Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Also Seen In the Stranger Offi... | Today in Rugby Thugs »

Monday, February 11, 2008

“He likes to be squashed.”

posted by on February 11 at 14:10 PM

I don’t have any problem with fat people. Really, I don’t. I like big people. I descended from a long line of larger-than-average people. What I have a problem with are full of shit people—you know, people who aren’t content to simply be whatever size they’re gonna be, and be happy at that size. The people I can’t stand are the ones who insist that there’s absolutely no connection between diet (meaning “what you regularly eat,” not “how you occasionally starve yourself”) and exercise and a person’s weight. I don’t think a decent diet and reasonable exercise will make us all size zeros, nor do I think everyone should be a size zero, and I don’t think fat people should be discriminated against or mocked.

Which brings us to this YouTube selection. Now, some will insist that I’m putting this up for laffs, and that I think these two are ugly or ridiculous, that I’m making fun, blah blah blah. I didn’t, I don’t, and I’m not. I think this woman is articulate and charming, and her husband/boyfriend is lucky to have found her. Some men are into BBWs, as I’m constantly emphasizing in “Savage Love,” and this woman’s a BBW with a sense of humor and a thoroughly GGG attitude. I adore her.

Now here’s the video:

And here’s why I’m posting this video: I’m curious how Tyra got away with showing this on teevee. Where’s the FCC? Where’s Tyra’s big, fat fine? The squashing going on in this short clip is sex—it’s a sex act, that’s fetish play, it’s that dude’s biggest turn-on. He’s probably hard and for all we know he blew a load in his pants while this video was shot. How is it that Howard Stern gets slapped with fines for talking about sex, but Tyra Banks actually shows sex acts—fetish sex acts, but still—without a peep of protest?

RSS icon Comments


I just threw up in my mouth a little bit...

Posted by Cato the Younger Younger | February 11, 2008 2:22 PM

I thought it was cute.

Why are you encouraging the FCC? I know you're not, but shouldn't we be happy that this is on TV? You're making a point by doing what causes these fusses. That's poo.

Posted by Mr. Poe | February 11, 2008 2:25 PM

Thank you, Dan. After a couple of weeks of Democratic primary wank, a bit of fat wank is exactly what we need to cleanse the palate.

Posted by tsm | February 11, 2008 2:26 PM

give them time... perhaps they've yet to receive the complaint from ned flanders because he's yet to watch his video tape of it.

Posted by infrequent | February 11, 2008 2:35 PM

@2: I think Dan's just pointing out the the absurdness of censoring sex when we can't even define it properly in the first place.

Posted by Gloria | February 11, 2008 2:36 PM

They're too busy investigating RNC pervs.

And then burying the findings.

Posted by Will in Seattle | February 11, 2008 2:40 PM

I fucked up my wordage. "I know you're not" as in "I know you're not encouraging the FCC" not "I know you're not happy this is on TV".

I'm simply complaining to complain here. I do this often. Slog should ban my ass.

Posted by Mr. Poe | February 11, 2008 2:41 PM

Exercise doesn't make most people lose weight. Only eating better does that. I know it's counter-intuitive; read the article.

Posted by Big Sven | February 11, 2008 2:53 PM

How is it that Howard Stern gets slapped with fines for talking about sex, but Tyra Banks actually shows sex acts—fetish sex acts, but still—without a peep of protest?

Uh, no one told you about the Howard Stern Double Standard? It is right up there with all the double standards out there...

Posted by Mike in MO | February 11, 2008 2:53 PM

Well, the woman is clearly on top, so the fundamentalist brain doesn't register this as 'sex'. ^_^
That's why it got past the FCC radar.


Posted by Woodbun | February 11, 2008 3:01 PM

They had clothes on Dan. If they were totally nekked (holy sweet gheezuz the thought...)then it would be deemed sex play in my book. What we all just witnessed was shock therapy.

Posted by Sargon Bighorn | February 11, 2008 3:02 PM

Haven't you heard? This is the new USSR...get used to it.

The Soviets hated Jews (Howard Stern) but they, (and everyone else on the planet)love spicy, hot black chicks with smokin' hot boo-tays, (Tyra).

It's not right and it's not fair, but no one promised us a rose garden.

Posted by michael strangeways | February 11, 2008 3:05 PM

Just like Guantanamo.

Posted by Jason Josephes | February 11, 2008 3:45 PM

This video actually made me really sad. I mean, Tyra seems to be disgusted by this woman and this couple's sex life, and the entire audience is laughing at her and her body. It was just sad.

Posted by Megan W | February 11, 2008 4:36 PM

The Tyra Banks show is worthless, anyway. Maury could have covered this topic so much better...

Posted by Hernandez | February 11, 2008 4:40 PM


Well, for whatever reason, my browser crashes when I try to go that link, so I can't say for sure it's wrong based on the following... but it's wrong.

The headline may be technically correct, but if you exercise more AND keep your normal routine AND track your caloric intake, you will lose weight. The main problem with studies like that(I assume, atmittedly) is that they do not take into account other factors, such as lessened activity because of the exercise (Are you tired from your run so now you take the elevator instead of the stairs, watch a tv show instead of walk to your friend's house, etc.). It's a little more complex than just calories, but the key here is that if Energy In>Energy Out=Weight Loss. Period. End of story.

Posted by MR. Language Person | February 11, 2008 4:42 PM

@14: That's exactly why I didn't watch it. I shuddered to think of the comments on its YouTube page.

Posted by Gloria | February 11, 2008 4:52 PM


Yup, you got it. The bottom line is exercise makes you hungrier so you eat more and negate all the exercise.

My personal experience is that this is a temporary effect. For the first month of increased exercise, my body will go into "Holy shit, he's trying to starve me" mode and I will be hungrier and even usually gain a few pounds. Then once my body gets used to it, the weight comes off.

Posted by F | February 11, 2008 5:52 PM

Part of the problem is also what counts as exercise. From the same article:

The problem, as he and his contemporaries saw it, is that light exercise burns an insignificant number of calories, amounts that are undone by comparatively effortless changes in diet. In 1942, Louis Newburgh of the University of Michigan calculated that a 250-pound man expends only three calories climbing a flight of stairs—the equivalent of depriving himself of a quarter-teaspoon of sugar or a hundredth of an ounce of butter.

"Light exercise" (otherwise known as actually moving around under your own locomotion) doesn't do shit.

Posted by F | February 11, 2008 5:55 PM

Also, I liked "What if it's all been a big, fat lie" by Taubes, but that article is crap. Try telling any scientist that "Humans, rats, and all living organisms are ruled by biology, not thermodynamics." Wheee, biology is magic. I thought only Jesus was magic.

Posted by F | February 11, 2008 6:02 PM

Can ya'll just shut the fuck up? This "exercise and diet make you loose weight"/"nuh uh!" back and forth arguments are old, tired, and pointless.

Dan made his point, it makes sense. Besides it was just a disclaimer. Hardly worth ANOTHER flamewar in the comments section about weightless and fat people. Now let's drop it already! No one wants to hear your ego-masturbation anymore about how to or not to loose weight.

I find the point about the FCC giving Tyra a pass much more interesting.

Posted by Brandon h | February 11, 2008 6:22 PM

this looks like an accidental death waiting to happen. either that or he'll get his back broken.

Posted by apres_moi | February 11, 2008 8:31 PM

I just like the fact that Dan can cite Howard Stern. When are they gonna bring back class and decency with Mr. George Takei?

Posted by fred34 | February 12, 2008 1:17 AM

I guess because the FCC doesn't really recognize squashing as a sexual act or something.

Posted by k | February 12, 2008 2:36 AM

@24: Righto. We go by whether the *FCC* gets a boner.

Posted by Gloria | February 12, 2008 11:17 AM

Brandon h, you don't get to tell me what to talk about.

@16-18, agreed that if you hold all other variables constant, exercise will accelerate weight loss. The problem is, that's now how human beings operate.

As to the increase in hunger being temporary, I haven't seen any evidence for that but if it worked for you, awesome.

I myself work out but because it feels good and because it allows me to do things like climb mountains. My weight loss is coming from my changes in diet.

Posted by Big Sven | February 12, 2008 2:06 PM

So this thread is pretty much dead, but I just got back and want to clarify a few things just in case anyone is still following this thread:

Mr. Language Person @ 8:

I encourage you to read the article. The Problem is that "Energy In" is the only variable that you get to control- your body determines "Energy Out" based on a lot of things, only one of which is any exercise that you do.

The bottom line is that semi-starvation diets have been shown (Benedict, Keys, Bray, Hirsch, and others) to have a *terrible* track record- people stay hungry after losing weight and the hunger doesn't go away until they put all the weight back on and usually more.

They key seems to be to eat differently, not counting calories or increasing exercise.

Posted by Big Sven | February 13, 2008 3:56 PM


I'm glad it works for you. There are always exceptions to every rule. But controlled studies- like those cited in this article- show that for the vast majority of folks increased exercise doesn't help you lose or keep weight off.

Note, I'm not saying that exercise isn't good for you- it clearly is. It's just not good for losing weight.

Posted by Big Sven | February 13, 2008 3:59 PM


What don't you like about the article? Why is it "crap"? The quote...

Humans, rats, and all living organisms are ruled by biology, not thermodynamics.

Doesn't refer not not following the three laws of thermodynamics- obviously all objects have to obey those, just like gravity- but to the idea that humans behaved like a "thermodynamic black box"- without homeostatic feedback loops.

Put it another way: I'm going to assume you aren't overweight. Do you know how many calories you ate last year? How many calories you expended? No? Then why are you at a healthy weight? Because your body balanced energy in with energy expenditures and increasing or decreasing hunger to tell you when to eat.

Taubes' theory (and most of the research in the last twenty years) is that high-carb, high-sugar diets fuck up that mechanism for many people, and cause their bodies to push (again, with energy expenditure and hunger) for a higher weight. Eating less of those things will help your body find a healthier target weight.

I started a controlled experiment for myself right before Christmas, holding my calorie intake and exercise level constant while simply switching from a low-fat diet to a low-carb diet. I've lost 30lb in eight weeks, on my way towards a goal of 100lb by the end of the year. I don't know if that will last, and I'm just one data point, but I think Taubes' ideas merit more consideration then reflexively dismissing them as "crap."

Posted by Big Sven | February 13, 2008 4:13 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).