I read a woman write that she thought never having to be hungry was ridiculous. For context, there are people on certain eating plans, like, often, Atkins, who say they are never hungry, because they are allowed to eat mass quantities of food, if needed, as long as it's the "right" food. Those people are also often in a ketogenic state that suppresses appetite as well, so the mass quantities *aren't* usually needed, but the point remains, they aren't hungry and they are happy to be not hungry. Well, this woman was against this on principle. Her statement was, "You can't just sleep any time you are tired, or have sex every time you are aroused, or start yelling every time you are angry. So why should you be able to eat every time you feel hunger?"
I was looking at that analytically, as you do, and I thought to myself, two of these things are not like the others. I would argue that, biologically, we ideally should be able to eat if and when we are hungry and sleep if and when we are tired. Not eating or sleeping when your body needs to does not lead to optimal performance and can be detrimental to your health in the long run. Of course, the way our society is structured, you aren't allowed to just take a nap every time you need one or turn your alarm clock off at 5:30 and sleep till 8 if you are still tired. But I would be all in favor of a "sleeping plan"--if such a thing existed--that facilitated people never being tired as much as I am in favor of eating plans that facilitate people not being hungry. Delaying one's sexual gratification, however, never harmed anyone (despite the claims of a million horny teenage males throughout history), and as much as I am theoretically in favor of the "well, I'm not getting up till I've fucked somebody" regimen, I do not think it necessary for continued good health over the long or short run. And anger shouldn't be in the comparison tally at all, 'cause yelling is not a biological imperative. So I think this woman's argument falls apart pretty quickly.
But I know where she is coming from. I myself pissed off a bunch of people--really, Andrea? you?--by voicing puzzlement at the abhorrence of "cravings." There is this fear and loathing of cravings. "Oh, I can't eat so and so because it gives me horrible cravings." "Oh, since I gave up [insert food here], I never have cravings anymore, so I can never eat it again." I expressed the opinion that, y'know, so what? So you crave some not-good-for-you food? So what? So don't eat it. There's nothing saying just because you want something, you need to eat it. We're not talking heroin here, we're talking fucking brownies. Well, all the "cravings" people immediately want to claim it *is* like heroin, and they are addicted to sugar or whatever. Yeah, yeah, way to shift personal responsibility away from yourself. I'm not buying it, though I wasn't so rude as to say so. I did say that I liked realizing that I craved something and being able to say "no" to it. It makes me feel in control of my eating and my body. And I like feeling in control of myself. I strive for it.
That made some pissed off woman call me a masochist. Duh. You don't make it through nine years of Catholic school without some fucked up ideas about self-denial, yo. (Do I need an irony alert tag here, or are we good? Good.) But, anyway, I am sure the "never being hungry is ridiculous" chick is operating out of the same place I am--being hungry and saying no to it until it's time to eat is what makes her feel in control of herself. Well and good. Just don't think everyone has to operate the same way against biological imperatives.
Am I being hypocritical here? Wouldn't be the first time.
xoxo
No comments:
Post a Comment