Really?

I can't decide if I was struck more by the fact that us fat folks need "compassion" or by the fact that we're well on our way to infecting millions--okay, okay, possibly billions--of people with our...fat?

Prejudice is prejudice is prejudice, right? Can you catch being black? Being gay? Is this seriously the last socially acceptable prejudice?

Being fat does not automatically relegate you to a king-size bed on the 21st floor of an apartment you haven't seen the outside of since you moved in. Fat people go for walks, have sex (and you don't even have to roll us in flour), get married, give birth to children, go swimming, and eat vegetables.

Just because the majority of America is offended doesn't mean I have to give a tinker's damn.

Well said. As I said in an earlier post, I've been fighting the battle over fat for years. I reached nearly 300 pounds, which on a 5' 8" frame is considered morbidly obese. At that time the only one's criticizing me were my wife, son, and doctor. Now that I'm back down to 200 (still have a ways to go) people I barely know are saying, 'Jack, your getting fat.' I don't bother to argue with them and just let it go. Next time though, I'm going to get right up close and personal, and then I'm going to INFECT them with fat!!!! then we'll see how they like it.

Kirstie Alley lost a lot of weight publicly...and Conan O'Brien still uses her as a punch line for fat jokes. .

Anyone who would comment on your weight deserves no reply. Be good to yourself and your family, and let the rude folks wonder why they have trouble finding someone to talk to.

Well,

the difference between black and gay people is that black and gay people is that these are not behaviors (yes - gay people have gay sex, but what makes them gay is their attraction to the same sex, which is not dependent on actually having sex with the same sex).

But my critique with this article is that I would guess much of the correlation between fat friends and yourself being fat is that for the most part, fat people and skinny people do not regularly hang out. I will grant you that among men, there is more a prevelance for skinny guys to hang out with fat guys, but often, you will see a group of skinny guys with the lone fat guy.

As for women, forget it. Women see themselves in part through their friends. This is especially true in younger women. For an example, look no further than the Sorority vs the Fraternity system. Most sororities are either thin or fat. But fraternities will always have their "moose" members who because they played football, or can drink a lot, are allowed into the circle of thin people.

Now, I grant you that even amongst many thin groups, there has been a decline in standards of what is appropriate weight. So these groups often gain weight together, as they often eat together, and as one couple gains weight, other couples feel more comfortable.

But I bet most of the correlation between fat and thin friends is due to the above segregation factor, not that one fat person enters into the think circle, and poof, we all blow up.

You're right, you don't have to give a damn. But then I don't want you in my insurance pool. I don't want to be paying increased premiums because of your additional risk. I do an hour of yoga every morning and train routinely for road races and triathlons. I'm sick of paying outrageous rates for my insurance because I'm lumped in with people who don't "give a tinker's damn."

It's not prejudice if it's reality. Qualities like skin color and sexual orientation are not choices; jumping to other conclusions about a person based on those qualities is inherently unfair because it's just a guess. But when I see someone who is overweight, I know for certain (without learning anything else about him or her) that he or she is at greater risk for catastrophic illness in addition to likely having a weaker immune system. Therefore, if I am an employer, I know that person is more likely to take sick days and make greater use of the insurance, consequently driving up the costs for all employees. That's not prejudice; that's a good business decision.

As I've mentioned in another post, gatorblonde, I am overweight, and with my insurance premium I also contribute toward the care of people who smoke, people who choose not to use seatbelts, people who abuse drugs and alcohol, people who are promiscuous and don't practice safe sex, and people who engage in other high-risk behaviors. Medical coverage picks up after auto insurance caps, and one claim for a person who didn't wear a seatbelt can equal more than the utilization I will accrue in my entire lifetime. Yet I wouldn't dream of asking my employer to screen every behavior of every person they hire. Just because my risk is more easily visible does not mean it is any greater than any of the above. A small number of people may lose employment due to drug or alcohol abuse, but many more seek treatment...often on the company's dime. Instead of being outraged by this, I consider this a good use of the insurance dollars in the long run.

And as for an employer assessing someone's immune system, just see what happens if you make a hiring decision based on knowledge of a person's genetic predisposition to illness, or their HIV status.

"A small number of people may lose employment..."

It's not a small number. Most employers run background checks that cover any and all infractions, including DUIs, and people are frequently denied positions for which they are otherwise qualified because of these infractions. In many states, like Florida, you no longer have to be committing a moving violation in order to be given a ticket for lack of seatbelt, so those infractions show up as well. You can be denied employment (and fired, at least from my company) for an excessive number of traffic violations. Not only that, but you can most certainly be denied employment or fired because of inappropriate social behavior. This may be harder for employers to discover, but it is certainly getting easier with the advent of MySpace and YouTube, and the lack of foresight on the part of individuals who happily post evidence of their unhealthy behaviors.

As for genetic predisposition for illness: I agree that no one should be denied employment for that reason, just as no one should be denied employment because of race or sexual orientation (to name two of the examples compared to obesity in an earlier post). But those qualities are different because they are not the result of poor choices, or any choices at all. No one has any control over the race, sexual orientation or genetic predispositions with which he or she is born, but everyone has a choice about diet and exercise.

And actually, studies have shown that your risk is greater than the above. Obesity has (indirectly) one of the highest fatality rates of any of the risky behaviors you've named. Just because a drug overdose is more dramatic doesn't mean that it's more common. Statistically speaking, obesity is as bad as smoking and worse than seatbelt usage. (FYI, using a seatbelt is actually more likely to save your life despite catastrophic injuries that would kill a person not wearing a seatbelt. So which creates a greater strain on insurance - seatbelt usage or lack thereof? You decide.) At any rate, I'm tired of hearing about obesity "discrimination," as if it's the same as racism. It isn't.

Racism? Who said racism? I must have missed something.

I've worked for state government, I've worked for major corporations. I've had coworkers who were convicted of DUI, and kept their jobs. Looking at porn on the company computer has gotten some fired, but driving infractions were not a basis for dismissal (mind you, driving was not a job requirement). But if you think that YouTube and driving records are the way to uncover unhealthy and irresponsible behaviors, think again. Not everyone is revealing themselves on YouTube. While many companies (including the one for which I work) do have standards for behavior, do they follow you into your bedroom, look for the condom, and make sure you and your partner have been tested?

I wasn't crying "discrimination." I was pointing out that choosing one very visible thing to target will not eliminate your insurance risk.

And I'm not the one who first addressed insurance...you did. So I don't really care to debate whether seatbelt use increases insurance rates more than lack of use. I'm sure you can point to some accidents where your contention was true...but I'm guessing it's not the norm. You know, our treatments for diseases that used to kill people cost a lot of money, too! They keep those pesky insurance-consuming people on earth longer, so they take more medicine, get older, and infirm! So maybe we should toss those out with the seatbelts. "You decide."

The difference in the insurance killers you listed is that abusing drugs and not wearing seatbelts is against the law. If you are a state employee in Georgia, you pay a higher premium. I would be willing to bet that it isn't the only state that does that. Pre-existing conditions commonly effect the availability of insurance.

You response is silly and informs why so many think of overweight people as degenerate. You sound like the shoplifter who rationalizes his crime because other people steal.

Also, obesity now cost our healthcare system more than smoking.

Oh...dude...please...do not mention fat people having sex.