

kowst - Nov. 17th, 2003 08:59 pm (UTC)

(no subject) -

dykestar - Nov. 17th, 2003 09:09 pm (UTC)

(no subject) -

kowst - Nov. 17th, 2003 09:20 pm (UTC)

(no subject) -

dykestar - Nov. 17th, 2003 09:23 pm (UTC)

(no subject) -

kowst - Nov. 17th, 2003 09:29 pm (UTC)

(no subject) -

xaoswolf - Nov. 17th, 2003 11:36 pm (UTC)

(no subject) -

sister_anne - Nov. 20th, 2003 07:34 am (UTC)

miss_marisa wrote:

Nov. 17th, 2003 09:43 pm (UTC)

dykestar, I love you. I really do. Keep stirrin' shit up. The world needs more women like you. xoxo

Link | Reply | Thread

dykestar wrote:

Nov. 18th, 2003 12:12 am (UTC)

yeah I'm not gonna shake up anything.

I'm fucking done.

I cancelled my membership just now. It was going to run out soon anyway and I sure as hell wasn't gonna pay for that scary scary place.

Let's all just go to fucking bed.

Or have some cake.

Maybe cake then bed...

mmmmmmm... cake.

Link | Reply | Parent | Thread

(no subject) -

miss_marisa - Nov. 18th, 2003 12:28 am (UTC)

(no subject) -

dykestar - Nov. 18th, 2003 12:45 am (UTC)

luxnightmare wrote:

Nov. 18th, 2003 02:22 am (UTC)

I *really* don't want this to come across as a personal attack, because it's totally not intended that way.

But I have to ask:

If you find SG to be objectionable (and it seems that you do, and with good reason), why are you still a member? SG is in business for profit and profit alone. As long as you're giving them your money, they have absolutely no motivation to change the way they do business.

I know that just one member quitting isn't going to make a difference, and I know that there will always be more people willing to shell out for access to SG... but still. I don't get it.

Link | Reply | Thread

xhelx wrote:

Nov. 18th, 2003 03:17 am (UTC)

exactly lux... good point

Link | Reply | Parent | Thread

eatingchucky wrote:

Nov. 18th, 2003 08:06 am (UTC)

YA

and go join http://www.thatstrangegirl.com

i love that fucking site, i hear the owner is pretty cool too!

Link | Reply | Parent | Thread

dykestar - Nov. 18th, 2003 08:41 am (UTC)

dykestar wrote:

Nov. 18th, 2003 08:40 am (UTC)

I've already quit, and I wasn't paying for my membership and it was about to run out. I sure as hell wasn't going to spend my $ to renew it, so basically I just quit a few weeks early before it ran out on me.

I don't support them with $, does that just about answer any concerns about that one?

Link | Reply | Parent | Thread

(no subject) -

luxnightmare - Nov. 18th, 2003 12:52 pm (UTC)

diamentia wrote:

Nov. 18th, 2003 11:23 pm (UTC)

You're on it, ma'am, as usual. So much respect.

Link | Reply | Parent | Thread

(no subject) -

dykestar - Nov. 19th, 2003 12:04 am (UTC)