Updated 1 October 2013. Original post 10 June 2013
It's not often that a made for tv documentary has this kind of impact, particularly one that falls into the category of "look at this weird person, but not while you are having dinner". We are introduced to a number of characters, mainly with direct interviews, relating their position in this subculture through the appropriate nickname or acronym. FGs ("Fat Girls") are pursued by FAs ("Fat Admirers"). FGs always outnumber FAs by around 5-1. And that's before the relative size is taken into account. The FAs range from guys who seem to vary from the normal only due to a quirk in their sexual attraction through enablers who support the often dangerous weight gain of their partner or partners through to feeders who can be extremely dangerous. The basic FAs come across as mildly pervy but almost lucky for being able to pursue a lifestyle of apparently easy sexual gratification due to the obese women's desperation for personal contact. The FGs are often brash but in many instances display a thinly veiled emotional vulnerability; following decades of hate and neglect the remarkable ability of the Internet to allow tiny minority groups with common desires to find each other has given them love or at least the sexual attraction that they crave. It's that weakness that creates the possibility of real danger when the sexual attraction not only does not equal love but also appears to override any humanity in the feeder.
The documentary's power is driven by the introduction of one couple, Gina and Mark, who, but for Gina's finally discovered strength of character and determination, would have been introduced via blurred images, friends who once knew them, and hazy video clips. Instead we get to see them in the real world they continue to inhabit with an uneasy balance and confused lifestyle. Mark met Gina online and left her so flattered by his admiration of her size that she was willing to do anything to make him happy. He immediately pursued a weight gain program and persuaded her to pose naked so he could record it. His aim was to make her as large as possible, her aim was to keep him happy. The interviews with him are unnerving as he describes what he finds attractive about her with a wide-eyed fixed grin - he clearly enjoys sharing and showing off his successes. He published the photos and videos to online admirers and managed to get the Guinness Book of Records to record her as the largest model in the world. Why someone photographed by her husband in her bed and published on the internet counts as a model is not clear to me. But if so our cat is a model of some repute.
This culminates in a video which characterises the destructive nature of Marks obsession and the extremely passive response of Gina. "A real FG's last stand" where we see a naked Gina barely able to pull her bulk which is covered in green sores to her feet. She narrates in a weak tone that this is the last time she will ever stand up. He describes with real excitement her folds resting on his legs and the impossibility of getting his arms around her. By this stage it is clear that he has no interest in her well being. It is not that his excitement offsets his fears for her health. The conflict between his desires and her needs barely registers with him. She finally has the strength to pursue surgery and to his disgust she starts to lose weight. She does so driven by the hope of a future with her extremely slim adopted daughter. However, he clearly has not given up and is keen to start the cycle again. He is building a house, the perfect house for a real FG. He films himself describing how the doorways have been sized to allow her to move around if she did ever get larger again. His tour finishes with him in the bedroom constructed to allow views across the city for her to look at while entirely immobile. It is a deathbed.
She is grateful for his support as her full time care giver. In interview as he describes her reason for losing the weight in relation to her inability to move around and the challenges for him caring for her fulltime. She squeezes his hand and reminds him that it was due to the danger to her health. He nods and agrees, "yes of course, that too". Theres something very familiar about it. The husband with a obsession with his hobby, the wife pulling him back to reality when it might go too far. But with the risks he is willing to take, this is not a normal couple with normal disagreements. And it is not his health he is risking. It is a dangerous partnership which she has survived only due to a very final reserve pool of strength. Here's hoping it doesn't run dry.
This documentary brought back memories of Deliver Us From Evil (2006) with its interviews of the extremely dangerous and still abusing Father Oliver O'Grady who was able to slip into a quiet, calm costume to great effect to allow him to move from town to town fooling those around him long enough to abuse children as young as 6 months old. It also reminded me of Crumb (1994) with its subjects plainly describing their extreme sexual appetites and how they cope with them. Its notable though that in the latter, the Crumb brothers are plagued with guilt when their desires cross the line, leading the eldest brother to suicide and the youngest into a hermit lifestyle. The lack of empathy makes both O'Grady and Mark truly dangerous.
7 / 10
Post script
Documentary films are rarely the last word, particularly when the subjects are still around and their lives ongoing. The portrayal of Mark in the film is certainly negative, though seems to come through from his own behaviour and his own statements. My interpretation of his impact on Gina were clear, and while I think they were what the documentary makers were looking for, I didn't think they had been entirely created by the filmmakers themselves. Gina, however, was appauled by the output of the film. Here is her response to it:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted By: Gina (68.0.165.125)
Date: April 9 2003, 21:35
I know I said I would never post here again, and I have not. However, I believe it is very important that I say some things about this.
We were led to believe that this was going to be a positive documentary, showing that fat women and FA's have a normal, loving relationship. They came and filmed us, for many days, and have hours and hours of video. The resulting documentary twists some truths and ignores others completely. It painted a totally false picture about who I am, who Teighlor is and mostly who Mark is. Like Teighlor has previously posted, we are totally devistated by this.
I will say this again. I have a medical condition called Lymphedema that causes my weight problem. I have neve made this a secret. My trip to the hospital for weight loss surgery in 1997 required a great deal of effort on my and Mark's behalf. He supported it completely, and I could not have gone through it without him. He never left my side, for the 8 days I was in hospital. The idea that he is a sinister feeder is rediculous and totally fabricated by Optomen Productions and has no basis in fact. Even today he encourages me to walk, to take my meds, and be healthy. Yes, we have moved to a new house, but it was built for my comfort, to allow me some independance in self care, and the notion that he wants me as I was, is a blatant lie. This is just one of several untruths told in this fable of a documentary.
Our portrayal in this documentary is totally false. As we watched it we asked ourselves why? Why did they do this? and the only thing we could come up with is the same reason shows like Jerry Springer are still on. Because it sells. Not because they want to tell the truth.
We would love to sue, but that takes funds we really do not have. As a warning to all, if you are ever contacted by Optomen Television remember what they did to us, and just say no. It is apparent they deal in shock TV and will do anything, and say anything, just like the National Enquirer, under the guise of the BBC. They told us they were making a Fat Positive documentary for the BBC and throught carefully worded questions, led us to say exactly what was necessary to edit together one of the most fat negative stories ever told.
Alastair Cooke and Rob Davis of Optomen TV practice a form of psychological leading questioning designed to get the interviewee to say the words they need to edit the content for a complete opposite meaning. What they have done to us is libelous and slanderous.
People who copy and distribute this video to others are perpetuating these lies and we wish they would consider who they might be hurting.
I am well. My family is well. Thank you for not believing everything you see.
Gina
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Having someone she loved portrayed in the way he was in the film has led to an impassioned defence, and a stark warning. Certainly the film is sensationalist, though my interpretation of it was that I had not been manipulated into my views. As a sophisticated viewer, I think that I can see through the fabrications, notice the use of emotive soundtrack, or quotes which are out of place, to the primary footage and core materials. Actually in this, I didn't even see too much of these devices, perhaps X-factor has numbed me to them. But maybe I'm wrong and have badly misjudged their relationship. If so then what I've written above is a deeply personal attack. Selective editing and leading questions, comments taken out of context, with thousands of hours of footage, mean filmmakers can mislead. But can they present characters almost any way they want? Can they find a monster that isn't there?
Of course its possible that Gina is wrong here. That she views Mark as she wants to and selectively ignores what might cause her pain. Her internal director performing its own editing on the world she sees around her. Mark may be a mix of attentive husband and dangerous sexual predator, and she only sees the former. But her evidence set is substantially larger than ours, so to dismiss her would be extremely unfair, even arrogant. Certainly her statement that her weight gain is a medical condition was not represented in the documentary, or at least it was mentioned it was not focused on, I haven't been able yet to check. She obviously needed to eat a great deal to build on it, but nonetheless it is evidence that the filmmakers misled us.
Its difficult to come to a conclusion, and I'm not certain its possible as the only evidence is the potentially manipulative film and a solitary board post from Gina, who is better informed but also biased. In fact, if the lesson here is that the evidence you see is unreliable, then is the board post even reliable? From your perspective, I could even have invented it. I haven't though ... really...
No really, in fact I found it via the University of British Columbia Human Sexual Psychology course notes here:
http://ubcpsych350.wordpress.com/2013/06/12/fat-girls-and-feeders/
Its a university! That makes it more reliable ... no?
I understand there is considerable online dialogue between Gina and various other groups following the filming, some of which has been lost but some which still exists. This is a hugely controversial topic within the community and the debate is ongoing about whether feeders are dangerous, and whether or not gainers (those that derive sexual pleasure from putting on the weight) offset or explain the danger of feeders by making it consensual. Either way, this is a stark reminder of how vulnerable your opinions are to the way information is presented, and how important it is to retain an open mind when new evidence is presented. I'd like to pursue this more as the conclusion is pretty unsatisfying, perhaps someone needs to make a sequel...