# "I'm Against Feederism" Rant



## LoveBHMS (Aug 10, 2009)

Ok, so this is a rant about opposition to feederism. I purposfully put it in the unprotected part of the Weight Board because I truly don't mind if anyone wants to refute what I'm saying.

I have gotten really angry, annoyed, and fed up with comments about people being 'against feederism' or 'uncomfortable with feederism.'

Feederism is a sexual fetish. It's something that brings sexual arousal to participants when they engage in certain behaviour or think about/fantasize about certain behaviour. If you are sexually aroused by gaining weight, thinking about gaining weight, eating a very large amount of food, encouraging those actionts in a partner, or thinking about those things...it has nothing to do with what sort of person you are. It says nothing about your personality, ethics, or behaviour.

Is feederism unhealthy? *NO.*
Is it possible that weight gain or excessive weight gain is unhealthy? Of course. But that has nothing to do with a sexual fetish---it's a physical issue. In other words, your body does not know that you gained weight because of feederism. It's the gain itself, not the sexuality. 

If you have a shoe fetish and break into a woman's house and steal her shoes, it's the burglary that's wrong, not the fetish.

If you are a peeping tom and spy on an unwilling person, it's the intrusion of privacy that's wrong, not the fact of you being a voyeur.

Rape and procreative sexual intercourse are the same physical action, what makes rape a crime is the mental state, an unwilling partner, and reasoning the act took place. 

Manipulation and dishonesty are in no way the exclusive province of feeders. Manipulating a woman into gaining weight by buying food that is her weakness or telling her you'll leave if she does not continue gaining is wrong and nasty and sick and evil. So is manipulating a woman into having vanilla sexual intercourse with you by claiming you love her when you just want to get into her pants. 

Humans are sexual beings and the pursuit of sexual gratification is a biological instinct. If your pursuit of sexual gratification involves lying, harming another person, an unwilling partner, or criminal behaviour, it's wrong. Otherwise it's not.

Feederism is not something done to the feedee. The feedee ideally is an active and willing partner. Feederism is not about the feeder getting off on a partner's weight gain, it's ALSO about the feedee getting off on weight gain. If this were not the case, those without partners would never intentionally gain or get sexual enjoyment from overeating or being fat.

Rant probably over but if i think of more...i'll keep it up.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Aug 10, 2009)

Devil's advocate here. What if a person is already aware of all of this but is still uncomfortable with it? I mean sure, there are people in to "pee in bed" type stuff which is none of my business but this particular kink still gives me, the personal 'me', the creeps. One might argue why there would be any need for me to say, "Eww, icky pee people," in a sentence or why the information would be relevant to a topic but I think one can go too far in villifying people for what they simply don't care for.


----------



## Carl1h (Aug 10, 2009)

LillyBBBW said:


> Devil's advocate here. What if a person is already aware of all of this but is still uncomfortable with it? I mean sure, there are people in to "pee in bed" type stuff which is none of my business but this particular kink still gives me, the personal 'me', the creeps. One might argue why there would be any need for me to say, "Eww, icky pee people," in a sentence or why the information would be relevant to a topic but I think one can go too far in villifying people for what they simply don't care for.



Do you then feel like it's your duty to go to the "icky pee people" website and tell them how icky they are? Because peoples need to self righteously voice their opinions and judgments is a big part of the problem.


----------



## LoveBHMS (Aug 10, 2009)

I think my annoyance comes from the misunderstanding of what feederism is and what activities and mentality it encompasses.

Along the lines of "I'm against feederism because it's wrong to make somebody gain weight" or "I'm against feederism because it's wrong to threaten a vulnerable woman with abandoning her if she won't do what you want."

Using my shoe analogy, that's like saying "I'm opposed to shoe fetishes because it's wrong to steal things." If your concept of "shoe fetishist" is a guy you heard about on the news who broke into a woman's apartment and stole her shoes, you're going to focus on the theft and invasion of privacy rather than the simple psychological or biological fact of human sexuality where the perpetrator is sexually aroused by shoes.

Or even saying you hate gays because they spread AIDS. The fact of being sexually attracted to your same gender does not cause or spread AIDS. It's certain behaviour that spreads AIDS, not the sexuality.


----------



## Oldtimer76 (Aug 10, 2009)

LoveBHMS said:


> Ok, so this is a rant about opposition to feederism. I purposfully put it in the unprotected part of the Weight Board because I truly don't mind if anyone wants to refute what I'm saying.
> 
> I have gotten really angry, annoyed, and fed up with comments about people being 'against feederism' or 'uncomfortable with feederism.'
> 
> ...



:bow:
You took the right words to tell how it really is! 
This topic can be an example for all the troubles and misunderstandings we (FA's with feeder tendencies and actual feeders) walk into in this world.
:bow:


----------



## Oldtimer76 (Aug 10, 2009)

Carl1h said:


> Do you then feel like it's your duty to go to the "icky pee people" website and tell them how icky they are? Because peoples need to self righteously voice their opinions and judgments is a big part of the problem.



I guess the biggest problem are the people who feel the need to tell everyone else they do wrong...

You know, I also hate reading comments on MySpace or YouTube like "You're gross" or "You are unhealthy" when a big girl is in the picture or video
AND why can't people say anything else than 'gross'?


----------



## LillyBBBW (Aug 10, 2009)

Carl1h said:


> Do you then feel like it's your duty to go to the "icky pee people" website and tell them how icky they are? Because peoples need to self righteously voice their opinions and judgments is a big part of the problem.



No not really. In my case I just don't read the threads I'm not interested in and speak only when spoken to on the subject. This thread comes out of the blue to me because I've been off the net for a few days. I'm not aware of any recent incidents of people blowharding around here but it's possible I could have missed something. I'm still catching up. Soap box sermons are irritating so if that's what we're talking about I'm right with you there. 



LoveBHMS said:


> I think my annoyance comes from the misunderstanding of what feederism is and what activities and mentality it encompasses.
> 
> Along the lines of "I'm against feederism because it's wrong to make somebody gain weight" or "I'm against feederism because it's wrong to threaten a vulnerable woman with abandoning her if she won't do what you want."
> 
> ...



I'll take it one step further. What irritates me are ANY kind of qualitative judgements surrounding feederism based on things that have little or nothing to do with it. The posts that come from non feeders/feedees who feel inclined to declare they feel better about it because the people in 'feeder thread x' are all puppy kissers and give to their local food bank has always sat a little funny with me. Post a picture of Hanibal Lector and all of a sudden feederism is horrible again. Feederism is like water. It can be good or bad depending how it's used. Kind of like pee!


----------



## Tad (Aug 10, 2009)

I suspect that part of the problem around here is that, from what various posters have said, a lot of BBW get random PMs from feeders trying to pull them into their fantasy. In other words, not all feeders are willing to quietly discuss with others of like interests and wait until they find a willing partner to practice it with. There are feeders who feel the need to send messages saying things like "You are pretty but you'd be so much hotter if you gained 50 pounds" or even more randomly "How much weight are you trying to gain" to women who have not indicated at all that they are gaining weight.

I'd think it would not take many such messages for most people to get rather skeeved out by the 'group' sending such a message. I'm sure that is not the only thing that turns people against feeders (people who celebrate what you fear are probably generally hard to fear, and many people fear weight gain), but I think it is a continual issue here that makes it hard to make much headway....that for every reasonable and rational defense of feederism, there will be several of the random "U'd B so HAWT if U were 400 lbs!!!" messages countering it.

Which is rather frustrating, given that in some senses of the words I'm a feeder (and feedee). I hate the reputation attached to that, but I can understand at least part of where it comes from.


----------



## LoveBHMS (Aug 10, 2009)

I've had this discussion with at least two (adult, female) posters from this site. 

Part of what should be taken into account with those PMs is the venue. You're not getting those PMs on a message board about fine wine, NASCAR, professional soccer, or sailing---you're getting them on a site about fat people.

It's reasonable to figure that some posters here are going to be into feederism and some will hope/expect that some others are into it as well. Not everyone on a message board about cooking wants to sink his/her life savings into a restaurant, but some do. Not everyone on a message board about weight lifting is taking steroids, but some are.


Is it annoying? Yes.
Understandable? Again, Yes.


----------



## OneWickedAngel (Aug 10, 2009)

LoveBHMS said:


> I've had this discussion with at least two (adult, female) posters from this site.
> 
> *Part of what should be taken into account with those PMs is the venue.* You're not getting those PMs on a message board about fine wine, NASCAR, professional soccer, or sailing---*you're getting them on a site about fat people.*
> 
> ...



I can't argue against this. It's just as annoying, but unfortunately just as expected as being on your average dating site. When I was a part of a couple of dating sites, I received twice as many messages looking for a hook-up, than messages for an honest casual meet and greet. It does not make it any more right, it's just what comes with the territory.


----------



## chaoticfate13 (Aug 10, 2009)

just have one thing to say. its different, people are always afraid of whats different


----------



## exile in thighville (Aug 10, 2009)

at this point i see no reason to make arguments or explain that what i do is morally right. if you go around assuming an entire people practicing their sexual fetish do it unsafely, without discussing such issues beforehand and taking precautions, you're an idiot and an asshole, you don't deserve any further knowledge or explanation, fuck off.


----------



## tonynyc (Aug 10, 2009)

IMO: Whatever makes two consenting adults happy 

I've always admired competitive eaters though - I wonder if this makes them the Athletes of the Feederism World


----------



## TraciJo67 (Aug 10, 2009)

exile in thighville said:


> at this point i see no reason to make arguments or explain that what i do is morally right. if you go around assuming an entire people practicing their sexual fetish do it unsafely, without discussing such issues beforehand and taking precautions, you're an idiot and an asshole, you don't deserve any further knowledge or explanation, fuck off.



Not to mention, those who do the assuming aren't going to be swayed by any kind of logical explanation. 

FWIW, I know that some people here believe that I'm anti-feeding, because I have in the past argued that exploiting vulnerable adults is wrong (note: I do not believe that feedees are by definition vulnerable). In my mind, these have always been two completely separate issues. I agree with your explanation of what feeding is, LoveBHMS, and I can definitely understand the erotic appeal. Those who would exploit someone would do so no matter what their orientation, fetish, desire, etc may happen to be. 

In all the time I've been at Dims, I've received maybe a handful of PMs from spamming strangers who want to know if I'm into weight gain. I'm not annoyed by them; I think it's hilarious and I tend to pass them on to my friends so we can all have a good laugh. It's not the intelligent, literate, well-oriented men & women who think it's OK to send presumptious messages to complete strangers.


----------



## mergirl (Aug 10, 2009)

LoveBHMS said:


> I think my annoyance comes from the misunderstanding of what feederism is and what activities and mentality it encompasses.
> 
> .......SNIP..............
> Or even saying you hate gays because they spread AIDS. The fact of being sexually attracted to your same gender does not cause or spread AIDS. It's certain behaviour that spreads AIDS, not the sexuality.



I think a lot of the misunderstanding of what feederism is and the activities and mentality it encompasses come from the actual feeders themselves; Feeders are all different, with differing preferences and fantasies, what some feeders relish others may take exception too (with this in-group divide you can see how people out with the community might get confused) . Also many really don't like answering honest and open questions about their sexuality (i'm sure out of defensiveness), so people (many who are new to the community) instead of getting an honest answer about the fundemental stuff you were explaining there just remember creepy documentaries and fucked up films and take those as FACT. 

Also, the gay-aids analogy doesn't really work as there are more hetrosexual people with aids these days.


----------



## Jack Skellington (Aug 10, 2009)

LoveBHMS said:


> Is it annoying? Yes.
> Understandable? Again, Yes.



Being on a size acceptance site is not a get out jail free card for a lack of social skills. 

As an example, we would not tolerate a guy with a breast fetish sending random women PMs or comments they would look so hot with breast implants and we should not tolerate similar random comments about weight gain. Understanding why a person might do something like that (poor social skills), doesn't mean the behavior should be excused. 

People of any sexual fetish are their own worst enemies.


----------



## BothGunsBlazing (Aug 10, 2009)

I wrote this really long response but accidentally x'd out of it .. so.. not doing that again, but this basically sums it up just as well.


----------



## thatgirl08 (Aug 10, 2009)

Rep coming your way girly. I'm out now, but I'll get you later.

Totally agreed on every point.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Aug 10, 2009)

tonynyc said:


> IMO: Whatever makes two consenting adults happy
> 
> I've always admired competitive eaters though - I wonder if this makes them the Athletes of the Feederism World



What the..? TONY!!?!! Dang you, now I want CAKE again. Cut that out!


----------



## loopy (Aug 10, 2009)

What exactly is the point of all this? Lets be brief...

..everyone is different..ok got that

..we dont all agree on everything..ok got that

...everyone has different reasons to be here..ok got that

NOW how about this..mind your own plate..to each his own..whatever tickles your fancy..respect individuality.. I got that!!

buh byeeeeeeeeeeeeeee


----------



## tonynyc (Aug 10, 2009)

LillyBBBW said:


> What the..? TONY!!?!! Dang you, now I want CAKE again. Cut that out!



*Lilly: I've seen your "guns" (by the way folks - Lilly has cute biceps) :wubu: - I'm not challenging you. Here's your cake*


----------



## Weeze (Aug 10, 2009)

I think everyone who has anything other than just heterosexual vanilla sex is going to have this battle, you know?

People generally have a hard time keeping their noses out of things like this, no matter what sexuality/preference/fetish you have, people are always going to want to poke and prod. 

That said... It gets really annoying when people think they have a say over what goes on in my bedroom... because, um, you don't.
What I do with my significant other behind closed doors is no one else's business. I'm not asking for anyone's opinion on what gets me off, so why do they feel entitled to give it to me?


----------



## Tina (Aug 10, 2009)

LoveBHMS said:


> Is feederism unhealthy? *NO.*
> Is it possible that weight gain or excessive weight gain is unhealthy? Of course. But that has nothing to do with a sexual fetish---it's a physical issue. In other words, your body does not know that you gained weight because of feederism. It's the gain itself, not the sexuality.


I think this right here is a display of being in denial.

Of course feederism is unhealthy when it is practiced to the point of the feedee gaining more weight than their body can safely carry, which of course varies from individual to individual. It's the *fantasy* that is not unhealthy, but making it reality in a way that also denies eventual reality can certainly be unhealthy, and if the sexuality of it becomes real-world, and to a degree where health is compromised, how can you even begin to say the sexuality of it is not unhealthy? And that's not even beginning to address how people are allowed their opinion. Rant away; it likely will not change anyone else's view, or expression of said view, that feederism is *insert whatever a person may feel about feederism.* 

Ultimately, in those situations where it's harmful, there have been several cases just that I know of where the feeder was able to walk away from the relationship (often in search of someone else to feed, when they didn't want to have to take care of the object of their fantasy-turned-reality 42/7), literally and figuratively, while the feedee was left with permanent consequences, often both physical and mental/emotional. So are all feeders evil and all feedees cows to the slaughter? Uh, no. Does the worst case scenario always happen? Again, no. But it would be disingenuous to try to pretend that it hasn't and won't ever happen and that feederism is always fine and dandy and that the fantasy becoming reality can never be harmful.


----------



## Miss Vickie (Aug 10, 2009)

Tina said:


> I think this right here is a display of being in denial.
> 
> Of course feederism is unhealthy when it is practiced to the point of the feedee gaining more weight than their body can safely carry, which of course varies from individual to individual. It's the *fantasy* that is not unhealthy, but making it reality in a way that also denies eventual reality can certainly be unhealthy, and if the sexuality of it becomes real-world, and to a degree where health is compromised, how can you even begin to say the sexuality of it is not unhealthy? And that's not even beginning to address how people are allowed their opinion. Rant away; it likely will not change anyone else's view, or expression of said view, that feederism is *insert whatever a person may feel about feederism.*
> 
> Ultimately, in those situations where it's harmful, there have been several cases just that I know of where the feeder was able to walk away from the relationship (often in search of someone else to feed, when they didn't want to have to take care of the object of their fantasy-turned-reality 42/7), literally and figuratively, while the feedee was left with permanent consequences, often both physical and mental/emotional. So are all feeders evil and all feedees cows to the slaughter? Uh, no. Does the worst case scenario always happen? Again, no. But it would be disingenuous to try to pretend that it hasn't and won't ever happen and that feederism is always fine and dandy and that the fantasy becoming reality can never be harmful.



This.

Love BHM's, you mention shoe fetish, but to me the comparison between a shoe fetish and feederism isn't accurate because the person can take off their shoes but dropping weight isn't nearly as easy. Once the weight is on and causing health problems because it's too much for them to carry, then what? To me, it ceases to be "harmless, good clean fun" at that point, but since you don't know what each person's limitation is until they reach it, what's the answer? Do you wait until they become diabetic? Have their first heart attack? Their first knee replacement surgery? Once the stomach is enlarged from consumption of large foods, once the person is used to a certain high calorie intake each day, is it realistic for them to "go on a diet"?

Carried to extremes, feeding someone erotically or enjoying someone's chub is a hugely different thing than getting off on someone's inability to tie their shoes, clean their butt, etc. To me _that_ power imbalance is unhealthy, and if thinking that makes me a horrible person, than so be it. But in the years I've been here, I've seen women here fattened (with their consent), who were then left by their feeders, unable to care for themselves, with a probably shortened lifetime of pain and disability to endure. I realize that this isn't the most common scenario, but it isn't unheard of at all, and I hope that you'd agree that it's harmful. 

All this being said, I've kept my opinion about feeding to myself, mostly, and am hardly a "hater" although no doubt it would be easier for some to call me such instead of looking at what they're doing with an unjaundiced eye. I don't come here and slam on feeders or feedees, calling them victimizers and victims, hooligans and harpies. But since you asked, this is my opinion about feeding: I don't think it's harmless _at all_, at least not as I've seen it practiced here, with people encouraging others to eat unhealthy foods and to reach unlivable weights. As a health care professional, I can say that the foods most people are fed to gain weight aren't healthy, and in many cases, people are encouraged to carry more weight than is healthy. I really don't think that's cool, and I truly don't think that most people honestly understand what they're doing to themselves, and the consequence they face -- until it's too late. Most people haven't seen (or smelled) an infected diabetic ulcer, watched people have their limbs chopped off, a piece at a time. Most people haven't witnessed a loved one (who is still quite young) lose their ability to work... to drive... to write... to read... because of diabetes. I have. Once you've seen that, it really changes everything and brings home the enormous consequences of every decision we make.

Again, let me be clear: The only reason I'm expressing my opinion here is because you brought it up. I'm happy to "live and let live", just as I hope (with little expectation) that my decision to have WLS will be respected; I don't offer my opinion, I don't come to the weight board and slam people for their choices. I also don't think that erotic feeding or appreciation of the fat body are bad things at ALL; it's only that when you're talking about deciding to put on weight, you can't know when "too much is too much" until you get there, and at that point it may well be too late. Like any risk taking behavior, it should be viewed as such -- with caution and full understanding of the potential permanent problems that are inherent in a "high risk sport".


----------



## katorade (Aug 10, 2009)

LoveBHMS said:


> I think my annoyance comes from the misunderstanding of what feederism is and what activities and mentality it encompasses.
> 
> Along the lines of "I'm against feederism because it's wrong to make somebody gain weight" or "I'm against feederism because it's wrong to threaten a vulnerable woman with abandoning her if she won't do what you want."
> 
> ...



Just like all people with shoe fetishes are not apt to break into someone's apartment to sniff their shoes, not all feeders/feedees are going to be in the same frame of mind as you. Some people ARE in it for the power play and submission, and not just the weight gain. Some people really are just selfish enough to not care what happens to their partner in the long run, and that goes for ANY sexual relationship. You can't possibly think you speak for everyone that shares your fetish.


----------



## TraciJo67 (Aug 10, 2009)

Vick & Tina, I respect your opinions and I share them, for the most part, with the following disclaimer: I don't think that there's anything inherently wrong with the practice of feeding, unless and until it brings harm to one or both parties. In fact, as I was reading the OP's "rant", it struck me that it was painfully obvious to the point of not needing to be explained. 

I think that most everything, in moderation, is harmless ... or at least, only the business of the people engaging in the behaviors. I know the two of you well enough to know that you have a pretty high level of tolerance/empathy and understanding for people with differing viewpoints. Would you say that feeding, in itself, is a bad thing? 




Miss Vickie said:


> This.
> 
> Love BHM's, you mention shoe fetish, but to me the comparison between a shoe fetish and feederism isn't accurate because the person can take off their shoes but dropping weight isn't nearly as easy. Once the weight is on and causing health problems because it's too much for them to carry, then what? To me, it ceases to be "harmless, good clean fun" at that point, but since you don't know what each person's limitation is until they reach it, what's the answer? Do you wait until they become diabetic? Have their first heart attack? Their first knee replacement surgery? Once the stomach is enlarged from consumption of large foods, once the person is used to a certain high calorie intake each day, is it realistic for them to "go on a diet"?
> 
> ...


----------



## thatgirl08 (Aug 10, 2009)

LoveBHMS said:


> Is it possible that weight gain or excessive weight gain is unhealthy? Of course.





Tina said:


> I think this right here is a display of being in denial.
> 
> Of course feederism is unhealthy when it is practiced to the point of the feedee gaining more weight than their body can safely carry, which of course varies from individual to individual.



What are you even debating? That's exactly what she said.


----------



## Miss Vickie (Aug 10, 2009)

TraciJo67 said:


> Vick & Tina, I respect your opinions and I share them, for the most part, with the following disclaimer: I don't think that there's anything inherently wrong with the practice of feeding, unless and until it brings harm to one or both parties. In fact, as I was reading the OP's "rant", it struck me that it was painfully obvious to the point of not needing to be explained.
> 
> I think that most everything, in moderation, is harmless ... or at least, only the business of the people engaging in the behaviors. I know the two of you well enough to know that you have a pretty high level of tolerance/empathy and understanding for people with differing viewpoints. Would you say that feeding, in itself, is a bad thing?



Hm. I guess it's only a bad thing if it causes harm -- like you say, pretty obvious. The problem with weight gain, like I said, is that we can't know what harm is caused until it's too late. (It's not like the body is equipped with a reliable early warning system that we can all interpret). From a psychological, sociological perspective, I think that the objectification of women -- calling them "better" or "more attractive" if they're "thinner" or "fatter" -- can do harm but that's perhaps less concrete to determine than the very real physical dangers of being too fat or too thin.

It's definitely only the business of those practicing it. Like I said, the only reason I said something was because it was brought up. I wouldn't presume to jump into a feeder thread and start saying how dangerous it is, just as I would hope (hah!) that people would do the same vis a vis WLS.


----------



## Fuzzy Necromancer (Aug 10, 2009)

What bugs me is not being given the benefit of the doubt.

Yes, not all feeders are evil mustache-twirlers and not all feedees are mindless victims. Yes, gaining too much weight can be unhealthy. Few people are arguing with these points.

The thing is, with feederism, there is often a default assumption that it WILL get out of control and be taken to extreme unless otherwise specified. The burden of proof is on the feeder to prove that they are not a manipulative bastard, and on the feedee to prove that they have the intelligence and free will to take care of themselves and stop when they want to stop. 

I direct your attention to my sig quote.


----------



## exile in thighville (Aug 10, 2009)

Miss Vickie said:


> This.
> 
> Love BHM's, you mention shoe fetish, but to me the comparison between a shoe fetish and feederism isn't accurate because the person can take off their shoes but dropping weight isn't nearly as easy. Once the weight is on and causing health problems because it's too much for them to carry, then what? To me, it ceases to be "harmless, good clean fun" at that point, but since you don't know what each person's limitation is until they reach it, what's the answer? Do you wait until they become diabetic? Have their first heart attack? Their first knee replacement surgery? Once the stomach is enlarged from consumption of large foods, once the person is used to a certain high calorie intake each day, is it realistic for them to "go on a diet"?
> 
> ...



carried to extremes your posts could cause mental illness

i would really really get off on you personally not being able to tie your shoe


----------



## Ash (Aug 10, 2009)

I'm in pretty much complete agreement with the OP on this one. 

Going further, though...

First of all, I am a single feedee who is gaining by choice and completely of my own accord. No persuasive, dominant feeder twirling his mustache while I continue to eat cupcakes and tip the scales here, folks. 

I am an intelligent, confident fat woman who happens to like gaining and the way more weight affects my body. I'm not a victim of anything. I'm not in denial of the potential problems I could encounter down the road. My eyes are open. 

This is MY CHOICE. 

Isn't the idea of feminism that a woman has the right and the power to make her own decisions and to have control of her life and body? 

There's nothing to be "for" or "against" in this situation. No one gets a vote but me here.


----------



## thatgirl08 (Aug 10, 2009)

Yeah, to echo Ashley.. this whole arugement is silly because what two consenting adults (or like in Ashley's case, one adult) decide to do in their personal lives is none of your business. It's something you're going to encounter on Dims and if that bothers you, then maybe this site isn't for you.


----------



## TraciJo67 (Aug 10, 2009)

thatgirl08 said:


> Yeah, to echo Ashley.. this whole arugement is silly because what two consenting adults (or like in Ashley's case, one adult) decide to do in their personal lives is none of your business. It's something you're going to encounter on Dims and if that bothers you, then maybe this site isn't for you.



This thread was intentionally posted on the weight board, and the OP indicated that she didn't mind debate on the issue. I think that respectfully sharing opinions is pretty much asked for here.

Well, except for the post a few above this one, which I won't bother quoting as hopefully it will be promptly deleted.


----------



## thatgirl08 (Aug 10, 2009)

TraciJo67 said:


> This thread was intentionally posted on the weight board, and the OP indicated that she didn't mind debate on the issue. I think that respectfully sharing opinions is pretty much asked for here.



Agreed.. and I'm just sharing my opinion. I wasn't saying like GET OUT OF THIS THREAD IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, but rather responding generally to the idea of being upset at seeing feederism related things throughout Dims.


----------



## Miss Vickie (Aug 10, 2009)

Fuzzy Necromancer said:


> What bugs me is not being given the benefit of the doubt.
> 
> Yes, not all feeders are evil mustache-twirlers and not all feedees are mindless victims. Yes, gaining too much weight can be unhealthy. Few people are arguing with these points.
> 
> ...



I absolutely give you, anyone, everyone, the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise. The problem, as I mentioned before, is that we can't know the damage to the human body until it's too late and I think it's irresponsible for us, as people, to make decisions that knowingly cause harm. (Yes, as Traci said, I'm all about moderation -- not as in being moderated, but as in the choices we make in life. Sure, it's not as fun as throwing caution to the wind, but that's just not my style). And, as a health care provider and someone who's been deeply interested in the workings of the human body, it's my job to be concerned about this stuff; it's also something of a hobby, I admit. So yeah, I know I'm not at work now, but I'm still committed to helping people be as healthy as they can and I can't (or won't) turn off that part of me that knows how dangerous some of this shit is.

I don't think the majority of feeders are manipulative bastards, nor do I think that the majority of feedees are naive, silly victims. I trust two adults to make the decisions that work best for them. But when asked my opinion -- as I was, indirectly, in this thread -- I'll answer. You can feel free to tell me to go to hell.  It's okay. It won't hurt my feelings. I promise.



exile in thighville said:


> carried to extremes your posts could cause mental illness
> 
> i would really really get off on you personally not being able to tie your shoe



Exile, I have no idea what you're trying to say. Care to try again? 



TraciJo67 said:


> This thread was intentionally posted on the weight board, and the OP indicated that she didn't mind debate on the issue. I think that respectfully sharing opinions is pretty much asked for here.
> 
> Well, except for the post a few above this one, which I won't bother quoting as hopefully it will be promptly deleted.



Yeah that was my understanding, anyway. Like I said, I'm not going to bust into feeding threads and start telling everyone to eat vegetarian.  But when an issue is brought up where my input is solicited, I have a tendency... too... well... answer. This as opposed to the people who busted into my WLS thread and told me I was being "butchered" and was a "victim" -- where their opinion was most certainly NOT asked for.



thatgirl08 said:


> Agreed.. and I'm just sharing my opinion. I wasn't saying like GET OUT OF THIS THREAD IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, but rather responding generally to the idea of being upset at seeing feederism related things throughout Dims.



I'm not "upset" about feederism being at Dimensions. I've been here a long time, over a decade, so if it bothered me THAT much, I'd go elsewhere. While it's not my cuppa tea, as long as it doesn't reek of manipulation or trying to sneak weight gain on a person (usually a woman) , I leave it be.


----------



## TotallyReal (Aug 10, 2009)

There doesn't need to be an argument or counter-argument for or against it. Anyone who cares about what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their home should take a long walk off a short eat shit and die.


----------



## fatgirlflyin (Aug 10, 2009)

TotallyReal said:


> There doesn't need to be an argument or counter-argument for or against it. Anyone who cares about what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their home should take a long walk off a short eat shit and die.



I guess I can understand why people who are into feederism are upset at the idea of people questioning their fetish or lifestyle, whichever it should be called. However, I think that communication can go a long way and don't see how it could hurt to allow adults to discuss the issue. 

Who knows, maybe someone will learn something. Maybe someone who's mind has been closed to the idea will see it in a new light.


----------



## TotallyReal (Aug 10, 2009)

fatgirlflyin said:


> I guess I can understand why people who are into feederism are upset at the idea of people questioning their fetish or lifestyle, whichever it should be called. However, I think that communication can go a long way and don't see how it could hurt to allow adults to discuss the issue.
> 
> Who knows, maybe someone will learn something. Maybe someone who's mind has been closed to the idea will see it in a new light.



Ah! Now that's different. "I don't understand" is leagues apart from "I'm against."

Feeding is sexy because fat is sexy and feeding creates more fat. Additionally, food tastes good, lovers taste good, feeding is nourishment and survival is sexy. The mouth is sensual and lips are erotic and feeding can be a stand-in (or prelude to) oral sex. Feeding without gaining can be sexy too -- athletic couples eating strawberries off of nude bodies, chocolate dribbled along a torso. The act of gaining weight is sexy because it's taboo and empowering, or maybe it's submissive and coy, or maybe it's just a sexy feeling to know that the partner you love has more, is greater, is fattening. Maybe it's sexy to feel your body ripen like a fruit, or fatten because of overindulgence, a sign of affluence and luxury. Maybe it is the ultimate sign of hedonism and rejection of a culture where body dimorphism is the gold standard, or the ultimate act of our most primitive instincts to eat and gain and grow, or both at once. Or maybe it's just what some guys and some girls find hot, for every reason above, some of the reasons above, or no reason at all.


----------



## Teleute (Aug 10, 2009)

I'm not a feeder/feedee, but I guess I view this as being similar to S&M... it's scary to outsiders, and it can be dangerous if done incorrectly. Two INFORMED (that bit's important!) consenting adults can engage in it just fine. I think that, much like S&M, the problem comes in when either the people involved don't communicate clearly, or when they are poorly informed (no understanding of nutrition, for example). There is the possibility of someone with low self-esteem being drawn into a fetish because they get attention and approval, but a person who pulls someone into feederism in that way is not so much a "feeder" as they are an "asshole", and the community here seems aware enough to call people out if they did stuff like that.


----------



## suebeehoney (Aug 10, 2009)

I have to second Telute's statement about feederism - it's scary to those who don't understand it. 

Personally, I don't understand it - I mean, I get the concept, but it just doesn't appeal to me. It's just not my thing. Just like something that I'm particularly interested in might be a complete turn off to someone else. Same thing. 

I posted recently on one of the "single" threads that yes, I am single, but that I am not a feedee/feeder and don't wish to be one. I made that statement due to a recent encounter with a member who really, REALLY wanted me to be a feedee. You can't MAKE someone a feedee or feeder if they aren't one and don't want to be one. I wasn't trying to upset or inflame anyone on that thread by making that statement (can't even find the thread now to review it) - just stating my preference up front, so no one else would waste their time contacting me if what they really want is a feeder/feedee relationship.

I have no problem with someone who has a feeder/feedee relationship or fetish - I say live and let live.


----------



## LoveBHMS (Aug 10, 2009)

fatgirlflyin said:


> I guess I can understand why people who are into feederism are upset at the idea of people questioning their fetish or lifestyle, whichever it should be called. However, I think that communication can go a long way and don't see how it could hurt to allow adults to discuss the issue.
> 
> Who knows, maybe someone will learn something. Maybe someone who's mind has been closed to the idea will see it in a new light.



Which is just why I put it on the non-protected forums. I have no issue with others talking about why they have issues with feederism.

*BUT.*

The medical issues (mental and physical) brought up by Tina and Miss Vickie are part of why I created this thread. I respect and value both of them and their posts and observations about fat, gaining, sexuality, and this community overall.

As I said in my original post, for some people, excessive weight gain is not appropriate.

Also, I was very careful to include the idea that some of feederism is practiced without any harm to the feedee. This can mean anything from a fetishist only indulging online or a feedee/gainer only being fed or stuffed on occaision so there is little or no actual weight gain involved. 

Adults...consenting adults can make these choices on their own with full knowledge of risks and benefits. 

When Dims had a Hyde Park, there was a thread about former NY Governor Elliot Spitzer and how he hired a prostitute and lost his position and threatened his marriage. I would say that Elliot Spitzer lost so much because he made bad choices, did not consider the consequences of his actions, broke the law, and harmed another woman (his wife.) But he did not lose his position for being heterosexual and horny. Being straight and horny is fine; hiring a hooker, bringing her across state lines, and cheating on your wife is not fine.


----------



## LoveBHMS (Aug 10, 2009)

> I can say that the foods most people are fed to gain weight aren't healthy, and in many cases, people are encouraged to carry more weight than is healthy. I really don't think that's cool, and I truly don't think that most people honestly understand what they're doing to themselves, and the consequence they face -- until it's too late. Most people haven't seen (or smelled) an infected diabetic ulcer, watched people have their limbs chopped off, a piece at a time. Most people haven't witnessed a loved one (who is still quite young) lose their ability to work... to drive... to write... to read... because of diabetes.



Once again. Diabetes is terrible. Nobody would say otherwise. But feederism does not cause it. Maybe excessive weight gain or eating the wrong foods cause it, but again, your body does not know the difference. The ill health came from the weight gain, the unhealthy diet, and the wrong genetics; the ill health did not come from the fact that anyone had a sexual fetish.


----------



## exile in thighville (Aug 11, 2009)

Miss Vickie said:


> Exile, I have no idea what you're trying to say. Care to try again?



totallyreal summed it up


----------



## exile in thighville (Aug 11, 2009)

TotallyReal said:


> Ah! Now that's different. "I don't understand" is leagues apart from "I'm against."
> 
> Feeding is sexy because fat is sexy and feeding creates more fat. Additionally, food tastes good, lovers taste good, feeding is nourishment and survival is sexy. The mouth is sensual and lips are erotic and feeding can be a stand-in (or prelude to) oral sex. Feeding without gaining can be sexy too -- athletic couples eating strawberries off of nude bodies, chocolate dribbled along a torso. The act of gaining weight is sexy because it's taboo and empowering, or maybe it's submissive and coy, or maybe it's just a sexy feeling to know that the partner you love has more, is greater, is fattening. Maybe it's sexy to feel your body ripen like a fruit, or fatten because of overindulgence, a sign of affluence and luxury. Maybe it is the ultimate sign of hedonism and rejection of a culture where body dimorphism is the gold standard, or the ultimate act of our most primitive instincts to eat and gain and grow, or both at once. Or maybe it's just what some guys and some girls find hot, for every reason above, some of the reasons above, or no reason at all.



i mean this is fine too but it's not _really_ why...it's cuz it gets my (our) (collective) dick hard. if a girl shitting on my (our) (collective) face got my (our) (collective) dick hard i'd (we'd) be defending that. either way get out of my bedroom go away


----------



## LoveBHMS (Aug 11, 2009)

This very popular pop song is very well known. It's by the singer Meatloaf and is about a man who tells a woman he loves her and will "love her till the end of time" so that she will allow him to have sex with her.

The whole theme of the song is the woman needing assurance of the man's love in order to have sex. She continually asks if he loves her and will love her "forever" prior to allowing him access to her body.

The end of the song has the couple having had sex, and the man "praying for the end of time" because he can't stand another minute with his partner. The point is....he tells a lie because he wants to have sex, and subsequently is unhappy.

I have yet to see mass protests against this song, or even radio stations being urged to not play it.

Why?

Because it's commonly understood that the pursuit of sexual pleasure *can* be hurtful or dishonest. It's commonly understood that somebody may initiate behaviour which is manipulative and dishonest to gain gratification. It's wrong but it does happen.

Feederism is the pursuit of sexual gratification through certain activities. Any harm to anyone involved has nothing to do with the fetish itself.


----------



## Teleute (Aug 11, 2009)

I urge radio stations not to play it... but it's because it sucks, not because of the content.  You're totally right about that not being a feederism-specific problem; I didn't mean to imply that it was. Assholes are universal, heh.


----------



## Miss Vickie (Aug 11, 2009)

LoveBHMS said:


> Once again. Diabetes is terrible. Nobody would say otherwise. But feederism does not cause it. Maybe excessive weight gain or eating the wrong foods cause it, but again, your body does not know the difference. The ill health came from the weight gain, the unhealthy diet, and the wrong genetics; the ill health did not come from the fact that anyone had a sexual fetish.



Oh, okay. I see where we're having a difference -- the lightbulb just came on for me. To me this isn't a sexual issue at all -- it's a health issue. Anyone who knows me (or knows my rather... elaborate ... sexual history) knows that I'm no prude. So to me, I look at the problems that excess weight (and eating unhealthy foods) cause to the body and I can't understand why anyone would deliberately sign on for that, particularly since I've experienced them myself; as you say, just like the body, I don't see the difference in how the pounds got there, whether from sexual gratification, lack if knowledge about nutrition, etc etc etc. I only see the end result, and it makes me sad and scared for the individual involved.

Does that make sense? Or can you at least better understand where I'm coming from and how this isn't an indictment of anyone's sexuality but rather fear and worry for the damage that it can cause. Since each person's threshold for getting sick is different, there's just no way to know how much is too much. So sure, they can be a willing partner, but do they honestly look at the very real possibility of being disabled with open eyes? Probably not. 

BTW, I appreciate you taking the time to explain your position. It's nice that we can discuss things like adults; that's how we'll understand each other's points of view and hopefully put an end to childish accusations that do NOTHING but cause bad feelings and diminish the person hurling them. I'd really like to understand why it's fun for people, and your explanation is most helpful in that.

And just so you know, I feel this way about all, if not most, risk taking behavior because I've taken care of people who've done stupid shit and then expected the medical team to somehow, magically, make it better, like we have some sort of fairy dust.  As you can imagine, that gets old after awhile. How many diabetic pregnant women who drink 120 oz Big Gulps do I have to see who feign ignorance about how they became diabetic and why can't we just give them a pill and send them home? How many women have to get drunk and high, go to parties, get pregnant, STAY pregnant, keep doing drugs and give birth to babies with severe problems? How many ... yeah, you get the picture. Like I say, it gets old sometimes, and each of these people I'm sure thought they had full knowledge of what they were doing at the time. And yet they demanded the medical team make it better. Sometimes we can't, and when we can't it totally tears me up inside. 

If there were a way to do it where it didn't harm the body and possibly cause the person disability and ill health, then I'd think it was awesome and cool since I'm all about sensuality. But over the years, I've seen too many women left by guys with their lives, health and self esteem in tatters.  It just makes me really sad -- for them, and for the community.


----------



## thatgirl08 (Aug 11, 2009)

Miss Vickie said:


> Oh, okay. I see where we're having a difference ..*SNIP*.. for them, and for the community.



Wanted to rep you but couldn't. This was a heartfelt post and definitely made me understand more of where you're coming from.


----------



## LoveBHMS (Aug 11, 2009)

Yes, but again you are referring to the physical outcome of certain actions.

Let's say somebody was into being spanked, hard. 

That adult asks or encourages or even pays another adult to administer a spanking. For the recipient, the spanking needs to be hard in order to result in total gratification. The recipient seeks out gratification by any means, up to and including insisting the spanker use a paddle, whip, or even a tire chain.

The recipient's spanking results in a skin tear, which in turn results in a staph infection. Very serious, but never the intended outcome.

The sad and serious fact of staph infections does not mean somebody whose sexuality is satisfied by spanking should go unrewarded.

The sad and serious fact of vaginal tearing does not mean "rough sex" is wrong or that those who derive gratifcation from it are wrong headed or short sighted or particpate in it blindly.


----------



## TotallyReal (Aug 11, 2009)

Miss Vickie said:


> So sure, they can be a willing partner, but do they honestly look at the very real possibility of being disabled with open eyes? Probably not.



_This is so condescending._ How many women have to post that they are active *single* feedees before people fucking believe that this is not a male-only sexual orientation. A million? A billion? A trillion??????????


----------



## TotallyReal (Aug 11, 2009)

I mean when you post something like that, no matter how politely and even-handedly, you are dismissing not just someone's sexual orientation, _but the objective ability of the female gender to understand how food works and what eating food does._


----------



## Ash (Aug 11, 2009)

TotallyReal said:


> _This is so condescending._ How many women have to post that they are active *single* feeders before people fucking believe that this is not a male-only sexual orientation. A million? A billion? A trillion??????????



This. Exactly this. 

I'm not a stupid girl. I know exactly what I could be looking at in the future. But I am making my own choice, and I continue to make that choice every single day. 

Earlier, Miss Vickie, you drew comparisons to posts on the WLS board about the dangers of making the decision to have surgery. There are risks in both the choice you made and the one I am making. I understand your concern, and I appreciate the place that it's coming from. However, I AM informed, and this is what *I* want.


----------



## LoveBHMS (Aug 11, 2009)

> If there were a way to do it where it didn't harm the body and possibly cause the person disability and ill health, then I'd think it was awesome and cool since I'm all about sensuality.



That is my point. There are ways to do it without harm.

Fantasy. 
Online encounters.
Weekly stuffing sessions which do not lead to weight gain.
Weight gain in which the gainer understands and actively undertakes the risks.

If you love skiing, you risk breaking a leg. That does not mean you should not go skiing, but rather than you do so with the full knowlege it might break your leg, and taking all measures to ensure that you don't.

Anyone who takes part in showjumping or horse racing knows that a fall and paralysis might happen; so you take all available measures to not have that happen but you also do it with the full understanding of the potential risks. You get on a horse knowing you might end up like Christopher Reeve, but you do it because the enjoyment and rewards are worth it.

Same with feederism.


----------



## Miss Vickie (Aug 11, 2009)

thatgirl08 said:


> Wanted to rep you but couldn't. This was a heartfelt post and definitely made me understand more of where you're coming from.



Thanks, That Girl.  I'm not asking for anyone to agree with me, but if you understand where I'm coming from, then I'm satisfied because it means that at least the time wasn't wasted.



LoveBHMS said:


> Yes, but again you are referring to the physical outcome of certain actions.
> 
> Let's say somebody was into being spanked, hard.
> 
> ...



Yeah I see what you're saying, and any activity we partake in has the risk of causing harm -- hell, you can choke on a piece of lettuce, right? But I hope you don't think I'm saying that they shouldn't have their fun. Obviously, as long as both people are into it and consenting and it's an equal power balance, then it's good. But _this_ thread asks those of us who have issues with it, to explain why we feel the way we do, or at least that's how I viewed the thread. What I'm trying to explain is why I have concerns about it -- again, not because it's sexual but rather the end, physical result, which can be deadly.

And while a staph infection could happen as a result of a skin tear, it's way way way way way less likely than the problems that many of us (including me) have faced from being fat. Can some people live healthily at high weights? Absolutely! But my point was that since we don't know who those people are, we should be cautious in trying to gain weight because as many of us have found out, once you're fat, and have mobility problems, it's hard as hell to be active enough to lose the weight again.



TotallyReal said:


> _This is so condescending._ How many women have to post that they are active *single* feeders before people fucking believe that this is not a male-only sexual orientation. A million? A billion? A trillion??????????



It's not meant to be condescending, but you keep seeing what you want to see in what I write. I'm trying to explain my point of view (which was solicited). If you don't like it then may I invite you to not read it, if it offends you so much? I have no agenda in what I'm posting, other than expressing my concerns about an activity I see friends participating in, concerns I'm expressing in as respectful and understanding a way as I can. Can you say the same about your agenda, and the way you've expressed yourself in this thread?


----------



## TotallyReal (Aug 11, 2009)

List of things feedees apparently do not understand and literally cannot understand because they are victims to the cruel whims of dastardly villains better suited for hard labour in gaol

-gaining weight means that you get bigger
-eating a lot of food will make you gain weight
-you should love whatever weight you are, unless you want to be bigger, in which case I respectfully will say that you clearly don't understand
-fire is hot (don't touch fire)
-cars drive on roads and take you where you want to go
-the sun is hot (it is made out of fire)
-don't swear at policemen
-telephones are not food (usually)

Sources: 
1) Feeders are creepy
2) I once knew a feedee whose life was destroyed by a feeder
3) Fire is hot


----------



## Miss Vickie (Aug 11, 2009)

TotallyReal said:


> I mean when you post something like that, no matter how politely and even-handedly, you are dismissing not just someone's sexual orientation, _but the objective ability of the female gender to understand how food works and what eating food does._



If this is true, then it's something that most Americans (if not other westerners) also face; I mean, have you seen the crap we eat??? We're getting totally off topic here, but I truly DON'T think that most of us TRULY understand the consequences of the choices we make; I know that I didn't until my first diabetic patient who was having pieces of her foot cut off each week to try to get ahead of the gangrenous infection. She was a well educated woman, my age, with three little kids and even after being diagnosed she kept eating the same high sugar foods that landed her in the hospital. 

This isn't a gender issue -- it's an issue of lack of education or interest in nutrition or BOTH. I mean, so many people don't even know what the hell a protein is, or a carbohydrate, or what's in the majority of the foods they eat. So truly, how informed are any of us about what we eat?

/tangent

I don't at all think women are stupid or ill informed or weak. Quite the opposite, in fact. But I know that men AND women do all kinds of crazy things to be loved. It doesn't make us stupid. It makes us human.


----------



## TotallyReal (Aug 11, 2009)

Miss Vickie said:


> It's not meant to be condescending, but you keep seeing what you want to see in what I write. I'm trying to explain my point of view (which was solicited). If you don't like it then may I invite you to not read it, if it offends you so much? I have no agenda in what I'm posting, other than expressing my concerns about an activity I see friends participating in, concerns I'm expressing in as respectful and understanding a way as I can. Can you say the same about your agenda, and the way you've expressed yourself in this thread?




Look. I get that. And I really appreciate that you're being even-handed and trying to learn. Not even fronting.

But next time you see some gay people hanging out, try to imagine what it would be like to go up to them, and, very even-handedly and respectfully, tell them that you don't think they have healthy lifestyles. And that bottoms (guys who take it in the butt) simply can't foresee the health risks, and they're probably secretly unhappy and will end up used/abused.

Then try to imagine that they've all heard that argument literally ten quadrillion times before. That's what many feeders/feedees feel like.


----------



## thatgirl08 (Aug 11, 2009)

Miss Vickie said:


> Can some people live healthily at high weights? Absolutely! But my point was that since we don't know who those people are, we should be cautious in trying to gain weight because as many of us have found out, once you're fat, and have mobility problems, it's hard as hell to be active enough to lose the weight again.



I have to say, this is totally fair. Nothing wrong with being cautious.


----------



## Miss Vickie (Aug 11, 2009)

TotallyReal said:


> List of things feedees apparently do not understand and literally cannot understand because they are victims to the cruel whims of dastardly villains better suited for hard labour in gaol
> 
> -gaining weight means that you get bigger
> -eating a lot of food will make you gain weight
> ...



If this is what you get from my sincere attempts to explain my position, then I have nothing else to say. You have fun, and I leave you to it. I have better things to do, but I thought that there was an honest interest in what people had to say on the subject.

I can see I was wrong.


----------



## LoveBHMS (Aug 11, 2009)

> And while a staph infection could happen as a result of a skin tear, it's way way way way way less likely than the problems that many of us (including me) have faced from being fat. Can some people live healthily at high weights? Absolutely! But my point was that since we don't know who those people are, we should be cautious in trying to gain weight because as many of us have found out, once you're fat, and have mobility problems, it's hard as hell to be active enough to lose the weight again.



Everything you say is true. It is also true we should be cautious in going skiing or horseback riding because you could wind up paralyzed. those things can and do happen, but not to the majority of participants.

Very few people know this, but the jockey who rode Secretariat wound up paralyzed from a fall. Does that fact in any way negate what he did as a jockey or mean that racing fans should not thrill to watching tapes of Secretariat win the Triple Crown?


----------



## Fuzzy Necromancer (Aug 11, 2009)

Miss Vickie said:


> Exile, I have no idea what you're trying to say. Care to try again?
> .



He's trying to confess his love for you and his shoelace-tying fetish =o


----------



## Teleute (Aug 11, 2009)

Fuzzy Necromancer said:


> He's trying to confess his love for you and his shoelace-tying fetish =o



Loop, swoop, and pull suddenly has new meaning


----------



## exile in thighville (Aug 11, 2009)

TotallyReal said:


> _This is so condescending._ How many women have to post that they are active *single* feedees before people fucking believe that this is not a male-only sexual orientation. A million? A billion? A trillion??????????



concur

...


----------



## Miss Vickie (Aug 11, 2009)

*chuckles*

Look, folks, I'm not trying to be difficult. An invitation was offered to 'splain why I feel the way I do, and I did. If my perspective still isn't clear, then at least it won't be because I didn't throw enough words at it, that's for sure. All I can be responsible for or speak to is my point of view, and I wasn't, and won't, tell anyone what to do or how to live their lives. That's just not my thing. I've never told anyone "don't be a feeder", never told a feedee that he or she was a naive victim, never tried to intervene, never done any of the things that have been leveled at me, never been judgmental or accusatory or mean to feeders. 

What I have done is had an opinion, one that isn't carved in stone but one which, like most of my opinions, is subject to evolution as I learn more. I expressed that opinion, because I was asked. Had this thread not been started, I'd have been just as happy to keep my yap shut because I know that my opinion means absolutely nothing to just about everyone here, and I'm good with that.

But what I refuse to do is to waste anyone's time by arguing my position any more. Either you get where I'm coming from, or you don't. Your choice. I'm happy to learn more, and look forward to reading this thread, but I'm done defending my thoughts on the subject. I'd rather go hang with my hubby, if it's all the same to you. The kid's out of the house for a few hours and.. well.. ya know...time's a wastin'.


----------



## Jack Skellington (Aug 11, 2009)

TotallyReal said:


> But next time you see some gay people hanging out,



Not a valid comparison. Big difference between sexual orientation (straight, gay, bi) and a sexual fetish.


----------



## Tina (Aug 11, 2009)

TraciJo67 said:


> I think that most everything, in moderation, is harmless ... or at least, only the business of the people engaging in the behaviors. I know the two of you well enough to know that you have a pretty high level of tolerance/empathy and understanding for people with differing viewpoints. Would you say that feeding, in itself, is a bad thing?


Not at all. It's really just another form of sex play for many. For a few it really is a matter of control and manipulation, but I believe those few are the vast minority. I've read many posts by people who are into feeding, but as an sometimes kind of thing, and also with an eye on not getting too unhealthy about it, but enjoying the turn-on of it. I think most know what they're getting into -- and certainly if they are Dimensions posters or others who are well aware of the possible negative outcomes.

There have been posts here by what I would term idiotic assholes who talk about slipping weight gain powder into their wife's drinks, food, etc. Again, the exception, but every bit of the spectrum is still part of the equation. No matter what subject one is discussing you'll have people on each end of the extreme advocating for what they are into or not into, and how it's totally fine with no consequences, or how the world will end because of it, please help us Jesus. 

So I would say that, as I believe is true with most things in life, it's all about intent. You have two not just consenting, but informed, adults doing their thing? Have at it. And ultimately, the only person who really cares about how I feel about it is me, so... *shrug*


thatgirl08 said:


> What are you even debating? That's exactly what she said.


No, it really is not. She said: _"Is feederism unhealthy? NO.
"Is it possible that weight gain or excessive weight gain is unhealthy? Of course. But that has nothing to do with a sexual fetish---it's a physical issue. In other words, your body does not know that you gained weight because of feederism. It's the gain itself, not the sexuality."_

If there is weight gain and it becomes a hindrance to mobility and causes ill health, and the gain is in part because of living out a sexual fetish, then of _course_ the sexuality aspect of it is at least partly to blame. And I'm also not debating -- in most 'conversations' I don't debate, I offer my opinion. I feel no need to debate most issues.


LoveBHMS said:


> Because it's commonly understood that the pursuit of sexual pleasure *can* be hurtful or dishonest. It's commonly understood that somebody may initiate behaviour which is manipulative and dishonest to gain gratification. It's wrong but it does happen.


Unless I am misreading you, this sounds like rationalisation by someone who doesn't want to have to take responsibility in your own mind for anything negative that might come from your sex play. If you are one part of the equation and are actively involved and it has negative consequences, then you are partly responsible. In fact I do understand "that the pursuit of sexual pleasure *can* be hurtful or dishonest" when the person is persuing sexual pleasure by using manipulation and dishonesty is a manipulative anal cyst. I do not think it is okay nor is it something the one doing it needn't feel any responsibility for; they just often re-arrange it in their minds so that to _them_ it looks like they have no responsibility for their behavior.


> Feederism is the pursuit of sexual gratification through certain activities. Any harm to anyone involved has nothing to do with the fetish itself.


I still see a huge cognitive disconnect here, with a massive helping of rationalization and denial. Again. Still. 

Scenario: You have someone (often but not always a woman, but let's go with the seeming statistics) who is fat but is in basically mid-size BBW territory. She eats enough to maintain her weight, but it doesn't vary much. She meets someone who turns out to be a feeder. They start a feeding relationship and she gains weight. Over a few years she gains enough weight to start compromising her mobility, and her previously healthy body starts having problems, say, with high blood pressure, blood sugar problems -- whatever. Previously, she was a healthy BBW who had maintained her weight for years. After the relationship, she's no longer so healthy and cannot walk as well as she could previously, as she gets more out of breath, maybe it hurts, and so of course, consequently, she is not as able to exercise as easily as before, which makes the weight pile on even more, thereby beginning a vicious cycle that has a negative impact on her. She wasn't a victim, and it wasn't something that was done to her without her knowledge nor her consent, but fact is, she is now living a life that has been negatively affected by acting out a fetish. 

So, in the above case, if not for the fetish > no behavior in acting out the fetish > no negative consequences arising from acting out said fetish. To me, there is a direct correlation that I find undeniable, unless I am totally misreading you. I'm not saying this will always happen -- I'm no Chicken Little -- but I'd also never, ever say that consequences of behavior should be ignored because they are fantasy-based behaviors turned real life.

And please, TG08, to say that if someone is against feederism they have no business being here... I just don't have the words. Well, I do, but I don't feel like having to type them all out.


----------



## Shosh (Aug 11, 2009)

Ashley said:


> This. Exactly this.
> 
> I'm not a stupid girl. I know exactly what I could be looking at in the future. But I am making my own choice, and I continue to make that choice every single day.
> 
> Earlier, Miss Vickie, you drew comparisons to posts on the WLS board about the dangers of making the decision to have surgery. There are risks in both the choice you made and the one I am making. I understand your concern, and I appreciate the place that it's coming from. However, I AM informed, and this is what *I* want.



Ashley just out of curiosity, and I am not giving my opinion here one way or the other, I have always wondered what the families of feedees make of their decision to gain?
Have you told your Mum and Dad, and what do they think of your choice?
I realize you are an adult, but parents continue to figure in our lives on some level.


----------



## thatgirl08 (Aug 11, 2009)

Tina said:


> No, it really is not. She said: "Is feederism unhealthy? NO. Is it possible that weight gain or excessive weight gain is unhealthy? Of course. But that has nothing to do with a sexual fetish---it's a physical issue. In other words, your body does not know that you gained weight because of feederism. It's the gain itself, not the sexuality."
> If there is weight gain and it becomes a hindrance to mobility and causes ill health, and the gain is in part because of living out a sexual fetish, then of _course_ the sexuality aspect of it is at least partly to blame. And I'm also not debating -- in most 'conversations' I don't debate, I offer my opinion. I feel no need to debate most issues.



I think it's kind of funny that half of this was discussing (is that an okay word to use?) my choice of the word debate. Like, pick it apart a little more. 

The whole point is that there is nothing inherently wrong with the fetish itself but rather how it is carried out. The fetish isn't what causes health issues, the actions are.


----------



## Jack Skellington (Aug 11, 2009)

Miss Vickie said:


> Look, folks, I'm not trying to be difficult. An invitation was offered to 'splain why I feel the way I do, and I did.



You very politely and patiently explained your viewpoint (which was asked for)and some people reacted.. let's say... poorly to it. Yet, you never lost your composure and remained polite. I respect your pain threshold. You're a nicer person than I am.


----------



## bigsexy920 (Aug 11, 2009)

Dont you all get tired of insisting that you are right and fighting on every subject. 

Its not my thing but hey, if thats what you want go for it.


----------



## thatgirl08 (Aug 11, 2009)

Tina said:


> And please, TG08, to say that if someone is against feederism they have no business being here... I just don't have the words. Well, I do, but I don't feel like having to type them all out.



When did I say that? What I said was that if seeing feederism mentioned all the time on Dims upsets you, this probably isn't the place for you to be. Don't put words in my mouth.


----------



## Ash (Aug 11, 2009)

Susannah said:


> Ashley just out of curiosity, and I am not giving my opinion here one way or the other, I have always wondered what the families of feedees make of their decision to gain?
> Have you told your Mum and Dad, and what do they think of your choice?
> I realize you are an adult, but parents continue to figure in our lives on some level.



I think that, as adults, we all are allowed to have things in our lives that are free from our parents' commentary. I told my family a long time ago that my weight is not up for discussion in any form. They have respected that.

Also, I must be on A LOT of ignore lists around here...

Oh right. Real, willing, informed gainers don't exist. 

/figment of my own imagination


----------



## furious styles (Aug 11, 2009)

this thread has an absurd amount of hypotheticals. 

let's say, for instance, i was a person who would post in this thread. in this case i would be a guy that posts in threads, and probably likes to post in threads. does this make me a bad person? well no i'm just posting in a thread, in theory.

on the other hand let's say i'm a guy reading a thread without posting. hypothetically speaking i enjoy reading threads but maybe not posting in threads. but hey, to each his own.


----------



## Shosh (Aug 11, 2009)

Ashley said:


> I think that, as adults, we all are allowed to have things in our lives that are free from our parents' commentary. I told my family a long time ago that my weight is not up for discussion in any form. They have respected that.
> 
> Also, I must be on A LOT of ignore lists around here...
> 
> ...



Well you are not on my ignore list.

I would love to have things that are free from my mother's commentary, but I have a Jewish mother, so what can I do?


----------



## exile in thighville (Aug 11, 2009)

Jack Skellington said:


> Not a valid comparison. Big difference between sexual orientation (straight, gay, bi) and a sexual fetish.



not in this context regarding it not being a choice



Susannah said:


> Ashley just out of curiosity, and I am not giving my opinion here one way or the other, I have always wondered what the families of feedees make of their decision to gain?
> Have you told your Mum and Dad, and what do they think of your choice?
> I realize you are an adult, but parents continue to figure in our lives on some level.



what does your mom have to say about your fisting and felching?


----------



## Tina (Aug 11, 2009)

thatgirl08 said:


> I think it's kind of funny that half of this was discussing (is that an okay word to use?) my choice of the word debate. Like, pick it apart a little more.


You just like to scrap, don't you? I mean, I didn't give much time to it, and you exaggerate that I picked it apart and that half of my post was discussing your choice of words. I just gave an opinion. I don't like to debate, that's it. I guess it's not okay to state that or I'll get snark in return.

You're being silly.


> The whole point is that there is nothing inherently wrong with the fetish itself but rather how it is carried out. The fetish isn't what causes health issues, the actions are.


And I believe you are wrong and are only looking at part of the equation. Actions based upon fetishes are still actions, and actions have consequences, great or small. To me this couldn't be more obvious. You disagree. My world is falling apart now. 


thatgirl08 said:


> When did I say that? What I said was that if seeing feederism mentioned all the time on Dims upsets you, this probably isn't the place for you to be. Don't put words in my mouth.


Not much fun, is it? See, you can do it, too, and did, when it came to my own posts. Just thought that you might like to see it from the other side of the fence.


----------



## Wild Zero (Aug 11, 2009)

Ashley said:


> /figment of my own imagination



INVISIBLE FEEDER OUT OF FUCKING NOWHERE

Be it cognitive dissonance between reality and perception of gaining/feederism or the ignore function it's a shame your posts in this thread aren't generating more discussion.


----------



## Shosh (Aug 11, 2009)

exile in thighville said:


> not in this context regarding it not being a choice
> 
> 
> 
> what does your mom have to say about your fisting and felching?



I asked a perfectly legitimate question. Everybody has fantasies and some have fetishes and that is fine, I would just imagine that gaining a huge amount of weight is obviously more noticable and more likely to be questioned by others. Especially when most young women are seemingly forever trying to lose or keep their weight stable.
Once again I offer no opinion here either way, I was just curious.


----------



## Mini (Aug 11, 2009)

I wonder if the posters on Gurochan get this much shit over their fetish.


----------



## superodalisque (Aug 11, 2009)

i think that people have the right to like whatever it is they like. i don't think its fair for people to take the worst case scenario and foist it on everyone involved. thats how people treat us fat folk in general. they say we are in terrible health and we are all going to get heart problems diabetes etc... and die even when on an individual level our blood pressure and blood sugar levels can be better than that of a lot of thin people. i know mine is. its like saying all black people will be poor and live in the ghetto and all of their male offspring will go to prison. its a prejudice pure and simple especially when you overly generalize like that. every situation is different. every person is different. 

i understand that some people might be worried. people have had their health ruined. but you know, that was thier decision. people have to bear the consequences of thier own actions especially in the face of all of this information. also its time to stop blaming feeder FAs for the fact that women have chosen to gain to thier detriment at times. women are adults and can make decisions and take responsibility for what they do. no one can do anything to you that you don't allow or even want them to do. you have ot agree. its true that sometimes people convince themselves of things they don't really believe and may not be true. but thats true for a lot of things. sometimes you just have to live and find out for yourself where your own boundaries are. a lot of people here have done that very well. i think we ought to give them the benefit of the doubt, some trust and even some support instead of acting just like the people that we claim don't give us fat folks in general acceptance because they don't understand us. 

when are we ever going to learn to stop all of this and just help people and encourage each other to have what they want in the best way possible. after all there isn't one of us here who isn't doing or hasn't done something someone else would think is wrong--including being fat in the first place. are we just parroting our own emotionally abusive parents, siblings and society when we do the same thing. how much good did it do us? was it helpful to you? are we going to give other people the freedom and respect we've always wanted from others or are we going to be as stingy with that as those who have been abusive toward us have been? remember "its for your own good". was it really? or was it just for their personal satisfaction and thier need to be right? what is your reason for judging people who are into the feeding culture? do you really care that much about the individual people who are involved or is it just another way to criticize someone else and be right? and if its not okay for them to be fat and want to be fatter is it okay for you to be the way that you are? we might all have some thinking to do.


----------



## mergirl (Aug 11, 2009)

LoveBHMS said:


> Yes, but again you are referring to the physical outcome of certain actions.
> 
> Let's say somebody was into being spanked, hard.
> 
> ...



Isn't weight gain the whole point for most feeders/feedees though?
In CP the whole point isn't to infect someone with a staphylococcus infection. It's to punish someone/recieve punishment. (Unless very extreme)
The point of hard sex isnt to rip someones vaginia it is to have hard sex. (Unless very extreme and unless that level of sadism was involved)
To compare these actions to feederism=weight gain isn't correct. It would be closer to say feederism=immobitily or death (In very extreme cases). Its like a worst case scenario, which is uncommon but 'could' happen. This was the comparison. 
I have to say, it is a little weird that when women say they are feedees no one really actually believes them somehow! I wonder why that is? Is it maby because then we can't really point any finger of blame because if we do, we have to point at quite a lot of fat women who have become fat for various other reasons. Perhaps they got fat because they loved food. Getting fat because they loved getting fat is not a million miles away from that i feel. I think this makes people here feel a wee bit uncomfortable with out and out feedees. As this site is about fat acceptance then why should it matter 'how' you got fat?


----------



## Wagimawr (Aug 11, 2009)

Mini said:


> I wonder if the posters on Gurochan get this much shit over their fetish.


Probably not. I mean, when in Rome... you hack off everybody else's limbs and jack off onto the mess.
(alternatively, feederism doesn't kill people, feeders kill people!)


----------



## LoveBHMS (Aug 11, 2009)

Tina said:


> I still see a huge cognitive disconnect here, with a massive helping of rationalization and denial. Again. Still.
> 
> Scenario: You have someone (often but not always a woman, but let's go with the seeming statistics) who is fat but is in basically mid-size BBW territory. She eats enough to maintain her weight, but it doesn't vary much. She meets someone who turns out to be a feeder. They start a feeding relationship and she gains weight. Over a few years she gains enough weight to start compromising her mobility, and her previously healthy body starts having problems, say, with high blood pressure, blood sugar problems -- whatever. Previously, she was a healthy BBW who had maintained her weight for years. After the relationship, she's no longer so healthy and cannot walk as well as she could previously, as she gets more out of breath, maybe it hurts, and so of course, consequently, she is not as able to exercise as easily as before, which makes the weight pile on even more, thereby beginning a vicious cycle that has a negative impact on her. She wasn't a victim, and it wasn't something that was done to her without her knowledge nor her consent, but fact is, she is now living a life that has been negatively affected by acting out a fetish.



Really just what thatgirl08 said, that it was not the fact of one or both of them having a fetish that caused her problems, it was unsafe behaviour.

Elliot Spitzer did not lose the governorship of NY because of heterosexuality; he lost it because he committed a crime by engaging in prostitution and cheating on his wife. Bill Clinton was also not impeached because of heterosexuality and deriving enjoyment from oral sex; it was poor choices, adultery, and dishonesty.


----------



## mergirl (Aug 11, 2009)

Mini said:


> I wonder if the posters on Gurochan get this much shit over their fetish.


Oh my curiosity got the better of me! Actually, "machine girls" is one of my friends fetishes. I didn't really want to look at the rest..i am just awake and am easily disturbed until i wake up properly.


----------



## Oldtimer76 (Aug 11, 2009)

TotallyReal said:


> _This is so condescending._ How many women have to post that they are active *single* feedees before people fucking believe that this is not a male-only sexual orientation. A million? A billion? A trillion??????????



A zillion maybe?


I don't have the time to debate, not even the interest to debate and debating in english is way too difficult for me, since it is not my main language.

I only wanna say that everyone should do what they want (why should others even bother?); 
And that some people constantly trying to tell that only their opinion is the right one, wich is bad.


----------



## exile in thighville (Aug 11, 2009)

Susannah said:


> I asked a perfectly legitimate question.



so did i

tell me more about your discussions with mom and dad about your kinky kinky sex


----------



## exile in thighville (Aug 11, 2009)

and anyway raise your paw if your parents have ever _positively_ commented on your weightgain


----------



## tonynyc (Aug 11, 2009)

*All this debating - it can make one pretty hungry :eat1: ... for those in the mood I humbly present the following photo :eat2:*


----------



## TraciJo67 (Aug 11, 2009)

exile in thighville said:


> so did i
> 
> tell me more about your discussions with mom and dad about your kinky kinky sex



Couldn't you get your point across in a less alienating & offensive manner? Nothing that she's said should have inspired this kind of nasty-ass response. And yeah, I know all of your cool & hip & edgy counter-arguments already. I'm just really tired of exercising my poor, sore "report post" finger every time you say something that lends a pale visage to the words 'rude and offensive'.


----------



## mergirl (Aug 11, 2009)

tonynyc said:


> *All this debating - it can make one pretty hungry :eat1: ... for those in the mood I humbly present the following photo :eat2:*



Omg. Is that sandwhich still breathing?????


----------



## thatgirl08 (Aug 11, 2009)

Tina said:


> You just like to scrap, don't you? I mean, I didn't give much time to it, and you exaggerate that I picked it apart and that half of my post was discussing your choice of words. I just gave an opinion. I don't like to debate, that's it. I guess it's not okay to state that or I'll get snark in return.
> 
> You're being silly.



Wait, I'm the one scraping when you're the one who wrote like 5 sentences on my word choice? ...
...
...



Tina said:


> And I believe you are wrong and are only looking at part of the equation. Actions based upon fetishes are still actions, and actions have consequences, great or small. To me this couldn't be more obvious. You disagree. My world is falling apart now.



The thing is.. you stated yours, and I stated mine, you responded, I responded and then you come back with snark. Maybe you aren't cut out for this whole "stating your opinion" (debating) thing.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Aug 11, 2009)

tonynyc said:


> *All this debating - it can make one pretty hungry :eat1: ... for those in the mood I humbly present the following photo :eat2:*



See? Now you're playing hard ball posting the Carnegie Deli fare. And the mustard and the pickles... and my favorite 22 oz. restaurant glasses???? Cruel, heartless, willfull, deviant and depraved. :eat2:


----------



## thatgirl08 (Aug 11, 2009)

mergirl said:


> Isn't weight gain the whole point for most feeders/feedees though?
> In CP the whole point isn't to infect someone with a staphylococcus infection. It's to punish someone/recieve punishment. (Unless very extreme)
> The point of hard sex isnt to rip someones vaginia it is to have hard sex. (Unless very extreme and unless that level of sadism was involved)
> To compare these actions to feederism=weight gain isn't correct. It would be closer to say feederism=immobitily or death (In very extreme cases). Its like a worst case scenario, which is uncommon but 'could' happen. This was the comparison.



Weight gain may be the ultimate goal for most feeders/feedees but I do have to point out that in a lot of cases, it's not or at least not to an extreme. I think a lot more people engage in 'roleplaying' the fantasy than really making it a lifestyle, at least that's what I've gathered from talking to other people into it. I mean, my boyfriend and I are both into it, but I'm not actively trying to gain weight. He has fed me and often brings me goodies and stuff but it's not like I have a goal or anything. He knows that I wouldn't want to get bigger than a certain weight and totally respects that. I just think you see this type of situation more often than you see a man and woman give up their entire lives to dedicate themselves to pushing the feedee to immobility. 

Also, the point of feederism isn't to give someone Diabetes or heart problems either. The weight gain can cause that, just as the skin tear can cause a Staph infection, but it isn't like, oh I'm a feedee ----> I have Diabetes.


----------



## tonynyc (Aug 11, 2009)

mergirl said:


> Omg. Is that sandwhich still breathing?????



_
MerGirl:
Not only is that Sandwich Breathing- it has your name on it .. waiting for you ... and to kindly borrow your words ... "What are you Blahing For?  


_




LillyBBBW said:


> See? Now you're playing hard ball posting the Carnegie Deli fare. And the mustard and the pickles... and my favorite 22 oz. restaurant glasses???? Cruel, heartless, willfull, deviant and depraved. :eat2:



_Cruel?  Heartless  Willful  Deviant  Depraved Indifference To the Hunger Pangs of this Thread  Not me  _

_
Lilly:

You guys are a tough crowd- only the best can be presented here. I think if I were to post a Big Mac (No Offense to any McD Fans out here) - I would be in for a Verbal Thrashing 
_


----------



## LillyBBBW (Aug 11, 2009)

Tina said:


> You just like to scrap, don't you? I mean, I didn't give much time to it, and you exaggerate that I picked it apart and that half of my post was discussing your choice of words. I just gave an opinion. I don't like to debate, that's it. I guess it's not okay to state that or I'll get snark in return.
> 
> You're being silly.
> 
> ...



I suppose this would depend upon how one views such things as a whole. If you're one of those people who believe that horror movies, video games, rap music, wrestling and other such common forms of entertainment are bad because they incite certain members of our society to violence then you certainly have a right to your opinion. I attemptend to express this early in the thread. Of course there are many who disagree and the arguments are still ongoing. 

What most of us take exception to is the assumption that those who like this form of entertainment are themselves dangerous or are mentally disconnected from the reality of violence which is not at all true. At 410 pounds my knees are KILLING me. Gawd they hurt. Then why don't I lose wieght? I don't want to. It simply boils down to the fact that I prefer 'this' to 'that' and I've found a formula that works best for me overall. Easy for me to say because I'm not an active gainer but what of those who are? The ones that I know are people that I know on a personal level, some of them for many years. These are not the kinds of people who strip naked and run pell mell forward evertime they come to a body of water. This is something that a person has lived with, struggled with, wept and labored over for the whole of their lives. After weighing the pros and cons they've come to a decision that is best for them and that's all I need to know. The rest is none of my business. Not saying one doesn't have a right to an opinion on it. Just that this idea that the people involved are disconnected from reality is false.


----------



## katorade (Aug 11, 2009)

So what you guys are trying to say here...is to stop demonizing feeding...and start demonizing gaining. Right. Got it.


----------



## Tooz (Aug 11, 2009)

See now here I thought adults were capable of making THEIR OWN DECISIONS.


By the way: those who demonize gainers are no different than the people who demonize YOU, THE ANTI-WG person for being fat.

Just sayin'.


----------



## thatgirl08 (Aug 11, 2009)

katorade said:


> So what you guys are trying to say here...is to stop demonizing feeding...and start demonizing gaining. Right. Got it.



I know this is sarcasm but feeding and gaining really are two seperate things. That's the whole point. One can participate in the feeding and fantasy part of feederism without extreme weightgain. The end.


----------



## Miss Vickie (Aug 11, 2009)

LillyBBBW said:


> What most of us take exception to is the assumption that those who like this form of entertainment are themselves dangerous or are mentally disconnected from the reality of violence which is not at all true.



I guess I have to ask... who is making this assumption? If you're getting that from something I wrote, then I've done a really botched job of expressing myself, and for that I'm sorry. It wasn't my intent at all, Lilly, I think you know that. I've been really careful not get crawl up people's asses and make judgment, but rather to just express my thoughts about why I have some issues with how it's sometimes practiced. What you guys are describing is far different than many of the threads that I've read over the years -- and that's okay. I'm sure I miss a lot. 

As for the rest of it, there's a lot I'd like to say but it's unrelated to feederism and more about how we perceive ourselves, and our weight. I touched on some of it in that thread on the main board. But it's way too long to get into and I have an impatient teen who needs back to school shopping. I'll try to check in later and write about it, here or there.

But truly, I don't see feeders as mischievous mustache twirlers, anymore than I see feedees as innocent little doe eyed creatures. Of course there are people who fit that stereotype, but there are people like this who are into it, but I understand that they're not the majority. Just like not all WLS patients aren't fat hating skinny bitches who can't eat anything but protein shakes and lettuce, right? _Right?_

As for Ashley, I'm sorry if you felt ignored (by me, if that's how you felt). I truly had a "better offer" last night and had to go to bed. Your post came up right before then and I didn't have time to craft a response. But what I would have said then, as now, is that I'm trying really hard not to make this personal and say well "this person has it right" and "that person has it wrong". People have done that to me with WLS, calling me names and saying I was stupid, bitter and hated myself. My thoughts about feederism are much more general than specific, and I intend to keep it that way, lest I say something to personally offend someone. I don't think you're stupid or naive, and I'm sorry if anything I said came off that way.

I do hope, though, that you don't have negative consequences from your weight, but if you do, I hope that you receive compassionate care from your providers and nurses. It's the very least that we all deserve. I wish you nothing but happiness and wellness.


----------



## Tina (Aug 11, 2009)

LillyBBBW said:


> I suppose this would depend upon how one views such things as a whole. If you're one of those people who believe that horror movies, video games, rap music, wrestling and other such common forms of entertainment are bad because they incite certain members of our society to violence then you certainly have a right to your opinion. I attemptend to express this early in the thread. Of course there are many who disagree and the arguments are still ongoing.


I think that if other dysfunctions are already in place -- particularly family dysfunction, abuse, mental illnesses, etc -- it might add to it, but it certainly doesn't cause it. And if someone is already prone to violence, they'll always find something to spur them on and then be the object of blame, rather than themselves and how they were raised, and how they are victims and not responsible for their violent behavior. So I'm neither in favor of letting children view and participate in such things, nor am I in favor of censorship of those things when it comes to adults. 


> After weighing the pros and cons they've come to a decision that is best for them and that's all I need to know. The rest is none of my business. Not saying one doesn't have a right to an opinion on it. Just that this idea that the people involved are disconnected from reality is false.


Not sure if you're addressing this to me, but since you quoted me I'll respond.

Yep.

I just believe that trying to exempt any kind of fantasy lived out from any responsibility when something goes wrong is delusional. Inform yourself (the general "yourself," not addressed to you, Lilly), make your decisions, and then have fun. Or don't inform yourself; ultimately I don't care, as it's not my life. My entire point of posting was to try to refute the fallacy that fantasy cannot harm and is not ever responsible when that fantasy turned reality might have negative consequences or do harm. I'm not trying to stop behavior or control behavior, nor am I trying to say it will all always go wrong and that feeders or feedees are demons who will ruin the world. Just wanting to inject a bit of reality and common sense into a statement early on in this thread that, to me, seems like full on denial. 

My apologies for the earlier hypothetical in trying to show my point; I should have known it would be completely and utterly useless.

Oh, and TG08, two short sentences is not five.


----------



## katorade (Aug 11, 2009)

thatgirl08 said:


> I know this is sarcasm but feeding and gaining really are two seperate things. That's the whole point. One can participate in the feeding and fantasy part of feederism without extreme weightgain. The end.



That's what I'm sayin', woman! I just think that it's kind of shitty for some feeders to just try and pass the buck onto gainers by saying that it isn't feeding's fault, it's the "unsafe behavior". The only results from feeding are gaining weight or not. Guess which one they're talking about. They should have said from the beginning "please don't confuse feederism with weight gain, it's totally different." No need to trash it. 
Likewise for gainers, a lot of them are in it for the gain and don't necessarily see being fed as part of the fetish, but more of the vehicle. Of course the two fetishes live in harmony with one another in many cases, but it doesn't mean they're mutually exclusive.

Truly, there ARE plenty of people into feederism that participate in the fetish, but don't live out weight gain. How many times have you heard a guy say "I love a woman that can eat a good meal" or "I love it when a woman orders a porterhouse" or "watching a woman eat can be so erotic"? How many sexy scenes have you seen of someone being fed strawberries or cake or something equally as tasty? We've all heard it plenty of times, even from guys that are not into even remotely thick women.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Aug 11, 2009)

Miss Vickie said:


> I guess I have to ask... who is making this assumption? If you're getting that from something I wrote, then I've done a really botched job of expressing myself, and for that I'm sorry. It wasn't my intent at all, Lilly, I think you know that. I've been really careful not get crawl up people's asses and make judgment, but rather to just express my thoughts about why I have some issues with how it's sometimes practiced. What you guys are describing is far different than many of the threads that I've read over the years -- and that's okay. I'm sure I miss a lot.
> 
> As for the rest of it, there's a lot I'd like to say but it's unrelated to feederism and more about how we perceive ourselves, and our weight. I touched on some of it in that thread on the main board. But it's way too long to get into and I have an impatient teen who needs back to school shopping. I'll try to check in later and write about it, here or there.
> 
> ...



No I was responding to Tina's post as well as several other things I've seen expressed here on the board from time to time. It's possible I'm misunderstanding what Tina is trying to say but I just thought I'd blurt right in and add to it anyway according to the impression I got from what I read. Like I've said before, I don't have any problems with opinions. You were expressing yours and I respect that.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Aug 11, 2009)

Tina said:


> I think that if other dysfunctions are already in place -- particularly family dysfunction, abuse, mental illnesses, etc -- it might add to it, but it certainly doesn't cause it. And if someone is already prone to violence, they'll always find something to spur them on and then be the object of blame, rather than themselves and how they were raised, and how they are victims and not responsible for their violent behavior. So I'm neither in favor of letting children view and participate in such things, nor am I in favor of censorship of those things when it comes to adults.
> 
> Not sure if you're addressing this to me, but since you quoted me I'll respond.
> 
> ...



Tina I dont think a single person was saying that. No one is saying that if they are gaining and suffer consequences from their actions then it's not their fault, it's feederism's fault.  I might be flying over the cookoos nest today but I'm really not following what you are trying to clarify. It almost seems like we're saying the same thing, just different ways. Being turned on buy something dangerous is not dangerous. Doing something dangerous is dangerous.


----------



## Tina (Aug 11, 2009)

LillyBBBW said:


> No I was responding to Tina's post as well as several other things I've seen expressed here on the board from time to time. It's possible I'm misunderstanding what Tina is trying to say but I just thought I'd blurt right in and add to it anyway according to the impression I got from what I read. Like I've said before, I don't have any problems with opinions. You were expressing yours and I respect that.



Lilly, I think maybe you're misunderstanding me. I am saying that only the ones who make statements that are illogical and that seem to indicate mental disconnection are mentally disconnected. I don't view all feeders and feedees as being in denial or disconnected, or label them all as this or that. It's like everything else in life: a spectrum with people all along said spectrum. Not sure how much more clear I can be, so unless we have more to discuss, I've said my piece and I'll just bow out.

Edit: Just saw your post. Have you not seen the words I responded to that if something goes wrong it's not because of the fantasy? If the fantasy is driving actions, and something happens to go wrong because of those actions (and I'm not saying things will always go wrong -- that the person's life will be impacted negatively, etc), then how can the fantasy not be somehow responsible at all, when it was the driving force? That kind of rationale makes no sense to me and seems completely illogical. And yes, that is pretty much what was said. Anyway.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Aug 11, 2009)

Tina said:


> Lilly, I think maybe you're misunderstanding me. I am saying that only the ones who make statements that are illogical and that seem to indicate mental disconnection are mentally disconnected. I don't view all feeders and feedees as being in denial or disconnected, or label them all as this or that. It's like everything else in life: a spectrum with people all along said spectrum. Not sure how much more clear I can be, so unless we have more to discuss, I've said my piece and I'll just bow out.
> 
> Edit: Just saw your post. Have you not seen the words I responded to that if something goes wrong it's not because of the fantasy? If the fantasy is driving actions, and something happens to go wrong because of those actions (and I'm not saying things will always go wrong -- that the person's life will be impacted negatively, etc), then how can the fantasy not be somehow responsible at all, when it was the driving force? That kind of rationale makes no sense to me and seems completely illogical. And yes, that is pretty much what was said. Anyway.



Yeah then I think it is merely a disagreement over terminology. I'm one of those bat waving non apologists who believe that people are ultimately responsible for what they do and the choices they make within their capabilities, fantasy or no. If one is in to a fantasy and causes harm with it I'm inclined to condemn the person and not the fantasy. It's just a matter of a different way of seeing things which is fair enough as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## Shosh (Aug 11, 2009)

exile in thighville said:


> so did i
> 
> tell me more about your discussions with mom and dad about your kinky kinky sex



I do not talk to my parents about my sex life. My mother and I have discussed general sexual things, but nothing personal relating to me.
All that aside my parents would be very concerned for me if I was to knowingly gain a great amount of weight.
I guess parents never stop being parents, and worrying for your welfare.
That was all I meant.


----------



## Tina (Aug 11, 2009)

LillyBBBW said:


> Yeah then I think it is merely a disagreement over terminology. I'm one of those bat waving non apologists who believe that people are ultimately responsible for what they do and the choices they make within their capabilities, fantasy or no. If one is in to a fantasy and causes harm with it I'm inclined to condemn the person and not the fantasy. It's just a matter of a different way of seeing things which is fair enough as far as I'm concerned.



I'm guessing it is, Lily. Ultimately, people do have to be responsible for what they do, both to themselves and to others -- in general, not even just within the context of the subject of this thread.

Really, I'm not even sure why this thread was created. I mean, this argument has been brought up time after time after time on this board and the old boards. The way the OP is framed it's kind of confrontational and almost looking for a fight. What did you expect to see that's never been here befor in a similar thread? What did you hope to achieve with this discussion, LBHMS?


----------



## LoveBHMS (Aug 11, 2009)

Oh sure, let's make this personal because you dislike me.

I posted a rant. On a board whose theme was the subject about which I was ranting. I have the right to do that. Do you go around this board asking posters why they create threads?

Nobody had to respond, nobody had to rep me, nobody had to even continue the discussion. If it were such tired, old, news, nobody would have bothered to participate. The simple fact is, I voiced an observation. Numerous particpants of this fetish both repped me and posted in this thread. There have been a number of views of this thread; some people are interested in this discussion and airing of frustration over the community's views on a particular topic.

I was not looking for a fight and I don't think there has even been an actual fight, but merely non-particpants in feederism offering observations and opinions. Posters are allowed to do that---offer commentary and observations about their own views and experience. As a member of this site, whether you like it or not, I am entitled to start threads.

If other posters find my topic to be boring, repetitive, combative, or one that has already been discussed, they don't have to respond.


----------



## Tooz (Aug 11, 2009)

Tina said:


> Really, I'm not even sure why this thread was created. I mean, this argument has been brought up time after time after time on this board and the old boards. The way the OP is framed it's kind of confrontational and almost looking for a fight. What did you expect to see that's never been here befor in a similar thread? What did you hope to achieve with this discussion, LBHMS?



I don't think she was looking for people to outright insult those who practice this fetish, or for people to question the thread. I think it's a good thread, and I don't blame her for ranting, things on this board can get ridiculous. I'm not trying to argue with you, because I know a lot of people feel threatened by this, but I think that all the group wants (and deserves) is respect.


----------



## fatgirlflyin (Aug 11, 2009)

I don't post too often on the weight board, and almost never in feeder/feedee threads because I'm one of those people that don't get it. I try not to judge because I'm sure that there are things I like to do in bed that would have people thinking I'm wierd or sick.

I do read the threads often because I guess I'm trying to get it (if that even makes sense) I figure the more I expose myself to something I don't understand that better chance I have of understanding. I'm a people watcher and reading those threads is just another form of people watching for me. 

And yes I get that it's sexual, but I have and would watch people having sex too...


----------



## Tina (Aug 11, 2009)

LoveBHMS said:


> Oh sure, let's make this personal because you dislike me.


Yes, I do dislike you. I used to enjoy corresponding with you, but saw a side of you which I haven't fully been able to come back from, but have in some small ways been trying to, since I think that holding onto those kinds of feelings aren't necessarily healthy for the soul. But my negative feelings about you are why I will not moderate you in any way, because I'm afraid my feelings might cause me to react to you in ways that I might not even be aware of at the time, and also because you might cry "foul!" because you know I dislike you.

But you know what's funny about this? For the first time since it all happened, in this thread I actually was trying to put ASIDE canklegate and respond to you as I would any other poster. Nothing I have said here was made personal and the questions I asked were honest questions. I wondered, since this has been talked to death if there was actually something you were hoping for (and you know, you assumed I meant you were hoping for something negative, but I didn't actually have anything in mind -- it was an honest question). I can't help but find this kind of funny in a "bleh" kind of way.

Tooz, see above (said kindly, not confrontationally). There was no hidden meaning or agenda in my posted questions.


----------



## Tooz (Aug 11, 2009)

Blast me or not, but I am TIRING of a certain "gate" coming about. There. I said it. Hurtful or not, what does it say about us if we cannot move past? :\


I could live the rest of my life never hearing "(word here)gate" again.


----------



## Tina (Aug 11, 2009)

You have the right to be tired of it; I have the right not to worry much about it. To me it was shorthand. Should I dance around it and use unobtrusive words to hint about it? Or should I just go into exactly what happened? Canklegate: a word I neither coined nor have used much. *shrug* Meh.


----------



## Tooz (Aug 11, 2009)

Tina said:


> You have the right to be tired of it; I have the right not to worry much about it. To me it was shorthand. Should I dance around it and use unobtrusive words to hint about it? Or should I just go into exactly what happened? Canklegate: a word I neither coined nor have used much. *shrug* Meh.



I was also referring to the incident itself. Just to clarify.


----------



## exile in thighville (Aug 11, 2009)

Susannah said:


> All that aside my parents would be very concerned for me if I was to knowingly gain a great amount of weight.
> I guess parents never stop being parents, and worrying for your welfare.
> That was all I meant.



you're correct but why would someone ever alter their sex life according to parents' worries? health comes before sex - if someone chooses to ignore that they take their own risks as an adult.



TraciJo67 said:


> I'm just really tired of exercising my poor, sore "report post" finger every time you say something that lends a pale visage to the words 'rude and offensive'.



in the real world, there is no report post button - rude offensiveness is legal. you can either have discourse with someone or decide they suck and ignore them. after 12th grade you lose the license to tattle to mom or teacher when someone says something you don't like.

people who frequently use the report post button have so so so much less of a grip on reality than feeders supposedly do


----------



## Mini (Aug 11, 2009)

All this hostility is totally killing my erection.


----------



## SoVerySoft (Aug 11, 2009)

Mini said:


> All this hostility is totally killing my erection.



Ah, but you see, for some, it causes erections. Don't be judgmental when it comes to kinks!


----------



## thatgirl08 (Aug 12, 2009)

katorade said:


> That's what I'm sayin', woman! I just think that it's kind of shitty for some feeders to just try and pass the buck onto gainers by saying that it isn't feeding's fault, it's the "unsafe behavior". The only results from feeding are gaining weight or not. Guess which one they're talking about. They should have said from the beginning "please don't confuse feederism with weight gain, it's totally different." No need to trash it.
> Likewise for gainers, a lot of them are in it for the gain and don't necessarily see being fed as part of the fetish, but more of the vehicle. Of course the two fetishes live in harmony with one another in many cases, but it doesn't mean they're mutually exclusive.
> 
> Truly, there ARE plenty of people into feederism that participate in the fetish, but don't live out weight gain. How many times have you heard a guy say "I love a woman that can eat a good meal" or "I love it when a woman orders a porterhouse" or "watching a woman eat can be so erotic"? How many sexy scenes have you seen of someone being fed strawberries or cake or something equally as tasty? We've all heard it plenty of times, even from guys that are not into even remotely thick women.



Right right, totally agreed!

Also, I agree with Tooz on the fact that people need to stop mentioning Canklegate. It was over a year ago, and it's been discussed ad nauseam.


----------



## exile in thighville (Aug 12, 2009)

canklegate was so fucking boring


----------



## furious styles (Aug 12, 2009)

at least we can all agree that those who take pleasure in, or even .. "encourage" gaining (shiver) in _real life_ are bad people. in a slippery slope world it's nice to have something distinctly evil to condemn.

honestly though, i'm not sure this thread has accomplished or solved anything. i think it was started in a good light, if one somewhat of anger .. but that's fair. it seems to have brought forth the two distinctive sides that will never see quite straight on the issue, and it's really just proven that more. i guess a general understanding of each other's p.o.v. is all we should hope for.


----------



## Shosh (Aug 12, 2009)

furious styles said:


> at least we can all agree that those who take pleasure in, or even .. "encourage" gaining (shiver) in _real life_ are bad people. in a slippery slope world it's nice to have something distinctly evil to condemn.
> 
> honestly though, i'm not sure this thread has accomplished or solved anything. i think it was started in a good light, if one somewhat of anger .. but that's fair. it seems to have brought forth the two distinctive sides that will never see quite straight on the issue, and it's really just proven that more. i guess a general understanding of each other's p.o.v. is all we should hope for.



The topic has been done to death here, so yeah I am also not sure what it is meant to accomplish, but agreed It helps to understand others.


----------



## Mini (Aug 12, 2009)

This reminds me of the South Park episode where the town's overrun with the desire to be PC, and Mr. Garrison - who wants to be fired so he can sue, I think - keeps upping the ante with Mr. Slave until finally he's putting on the gayest, most offensive show of all time and the townspeople still won't react and condemn him. They accept him the way he is, after all, until he finally comes out and says that the point is that they don't need to embrace *anything*, and that acceptance does not mean that you condone the behavior. It just means that if it doesn't affect you, IT'S NONE OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS.

I forget how point A got to point B with that episode, but I think the message is relevant. Why is the assumption made that people don't know the risks of the activities in which they partake? WHY is there still a debate among people who don't approve of it? WHY DO PEOPLE WHO HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH IT FUCKING CARE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER?


----------



## Wagimawr (Aug 12, 2009)

Apparently you're supposed to step up and try to make the world a better place, through education and such, and not just sit back and say "well, you're stupid *hands out Darwin Award*".

Apparently.


----------



## superodalisque (Aug 12, 2009)

dueling houses? hehe


----------



## Mini (Aug 12, 2009)

Wagimawr said:


> Apparently you're supposed to step up and try to make the world a better place, through education and such, and not just sit back and say "well, you're stupid *hands out Darwin Award*".
> 
> Apparently.



See, there's a time and a place for that, but sometimes you just have to realize that mutual dislike is the best it's ever going to get. I don't care if I'm loved by all so long as the people who hate me fuck off; I imagine it's the same for the feeders and feedees.

Harsh language, and I don't hate anyone on either side of the fence, but goddamn, this has been done to death so many times it's goddamn ridiculous.


----------



## SocialbFly (Aug 12, 2009)

Mini said:


> This reminds me of the South Park episode where the town's overrun with the desire to be PC, and Mr. Garrison - who wants to be fired so he can sue, I think - keeps upping the ante with Mr. Slave until finally he's putting on the gayest, most offensive show of all time and the townspeople still won't react and condemn him. They accept him the way he is, after all, until he finally comes out and says that the point is that they don't need to embrace *anything*, and that acceptance does not mean that you condone the behavior. It just means that if it doesn't affect you, IT'S NONE OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS.
> 
> I forget how point A got to point B with that episode, but I think the message is relevant. Why is the assumption made that people don't know the risks of the activities in which they partake? WHY is there still a debate among people who don't approve of it? WHY DO PEOPLE WHO HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH IT FUCKING CARE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER?



because Mini...it is called a social conscience...it is why people care what you do to yourself, it is why people who don't know someone will call out someone who is drinking and doing drugs together, or drinking and driving or having unsafe sex, or taking dangerous risks, or any other thing that "society" as a whole talks about and takes an interest in. 

Doesnt mean you have to agree or condone, it means it is taken and noted. I could name an example, but i dont want you to take a knee jerk reaction to what is being said. 

Society judges, people judge, things they dont understand, even if we try to understand, doesnt mean we will. There are people in to scat, doesnt mean i think it is healthy and it isnt something i can understand...

now you may say, how is feederism like that? it is still something society as a whole doesnt understand, and with lack of understanding comes judgement...good or bad...it is how it is...

there was a story on one of the talk shows that had racists and white supremists on it...they exchanged places...

and the statement that will always makes me think was when they said only through our differences will we find the things that make us the same...in other words, only then, will understanding come...in talking about it, hopefully things change...

i don't understand the fetish, and i think about the future of the people that engage in it...but no differently than i do my own future as a fat person...it just scares me that our bodies put on weight anyway...how will they feel when they are 50? i only say that cause as i have aged, fricking everything changes, and i think it was my own ignorance and arrogance to think that the fat doesnt have a life of its own...it likes being here, and does whatever it can to survive and grow...and holds on with big fat claws when you try to lose it...why do i say that?? Cause i always said when the fat affected my everyday life, i would lose it...it doesnt want to be lost...

i dont know if this has made sense, but i am trying...


----------



## Wagimawr (Aug 12, 2009)

Mini said:


> there's a time and a place for that


Did-did we just agree on something?

On the internet?


----------



## tonynyc (Aug 12, 2009)

*Take a Late Nite Snack Break *


----------



## SocialbFly (Aug 12, 2009)

Mini said:


> See, there's a time and a place for that, but sometimes you just have to realize that mutual dislike is the best it's ever going to get. I don't care if I'm loved by all so long as the people who hate me fuck off; I imagine it's the same for the feeders and feedees.
> 
> Harsh language, and I don't hate anyone on either side of the fence, but goddamn, this has been done to death so many times it's goddamn ridiculous.



OHH Mini....so has size acceptance, so has racial equality, so has gender issues...we do it because we want to understand, cause we want to live in a better place...there are sooooooooooooo many things in this life talked about ad nauseum....but with talk, comes understanding, and with understanding comes compassion and empathy..not a bad trade off Mini....not at all.


----------



## Shosh (Aug 12, 2009)

I always wondered also, what if a person is into the kink now, but five years down the track is not?
It is easy to say that one knows what they are getting into, but what if it really bites em in the bum later on?

This topic has been visited and revisted, and hashed, and rehashed. I think I am even getting sick of my own thoughts on it now.


----------



## thatgirl08 (Aug 12, 2009)

Susannah said:


> I always wondered also, what if a person is into the kink now, but five years down the track is not?
> It is easy to say that one knows what they are getting into, but what if it really bites em in the bum later on?
> 
> This topic has been visited and revisted, and hashed, and rehashed. I think I am even getting sick of my own thoughts on it now.



I truly believe I was born with this kink and I know that no matter how hard I try to get rid of it, it's not going away so the chance of it disappearing on it's own is nil.


----------



## Mini (Aug 12, 2009)

SocialbFly said:


> OHH Mini....so has size acceptance, so has racial equality, so has gender issues...we do it because we want to understand, cause we want to live in a better place...there are sooooooooooooo many things in this life talked about ad nauseum....but with talk, comes understanding, and with understanding comes compassion and empathy..not a bad trade off Mini....not at all.



But that's the thing. Everything that *can* be understood about this issue *is*. I don't know any feedees or feeders who don't know about the potential downsides and ill effects their kink might have, just like I don't know anyone who plays, like, hockey who doesn't know that their passion might cripple them. 

And you don't have to understand or accept, that's what I keep saying. When something has absolutely no effect on you (general you, I'm not trying to pick on you or anyone else in particular), what business is it of yours to chime in with "that's bad for you!"? You - again, general - don't give people enough credit.

I get the "social conscience" thing, I really do. You're probably not surprised, though, to hear that I don't really care about drug use and the like, either. People who want to be educated will find a way, and the rest can eat a bag of dicks for all I care.


----------



## Mini (Aug 12, 2009)

Wagimawr said:


> Did-did we just agree on something?
> 
> On the internet?



In some parallel universe we're connected at the hip as one of those fucked-up 2-in-1 persons the proper name of which I can't remember at the moment.


----------



## Shosh (Aug 12, 2009)

thatgirl08 said:


> I truly believe I was born with this kink and I know that no matter how hard I try to get rid of it, it's not going away so the chance of it disappearing on it's own is nil.



I understand. I just know that things I have been interested in say ten years ago, hold zero appeal for me now.

I think Dianna made a good point also when she said an older person carrying the extra weight would find day to day living harder. Maybe being younger the extra weight will not have as much impact on the body as yet?


----------



## Weeze (Aug 12, 2009)

thatgirl08 said:


> I truly believe I was born with this kink and I know that no matter how hard I try to get rid of it, it's not going away so the chance of it disappearing on it's own is nil.



Agreed. I've had... um, differences since I was REALLY young... I'm talking playing house "fat" and stuffing things up barbie's dress. I don't really think it's going anywhere if it hasn't yet.


----------



## thatgirl08 (Aug 12, 2009)

Susannah said:


> I understand. I just know that things I have been interested in say ten years ago, hold zero appeal for me now.



Yeah, I just think this is something I'll never lose the appeal of. It's a part of me.


----------



## Mini (Aug 12, 2009)

Betamax said:


> conjoined twins?
> 
> mmmm conjoined House twins. thats MY fetish.



That's the one I was looking for. Conjoined.


----------



## thatgirl08 (Aug 12, 2009)

I'm so glad I'm not attached to anyone else.


----------



## superodalisque (Aug 12, 2009)

SocialbFly said:


> because Mini...it is called a social conscience...it is why people care what you do to yourself, it is why people who don't know someone will call out someone who is drinking and doing drugs together, or drinking and driving or having unsafe sex, or taking dangerous risks, or any other thing that "society" as a whole talks about and takes an interest in.
> 
> Doesnt mean you have to agree or condone, it means it is taken and noted. I could name an example, but i dont want you to take a knee jerk reaction to what is being said.
> 
> ...



the thing i wonder about is not the feeders so much as the feedees. sometimes i think that some of the the people (not all) who get into trouble with it are people who are going to go down that route anyway but they look for an enabler and someone to blame after they have gained. they already have the tendencies beforehand. people often focus on the woman being the victim in these situations. as a super sized woman myself i know exactly what kind of impact weight has on my mobility etc...i've also run into guys who'd like me to gain FOR THEM. but i was the one who decided what i would and would not do. and it wasn't because of what anyone said on dims either. at the time i joined, dims seemed to be a lot more feeder friendly than it is now. there were a lot more people who were openly feeders encouragers and feedees. a lot of people who are against it now were once major cheerleaders or at least dabbled in it themselves. even with that i still managed to chart my own personal path. i just wonder why people here feel that others are not able to do that as well? are people here, especially the women, really all that weak and ignorant?


----------



## Tina (Aug 12, 2009)

furious styles said:


> at least we can all agree that those who take pleasure in, or even .. "encourage" gaining (shiver) in _real life_ are bad people.


I don't think so. I think it's up to each person in a relationship to decide what they want and discuss it with their partner in an open and honest way. That's the deciding factor. The only time I think it's screwed up is when someone is trying to make their partner gain weight without him or her knowing about it (I don't consider encouraging to be the same thing; saying, "I bought you this Godiva chocolate because I know you love it" or "that chocolate mousse looks delicious - let's have some!" isn't the same as slipping weight gain powder into her food), or is dealing with a mentally/emotionally compromised person. Beyond that, all bets are off, IMO.

My own husband struggles with some of that, because he's more an encourager than a feeder (and all too often I need little encouragement!), but he also sees how my weight negatively affects me. Over the last almost two years, and even since I last saw you, I've gained enough weight to make walking so painful that I need a walker around the house and wheelchair when we go out. So as often happens with spouses who are into weight gain, he loves the extra acreage, but doesn't like to see me in pain. He also would love it if we could take walks together, etc. I think a number of feeders and encouragers have those conflicts. Y'all usually love us and want what's best for us, while at the same time can't help but being turned on by the extra pounds and softness. I don't think that's evil; I think that's just being human. And for my own part of it, I love food and eating, and I really love my softness and don't dislike my fat body at all, but I _do_ dislike the pain, and I do miss being able to do certain things I enjoy. A lot. Conflicting emotions all the way around. 

So, bad people? No way. It can just be complicated sometimes, but that doesn't mean I go around assigning blame; I just like to see honesty about issues and will, when I'm in the mood, speak up when someone says, as happened earlier, "Is feederism unhealthy? _*NO*_," and then ask for opinions, because it _does_ have the _ability_ to become unhealthy for the person putting on the weight. Giving an unqualified "_*NO*_" is disingenuous, or a big ol' sign of denial. You (the general you, not you, styles) like it and do it or what to do it? Fine, but please don't try to put frosting on a turd and try to feed it to me as cake and then get all defensive when I point out that there is some denial going on there. 



> honestly though, i'm not sure this thread has accomplished or solved anything. i think it was started in a good light, if one somewhat of anger .. but that's fair. it seems to have brought forth the two distinctive sides that will never see quite straight on the issue, and it's really just proven that more. i guess a general understanding of each other's p.o.v. is all we should hope for.


I agree on both counts. I think where there is understanding there can often, if not always, at the very least be differing opinions without lessening respect.


Mini said:


> But that's the thing. Everything that *can* be understood about this issue *is*. I don't know any feedees or feeders who don't know about the potential downsides and ill effects their kink might have, just like I don't know anyone who plays, like, hockey who doesn't know that their passion might cripple them.


I think that's true when you're talking about someone who frequents this board, or other boards where feeding issues are discussed. I'll bet that there are a number of people who haven't had the discussion and don't have the benefit of some of the discussions that have gone on here, where they might be armed with information about the downsides and ill effects. If you're talking about Dims community members who have been around for a while, I agree with you.

I agree that no one has to understand or accept, but I do think that understanding is a good thing. Acceptance is not at all necessary, though, and in my own life, I don't need anyone but my husband to understand or accept the things that turn me on. If I post about it on the board asking for opinions, though, I'll get them.


----------



## Ash (Aug 12, 2009)

thatgirl08 said:


> I truly believe I was born with this kink and I know that no matter how hard I try to get rid of it, it's not going away so the chance of it disappearing on it's own is nil.



Yeah, I don't think for a second that it's going anywhere. I've been interested in fat and getting fatter for literally as long as I can remember--even before puberty. I can't imagine NOT having this interest and desire.


----------



## KHayes666 (Aug 12, 2009)

*see's all the hooplah in this thread and concentrates hard....like Frank Dux in Bloodsport............then jumps up and points to each person I'm talking to*

Shoshie.....you asked a legit question in asking Ashley if her parents approve of what she does. By what I'm trying to understand, you yourself come from a family that's very close and know everything you do. However for those of us that have moved away, we have a lot more freedom than we used to. In some extreme cases, parents may not even be in the picture at all via death, jail and other touchy subjects. The point is, not all of us have to answer family when making our own decisions. No disrespect or anything, just giving my own answer.

*turns and points*

To all the "canklegate" people. GET OVER IT....why carry hard feelings over something that NEVER should have been made public anyway? I'm not saying you didn't have a right to be angry at the time, but at this point....tell me you haven't bumped into someone on the street or caught someone staring at you since then? Hate is a part of life and it will never stop, so why do certain posters have the bear the brunt for their opinions when people walk the streets everyday that ridicule fat people?

*turns again*

To those who don't "understand" feederism. Its a fetish, fantasy, preference or any combination of those, all of which make someone HAPPY. Gaining and feederism when done right satisfies someone the same way someone likes being spanked, tied up, anal fucked, snuggling on a beach, holding hands over a candlelit dinner and anything else that makes someone happy. If Ashley wants to weigh over 400 pounds, what don't you "get" about it? She wants to be that big because it makes her HAPPY. There are those that say being that overweight is unhealthy in the long run, meanwhile I know a 29 year old olympic sprinter who died of a brain tumor. She was healthy by people's standards but she still died young, death strikes no matter what. Death comes to us all, no one is safe....so why don't we enjoy life while we can. As for people who don't "condone" feederism/gaining....I don't condone blasting hip hop at 8 in the morning when I'm trying to sleep but I'm not going to go on Hip Hop forums and attack them every day. 

*turns and points finger*

Tony and Dan.....I dunno, can we get you guys to play with Teddy Ruxbin at the next Jersey Bash?

*faces front*

ok....I'm done for now


----------



## furious styles (Aug 12, 2009)

Tina said:


> I don't think so. I think it's up to each person in a relationship to decide what they want and discuss it with their partner in an open and honest way. That's the deciding factor. The only time I think it's screwed up is when someone is trying to make their partner gain weight without him or her knowing about it (I don't consider encouraging to be the same thing; saying, "I bought you this Godiva chocolate because I know you love it" or "that chocolate mousse looks delicious - let's have some!" isn't the same as slipping weight gain powder into her food), or is dealing with a mentally/emotionally compromised person. Beyond that, all bets are off, IMO.
> 
> My own husband struggles with some of that, because he's more an encourager than a feeder (and all too often I need little encouragement!), but he also sees how my weight negatively affects me. Over the last almost two years, and even since I last saw you, I've gained enough weight to make walking so painful that I need a walker around the house and wheelchair when we go out. So as often happens with spouses who are into weight gain, he loves the extra acreage, but doesn't like to see me in pain. He also would love it if we could take walks together, etc. I think a number of feeders and encouragers have those conflicts. Y'all usually love us and want what's best for us, while at the same time can't help but being turned on by the extra pounds and softness. I don't think that's evil; I think that's just being human. And for my own part of it, I love food and eating, and I really love my softness and don't dislike my fat body at all, but I _do_ dislike the pain, and I do miss being able to do certain things I enjoy. A lot. Conflicting emotions all the way around.
> 
> So, evil? No way. It can just be complicated sometimes, but that doesn't mean I go around assigning blame; I just like to see honesty about issues and will, when I'm in the mood, speak up when someone says, as happened earlier, "Is feederism unhealthy? _*NO*_," and then ask for opinions, because it _does_ have the _ability_ to become unhealthy for the person putting on the weight. Giving an unqualified "_*NO*_" is disingenuous, or a big ol' sign of denial. You (the general you, not you, styles) like it and do it or what to do it? Fine, but please don't try to put frosting on a turd and try to feed it to me as cake and then get all defensive when I point out that there is some denial going on there.



i remember talking with your husband, we had some good conversation and even touched on some of these issues .. we're similar animals. my post was more out of frustration, being one of 'those people' and, as others have pointed out, feeling a part of me demonized as almost a "lesser of two evils" in this very thread .. like you stated it's a complicated thing. simply being an fa, gaining / feeding / whatever else _aside_, is a complicated thing. most of the things mentioned in this thread as negatives associated with feeding and gaining could be mentioned simply as negatives associated with being fat, period. like your husband i'm put into the difficult position of liking what i like. for me my fa-ism is an orientation like being gay or straight; it defines me, it is not optional. i am wired this way, and i often wish i wasn't simply because of the complications therein. i could prattle on for hours about that but i'll try to stay on topic. 

i've been in multiple relationships where a partner has gained. i've never instigated it per se, but in each case it became a part of our sexuality and was generally something we enjoyed. i guess i afford my partners some intelligence, a sense of self and a sort of temporal reasoning .. they knew what it meant, would mean for the future, etc .. hardly delusional or full of denial, but naive to the point of enjoying something. i think that's fair. what exactly is mentally/emotionally challenged; can we draw a line in the sand? could being young and carefree, or receptive to suggestion, or having an exceptionally strong desire to please your lover be considered being challenged? seems like a valid and difficult question. 

i will always put health, happiness, and general well being before sex on the list of important shit. i think that's basic humanity 101 and anyone who doesn't see it that way has deeper issues. nevertheless, sex is still pretty high on that list. yes, gaining can lead to health problems. i smoke, that leads to health problems. _life_ leads to health problems. that's a watered down devil may care attitude and can easily be dispatched as naiveté but i know many older people who still look at life that way; that it's our only shot at anything and we have to live it, many of them are still kicking and screaming through existence the same way they came in. many are not, such are the choices they've made. 

again i don't take issue with stating the facts. why sugarcoat indeed? that's what i meant to say in my original post; i think knowing the truth of the matter is important for either side (having "sides" in and of itself is annoying but somewhat unavoidable) .. i feel though that the parties actually involved here have reached a stalemate and are no longer really advancing any further from this type of discussion. it seems to me that each side is aware of the facts, and each other's position .. i don't see many people here reading what they don't already know. that's why i said i felt this thread didn't accomplish anything, but aside from that i took issue with what i mentioned before; feeling like the defense for feeding was that it's not necessarily gaining .. it might be true but it still feels alienating. there's more than one issue at play here.

all in all i hate the politics of these things and that's why i rarely try to get involved. i probably shouldn't have but i did, so be it. you know how much i respect your opinion, anyway ... so now here i am; really a part of the thread.


----------



## SocialbFly (Aug 12, 2009)

I guess i always approach this from the side of the feedee...i figure we all have free will....

but i wonder, if someone would have told me what my life now would be, would i have altered anything...highly doubtful, we all think we are immune to the ravages of time and other influences...

that is why i dont even come over here, i am not arrogant enough to think i can change anyones mind...it was only Minis comment that prompted mine...i couldnt resist the red flag he waved...


----------



## Shosh (Aug 12, 2009)

KHayes666 said:


> *see's all the hooplah in this thread and concentrates hard....like Frank Dux in Bloodsport............then jumps up and points to each person I'm talking to*
> 
> Shoshie.....you asked a legit question in asking Ashley if her parents approve of what she does. By what I'm trying to understand, you yourself come from a family that's very close and know everything you do. However for those of us that have moved away, we have a lot more freedom than we used to. In some extreme cases, parents may not even be in the picture at all via death, jail and other touchy subjects. The point is, not all of us have to answer family when making our own decisions. No disrespect or anything, just giving my own answer.
> 
> ...



Regarding myself, you could not be more wrong, but carry on.


----------



## MissToodles (Aug 12, 2009)

Why do people act as if their kink is their sexual orientation. I don't see why they feel like they can't control it. Two different things, in my opinion. 

Also, I don't understand on this board the way feederism works. There is a lot of ageism at play. The only ones who are allowed to be into it are young folk. If someone's older and nonambulatory, they're attacked, people spouting "irresponsibility". Apparently gaining weight is great if you're young and is encouraged. There's a huge double standard and this community isn't any different about age than mainstream culture. Anyway, I've seen people on this board as they age say they're into weight gain (single people too) and then are desperate to get the weight off as they slip into their 30's and beyond. I also don't think this fetish can exist with any sort of parity in a community with such a power imbalance of "admirers" to "admirees". I know people say they do it on their on accord over and over, I do believe some (very few) exist. I've actually been in the position to see a very large person age and struggle to get the weight off. It's not easy at all. Those fat cells stick around forever. But then again, people make all sorts of dumb choices in their life and when they have a change of heart, struggling to re-emerge from the rubble that is their body. Okay, I do realize I can suffer from the same issues when I age, but I don't believe in asking for trouble either. I now regret posting this but can't delete the whole thing.


----------



## SoVerySoft (Aug 12, 2009)

Mini said:


> But that's the thing. Everything that *can* be understood about this issue *is*. I don't know any feedees or feeders who don't know about the potential downsides and ill effects their kink might have, just like I don't know anyone who plays, like, hockey who doesn't know that their passion might cripple them.
> 
> And you don't have to understand or accept, that's what I keep saying. When something has absolutely no effect on you (general you, I'm not trying to pick on you or anyone else in particular), what business is it of yours to chime in with "that's bad for you!"? You - again, general - don't give people enough credit.
> 
> I get the "social conscience" thing, I really do. You're probably not surprised, though, to hear that I don't really care about drug use and the like, either. People who want to be educated will find a way, and the rest can eat a bag of dicks for all I care.



This is much like when mainstream society just HAS to ask fat people (even complete strangers) "...but what about your _health_?"


----------



## LillyBBBW (Aug 12, 2009)

SocialbFly said:


> I guess i always approach this from the side of the feedee...i figure we all have free will....
> 
> *but i wonder, if someone would have told me what my life now would be, would i have altered anything...highly doubtful, we all think we are immune to the ravages of time and other influences...*
> 
> that is why i dont even come over here, i am not arrogant enough to think i can change anyones mind...it was only Minis comment that prompted mine...i couldnt resist the red flag he waved...



I'm taking a little tangent here. It is probably not wise to engage in this argument with a nurse but here I go. These kinds of sentiments really bug me. I hate to hear people reach for them because it sets up a platform from which one can blame people for illnesses which isn't always helpful. My belief, and I'm willing to concede that it's merely a strong theory, is that if a person could have done things differently then they would have been doing it. Most folks have the best of intentions for themselves and try to see fit to do the right thing or to at least do things as safely as possible. Sometimes that is not possible and it doesn't necessarily mean the person is weak or irresponsible. I just read an article in TIME Magazine where scientists are now discovering that exercise stokes apetite and makes people eat more, sabotaging efforts towards weight loss. Not just one study but many studies have concluded such. All these years people have been struggling and blaming themselves over something that is more likely a biological issue and has nothing to do with one's mental capacity to do the right thing. These hindsight commentaries do so much damage to an ill person I think. I, the personal I, just hate the Monday morning quarterbacking that is laid down on people over things they more than likely had little or no control over. The urge to do so may be irresistable but I think it's something that should not be promoted as a good thing. Also there's the chance that even if you had done things differently it wouldn't have made much difference. 

On the subject at hand. My aunt was a gainer and she died. My other aunt was not a gainer and she's dead too. My gainer aunt died from a battle with Hodgkin's Disease and the skinny one died 8 years later of old age. She was blind, had her knees drained three times, was senile, etc. I'm not preaching to anybody on how they should view death or how they should live. I just feel for me that there is no air freshener strong enough for death. You go when you go and in the meantime you do the best you can do without forgetting to live. I want to laugh too loud in a fancy restaurant and shake my cane and yell "[email protected] YOU!" at the bus driver who slams the door in my face and drives off. Me, I've left all that second guessing behind. Adding 8 extra years to a life of tepid misery is no prize to me and no amount of good sense scolding is going to make me feel differently. Again, YMMV but for me this is a solution I can work with.


----------



## Tooz (Aug 12, 2009)

LillyBBBW said:


> My aunt was a gainer



Tangent.

I'm curious about this, did she tell you? Did you guys ever talk about it? I don't have anyone like that in my family, nor have I known anyone with a family member like that, so it interests me.


----------



## LoveBHMS (Aug 12, 2009)

Susannah said:


> I understand. I just know that things I have been interested in say ten years ago, hold zero appeal for me now.
> 
> I think Dianna made a good point also when she said an older person carrying the extra weight would find day to day living harder. Maybe being younger the extra weight will not have as much impact on the body as yet?



Sexuality is very much ingrained in a person's psyche. I have talked to a great number of participants in this fetish, and every one of them has recollections of a fascination with fat from a very early age. Pretty much all fetishists have said they recall looking up the World's Fattest Person in the Guiness Book of World Records, looking up the word fat in the dictionary, having special affection for a fat teacher or relative, and really enjoying Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. This was behaviour and thought processes dating back to well before puberty, like probably age 4 or 5. I had my first orgasm at age 7, and feeding was part of the scenario.

It's been said the strongest sex organ is between the ears, i.e. the brain.

Adults can figure out how to do this stuff without harming anyone. Some have stronger needs than other; oftentimes you'll hear somebody say 'i dont care after the orgasm', meaning that it's strictly a sexual thing and not a lifestyle thing. Others like Ashley must be fat/gaining in order to fulfill their sexuality and feel attractive. She knows what she's doing. Still others will play out feeding scenes infrequently because weight gain is not the desired outcome. There have been plenty of posts on this board where people say they'll drink large amounts of water in order to feel 'stuffed' or because it fulfills a feeling of body inflation---very small risk of a health problem cause by drinking a lot of water.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Aug 12, 2009)

Tooz said:


> Tangent.
> 
> I'm curious about this, did she tell you? Did you guys ever talk about it? I don't have anyone like that in my family, nor have I known anyone with a family member like that, so it interests me.



It's a very strong hunch. When she passed I was very young. Because of a car accident she was partially paralyzed and weighed over 500 pounds. She was the common law wife of a man that my parents didn't like too much. I thought he was nice and he always made me laugh when I was around him but my parents spoke in hushed tones about him that he wasn't taking care of her or was killing her or some odd thing. Almost like they had to storm in and wrestle her away from him. If my memory serves though, none of this was true. They seemed perfectly happy together, their house was clean and Pearlie was well cared for. I don't want to turn this in to a long post but this and a whole lot of other things I remember about them that at the time didnt make much sense has lead me to conclude that feeding/gaining was a part of what made them tick. Small margin of error of course.


----------



## OneWickedAngel (Aug 12, 2009)

LillyBBBW said:


> ...snip...
> I just feel for me that there is no air freshener strong enough for death. You go when you go and in the meantime you do the best you can do without forgetting to live. I want to laugh too loud in a fancy restaurant and shake my cane and yell "[email protected] YOU!" at the bus driver who slams the door in my face and drives off. Me, I've left all that second guessing behind. Adding 8 extra years to a life of tepid misery is no prize to me and no amount of good sense scolding is going to make me feel differently. Again, YMMV but for me this is a solution I can work with.



*^^^THIS^^^ will get repped as soon as I am able! 
In the mean time it gets added on to the many reasons why I <3 you!*


----------



## LoveBHMS (Aug 12, 2009)

> So, bad people? No way. It can just be complicated sometimes, but that doesn't mean I go around assigning blame; I just like to see honesty about issues and will, when I'm in the mood, speak up when someone says, as happened earlier, "Is feederism unhealthy? NO," and then ask for opinions, because it does have the ability to become unhealthy for the person putting on the weight. Giving an unqualified "NO" is disingenuous, or a big ol' sign of denial. You (the general you, not you, styles) like it and do it or what to do it? Fine, but please don't try to put frosting on a turd and try to feed it to me as cake and then get all defensive when I point out that there is some denial going on there.



This is what I meant. Feederism is part of some people's sexuality. 

I compared it with gays and AIDS for this reason. AIDS was spread in the gay community because oftentimes gay men have anal intercourse. Since AIDS is a blood bourne virus, it must go directly into the bloodstream in order for the virus to stay alive. Because anal intercourse can, and does easily cause small tears in the skin, it was easy for the virus to live and infect the partner.

So you can get AIDS from unprotected anal sex, but the fact of the partners being homosexual is not what causes AIDS. 

People practice this fetish in a variety of ways. Some do it online, some do it only in their own heads. If you're totally single and celibate, yet your masturbate to the idea of funnel feeding a man to immobility, you're still a feeder and you have not hurt anyone. If you have a partner and your'e a sane, rationale personal with basic communication skills, you find out if your partner wants to gain weight, how much, what a limit would be, etc.

If I get on a horse to go horseback riding, I already know about Christopher Reeve. I wear a helmet, I work with a trainer, I have even worked with a trainer on learning to fall properly to minimize potential harm. But all the paralyzed folks on the planet likely won't stop me from going riding because I enjoy it.


----------



## BothGunsBlazing (Aug 12, 2009)

I just wish some could understand that sometimes it's not about what is healthy, what is "right" and what you're supposed to do. It's what you as an individual feel the need to do. That if you don't do it, you'll never be whole. 

As for those concerned about people destroying themselves in the process ... 

Humanity as a whole has been finding ways to do that since well, ever. 

Feederism just does this in the most delicious way possible.


----------



## katorade (Aug 12, 2009)

BothGunsBlazing said:


> I just wish some could understand that sometimes it's not about what is healthy, what is "right" and what you're supposed to do. It's what you as an individual feel the need to do. That if you don't do it, you'll never be whole.
> 
> As for those concerned about people destroying themselves in the process ...
> 
> ...




The only thing I, personally, would like to understand, is when does it get to be too much? If you hit your health limits, do you stop? Can you stop? Does life somehow become less fulfilling when you stop living for your sexual fetish and start living for your health? Was living out your fantasy worth it?


----------



## LillyBBBW (Aug 12, 2009)

katorade said:


> The only thing I, personally, would like to understand, is when does it get to be too much? If you hit your health limits, do you stop? Can you stop? Does life somehow become less fulfilling when you stop living for your sexual fetish and start living for your health? *Was living out your fantasy worth it?*



Yes. Absolutely. I wouldn't change a thing. Not one thing. I didn't go to law school. Instead I got a temp job and went on auditions. I lived for my passion instead of putting my future and fiscal health first. For me it was the right decision. I'm broke now, my knees are shot and my back is like a plyboard full of nails. I still have mental energy that goes mostly unused. I get a little grumbly about it now and then but as soon as I hear that "A" tuning pitch from the orchestra I quickly simmer down and straighten up my rickety old back to attention thanking God I made the right decision.


----------



## Blackjack (Aug 12, 2009)

LillyBBBW said:


> Yes. Absolutely. I wouldn't change a thing. Not one thing. I didn't go to law school. Instead I got a temp job and went on auditions. I lived for my passion instead of putting my future and fiscal health first. For me it was the right decision. I'm broke now, my knees are shot and my back is like a plyboard full of nails. I still have mental energy that goes mostly unused. I get a little grumbly about it now and then but as soon as I hear that "A" tuning pitch from the orchestra I quickly simmer down and straighten up my rickety old back to attention thanking God I made the right decision.


----------



## Tooz (Aug 12, 2009)

LillyBBBW said:


> Yes. Absolutely. I wouldn't change a thing. Not one thing. I didn't go to law school. Instead I got a temp job and went on auditions. I lived for my passion instead of putting my future and fiscal health first. For me it was the right decision. I'm broke now, my knees are shot and my back is like a plyboard full of nails. I still have mental energy that goes mostly unused. I get a little grumbly about it now and then but as soon as I hear that "A" tuning pitch from the orchestra I quickly simmer down and straighten up my rickety old back to attention thanking God I made the right decision.



You are seriously the first person I have ever met that I can call a role model.


----------



## OneWickedAngel (Aug 12, 2009)

*To BGB, Lilly and Beej:

In each your respective responses: NAILED IT!:bow:*


----------



## MissToodles (Aug 12, 2009)

so why are people with children into this lifestyle demonized. I don't see the same people posting in this thread, at least not all of them, coming to their defense. what's good for the goose is good for the gander. again, this thread is filled with hypocrites and people who like to fight for its own sake. so, I really can't take anyone seriously. I can go and dig for all the inconsistencies, but it's honestly not worth the time or effort. You can't be into something out there, without people casting their own opinions. Deal with it or shut up already. Stop acting like victims. Maybe I'll take my own advice as well.


----------



## katorade (Aug 12, 2009)

LillyBBBW said:


> Yes. Absolutely. I wouldn't change a thing. Not one thing. I didn't go to law school. Instead I got a temp job and went on auditions. I lived for my passion instead of putting my future and fiscal health first. For me it was the right decision. I'm broke now, my knees are shot and my back is like a plyboard full of nails. I still have mental energy that goes mostly unused. I get a little grumbly about it now and then but as soon as I hear that "A" tuning pitch from the orchestra I quickly simmer down and straighten up my rickety old back to attention thanking God I made the right decision.




I'm...not really sure what this has to do with a sexual fetish...


----------



## Tooz (Aug 12, 2009)

MissToodles said:


> so why are people with children into this lifestyle demonized. I don't see the same people posting in this thread, at least not all of them, coming to their defense. what's good for the goose is good for the gander. again, this thread is filled with hypocrites and people who like to fight for its own sake. so, I really can't take anyone seriously. I can go and dig for all the inconsistencies, but it's honestly not worth the time or effort. You can't be into something out there, without people casting their own opinions. Deal with it or shut up already. Stop acting like victims. Maybe I'll take my own advice as well.



I gotta say, you are really good at being brash.

People with children are in a different category because there is someone dependent on you, therefore your actions affect their wellbeing, which is the rub here.


----------



## MissToodles (Aug 12, 2009)

nevermind, didn't start an entire brouhaha.


----------



## katorade (Aug 12, 2009)

Tooz said:


> I gotta say, you are really good at being brash.
> 
> People with children are in a different category because there is someone dependent on you, therefore your actions affect their wellbeing, which is the rub here.



It's a valid question, though. Say you have two wants in life, gaining weight and having a family. Which one takes the spotlight? You'd think everyone would say their children, but we've all seen people set their parental responsibilities aside for their own selfish reasons.


----------



## Mini (Aug 12, 2009)

MissToodles said:


> so why are people with children into this lifestyle demonized. I don't see the same people posting in this thread, at least not all of them, coming to their defense. what's good for the goose is good for the gander. again, this thread is filled with hypocrites and people who like to fight for its own sake. so, I really can't take anyone seriously. I can go and dig for all the inconsistencies, but it's honestly not worth the time or effort. You can't be into something out there, without people casting their own opinions. Deal with it or shut up already. Stop acting like victims. Maybe I'll take my own advice as well.



Children depend on parents. Parents who partake in risky endeavors heedless of their responsibilities are selfish twats. I don't recall you being retarded so I'm actually quite shocked how this is beyond your grasp.


----------



## Shosh (Aug 12, 2009)

Tooz said:


> I gotta say, you are really good at being brash.
> 
> People with children are in a different category because there is someone dependent on you, therefore your actions affect their wellbeing, which is the rub here.



Yes. I actually at the end of the day am thinking that if two consenting adults engage in this fetish then that is their business.

I would draw the line where a child is involved in the equation however.


----------



## LoveBHMS (Aug 12, 2009)

MissToodles said:


> so why are people with children into this lifestyle demonized. I don't see the same people posting in this thread, at least not all of them, coming to their defense. what's good for the goose is good for the gander. again, this thread is filled with hypocrites and people who like to fight for its own sake. so, I really can't take anyone seriously. I can go and dig for all the inconsistencies, but it's honestly not worth the time or effort. You can't be into something out there, without people casting their own opinions. Deal with it or shut up already. Stop acting like victims. Maybe I'll take my own advice as well.



Anytime somebody becomes a parent, s/he takes on certain responsibilities. Some choose to not become parents because other lifestyle choices are not compatible, or alternately perhaps a prior lack of interest in parenting made those lifestyle choices a non-issue. If you take LillyBBW's example, there is a big difference between choosing to go on auditions and work temps if you are not a parent then if you are a parent. Had she said "I was willing to let my kids live in a car, not be able to save for a college fund, and raised them on boxed Kraft Mac and Cheese all because I did not want a full time job" that is different.

If you are focusing just on sexuality, plenty of single parents put parameters on their sex lives, whether that means putting off dating until the children are of a certain age, not introducing a new partner to the kids until a relationship is serious, or not having a partner spend the night under the same roof where the children are. It does not mean they stop being sexual beings or practicing sexuality merely for being parents.


----------



## BothGunsBlazing (Aug 12, 2009)

Tooz said:


> I gotta say, you are really good at being brash.
> 
> People with children are in a different category because there is someone dependent on you, therefore your actions affect their wellbeing, which is the rub here.



My mom told me that I am going to take care of her when she is old. so I am immobolizing myself to prevent that from happening.


----------



## MissToodles (Aug 12, 2009)

nevermind, leaving this here


----------



## Carl1h (Aug 12, 2009)

katorade said:


> The only thing I, personally, would like to understand, is when does it get to be too much? If you hit your health limits, do you stop? Can you stop? Does life somehow become less fulfilling when you stop living for your sexual fetish and start living for your health?



You could just as easily be asking those same questions to any fat person about just being fat. In fact I think I have heard much the same things from people scolding me or themselves or someone else for being fat. Can I just stop being fat? Well, no, I don't think I can. I don't think it's as simple as you make it out to be.



katorade said:


> Was living out your fantasy worth it?



That's the Million Dollar Question for every risk we take, isn't it? If I die in car wreck on the way to the grocery store today will I go thinking that the freedom I have enjoyed because I can drive anywhere I want was worth dieing for? Did David Carradine think that the previous pleasure he gained from autoerotic asphyxiation was worth his death? Would I judge a life of plain rice and water to be worth some extra years at the end of those extra years? Is a degree of promiscuity worth the price of an STD? Is my enjoyment of the company of this person worth the possible pain that might come from it in the end? Is any enjoyment worth the eventual price?

We all make those calls for ourselves, in the end. Is there really an answer for the question ahead of time? I don't think there is.


----------



## katorade (Aug 12, 2009)

Carl1h said:


> We all make those calls for ourselves, in the end. Is there really an answer for the question ahead of time? I don't think there is.



Sure there is. It's a yes or no question. I just think a lot of people don't actually want to ask themselves and look for an answer.
I know how *I* would answer those questions. What I'm looking for, specifically, is answers from other people that also know how they would answer. If you don't know how you would answer, then by all means I would invite you to be introspective for a bit and then reply. Otherwise, you're just answering a question with a question.

And to answer your questions in my own opinion: yes/ probably not, i know it wouldn't be for me/no/no/yes/yes.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Aug 12, 2009)

MissToodles said:


> so why are people with children into this lifestyle demonized. I don't see the same people posting in this thread, at least not all of them, coming to their defense. what's good for the goose is good for the gander. again, this thread is filled with hypocrites and people who like to fight for its own sake. so, I really can't take anyone seriously. I can go and dig for all the inconsistencies, but it's honestly not worth the time or effort. You can't be into something out there, without people casting their own opinions. Deal with it or shut up already. Stop acting like victims. Maybe I'll take my own advice as well.



MissToodles you have made two posts in this thread and neither one of them make any sense at all. I really can't understand what you are so enraged about. This "But what about the children?" argument is something most folks here can't possibly answer since we don't have any. There are a lot of things I would do differently if I had children. I think most people switch priorities when there are children involved. I don't understand why this is even a question for us here.


----------



## LoveBHMS (Aug 12, 2009)

> Why do people act as if their kink is their sexual orientation. I don't see why they feel like they can't control it. Two different things, in my opinion.



For some people, it is. I know people who have never, and can not have an orgasm without fantasizing about weight gain, feeding, being fat, or having a fat partner. They just can't. Some people can not feel sexually fulfilled or fully "like themselves" without being fat. 

There was a great post on another board that compared gaining with gender identity disorder. Some people simply feel wrong in a female body--they believe they should be male and won't feel whole until after surgery. Some people feel wrong in a thin body and won't feel whole and right and complete until they're fat.


----------



## mergirl (Aug 12, 2009)

This is the kind of debate that just can't be won. I love a good scuffle but really what is there to say here? 
There are people who are feeders/fedees, who say it is a part of their sexuality and if they don't either play it out in some way or explore it with others they will feel unfulfilled. Then there are those who say they are wrong and that it is dangerous....etc etc.
Personally i believe 'fetish and fantasy' such as feederism, s n m etc, is just as powerful and as difficult to 'ignore' as gender sexuality- being gay, straight, or bi. I don't think its just a 'kink' that can be ignored. It wasn't that long ago, (Hell it still happens in some places), that it was thought that Gay people could control thier sexuality or that they were evil and that they could ignore their feelings or that they could be 'fixed'. How, we can laugh about that now!! (Well most of us), so maby in a few more years time 'fetish/fantasy' such as feederism etc will be given a bit more validity. 
I support the right of any consenting adults to act sexually in any way they desire. 
I KNOW i could not supress my gender or Fa sexuality even if i tried, so what makes this any different than other sexual preferences??? 

I have a friend who was brought up a catholic and was really into S n m but she felt so much guilt that she never dated partners that were into it. She never felt whole sexually. About 5 years ago she began going to s n m clubs and dating people from that scene, she is less depressed and feels amazingly happy. -*She did of course die from an infected wound after being crucified.. but her final 5 years were happy ones!* 


The whole, "somebody think of the children" argument doesn't work either. Think of how many people smoke too much, drink too much etc etc here and they are not villified. When questions start being asked about fat people (Whether they got fat through choice or not) and their ability as parents, a dangerous line has been crossed. 

You feeders are ok, just so long as you don't call me vanilla for not being one.. as far as you know i could be into feltching dead puppies!


----------



## Tooz (Aug 12, 2009)

MissToodles said:


> yes but why? really, doesn't make sense to me.





Susannah said:


> Yes. I actually at the end of the day am thinking that if two consenting adults engage in this fetish then that is their business.
> 
> I would draw the line where a child is involved in the equation however.



There is your answer.


----------



## Tooz (Aug 12, 2009)

katorade said:


> It's a valid question, though. Say you have two wants in life, gaining weight and having a family. Which one takes the spotlight? You'd think everyone would say their children, but we've all seen people set their parental responsibilities aside for their own selfish reasons.



You'd then need to prioritize your life, I guess.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Aug 12, 2009)

katorade said:


> I'm...not really sure what this has to do with a sexual fetish...



Since you don't have one that's understandable.


----------



## katorade (Aug 12, 2009)

LillyBBBW said:


> Since you don't have one that's understandable.



I'm sorry, when did I say I never had a sexual fetish? My post was aimed specifically at the sexual fetish of feederism, not passions in general or any hypothetical situations.

And Tooz, I wholeheartedly agree. My point was that there are a lot of people that prioritize the wrong way, and that there is indeed a point where it's no longer a personal choice, and when other people can chime in and say "uh, you're being really incredibly irresponsible."


----------



## OneWickedAngel (Aug 12, 2009)

katorade said:


> It's a valid question, though. Say you have two wants in life, gaining weight and having a family. Which one takes the spotlight? You'd think everyone would say their children, but we've all seen people set their parental responsibilities aside for their own selfish reasons.



I get the point being made, but I'm not entirely sure if this is a fair question. The type of selfishness referred to here can be applied to a myriad of situations (performers, addicts etc.); not just gainer issues. Also, the way I'm understanding the question, it has placed the onus squarely on the shoulders of the gainer. If this is a couple with children, is the feedee exempt from responsibility here?


----------



## LoveBHMS (Aug 12, 2009)

MissToodles said:


> yes, but then you can't all complain when people are judgmental about adults who are into (yes, I'm one of the naysayers) but when children are involved, watch out. same type of mentality isn't it? I don't see the difference and this drives me crazy. I guess it all boils down to, none of this is any of our business but it's really difficult for me to see, even people I'm not involved with in any capacity to engage in self destructive behaviors.



Yes exactly. When somebody else's well being is affected by your choices, it is an issue.

As I type this, I am eating a salad and drinking a glass of white wine. If I lose weight, and in fact lose so much weight I can no longer work, pay my bills, or put a roof over my head, well then...that affects ME. MY choices about MY actions harmed ME.

If I had kids and my inability to work means they can't have food, clothing or school supplies, then what i'm doing is wrong because I've taken my personal choice and foisted it on somebody else, somebody helpless. I can reasonably be called out on it.

But you know what? Even parents take risks. Playing professional football can leave you paralyzed, but there are plenty of players who have kids. I don't see any mass criticisms of them. I don't see any legal safeguards against somebody with kids going bungee jumping, flying an airplane, or being a professional race car driver. Adults can, and do, make the choices that are right for them. 

Most of us would take the gift of free will over all.


----------



## Tooz (Aug 12, 2009)

katorade said:


> And Tooz, I wholeheartedly agree. My point was that there are a lot of people that prioritize the wrong way, and that there is indeed a point where it's no longer a personal choice, and when other people can chime in and say "uh, you're being really incredibly irresponsible."



Unfortunately, this is the case. Wish it wasn't so.


----------



## exile in thighville (Aug 12, 2009)

katorade said:


> The only thing I, personally, would like to understand, is when does it get to be too much? If you hit your health limits, do you stop? Can you stop? Does life somehow become less fulfilling when you stop living for your sexual fetish and start living for your health? Was living out your fantasy worth it?



i dunno after my immobile gf croaks i'll ask her k



katorade said:


> I'm...not really sure what this has to do with a sexual fetish...



because it's inseparable from who you are and what you want to do? if you take pleasure in sex, why would your sexual goals be any different from your other definitions of success?


----------



## katorade (Aug 12, 2009)

OneWickedAngel said:


> I get the point being made, but I'm not entirely sure if this is a fair question. The type of selfishness referred to here can be applied to a myriad of situations (performers, addicts etc.); not just gainer issues. Also, the way I'm understanding the question, it has placed the onus squarely on the shoulders of the gainer. If this is a couple with children, is the feedee exempt from responsibility here?



Of course it can be applied to a myriad of situations, that's kind of my point. Why does weight gain seemingly get a free pass as being someone's personal choice they don't have to answer for? And as for who I'm asking, it really depends on how the situation is laid out. If a person is singularly involved in the gaining aspect, then yes, just that person. If both parties share the desire to see a weight gain, then both parties.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Aug 12, 2009)

katorade said:


> It's a valid question, though. Say you have two wants in life, gaining weight and having a family. Which one takes the spotlight? You'd think everyone would say their children, but we've all seen people set their parental responsibilities aside for their own selfish reasons.



I've gone on auditions and talked with others in that audition who quit some serious high profile jobs to pursue their dream. One sharp dressed tenor carried a picture of his two year old daughter in his pocket for luck. Said he and his wife discussed it and decided that he should leave the firm where he was working and take the risk. He's quite good actually, I could hear him from outside the audit room. Though I was there for the very same reason he was I was a bit apprehensive about his choice to leave his job but his wife felt firm enough to support him all the way. What do I know, I don't live their life. The passion and drive of performing can present a parallel to just about any other passion a person may have even if it's sexual. It clearly seems silly to those who don't have to live with it.


----------



## exile in thighville (Aug 12, 2009)

Susannah said:


> Yes. I actually at the end of the day am thinking that if two consenting adults engage in this fetish then that is their business.
> 
> I would draw the line where a child is involved in the equation however.



WON'T SOMEONE PLZ THNK OF DA CHILDRUN

what line? oh you're going to draw one huh? around me and my family? on our heads? where is this line? is it dotted?

guys - IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS STOP BADGERING US WITH HYPOTHETICALS SO YOU CAN REMAIN LOOKING DOWN FROM YOUR STUPID PEDESTAL


----------



## Carl1h (Aug 12, 2009)

exile in thighville said:


> guys - IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS STOP BADGERING US WITH HYPOTHETICALS SO YOU CAN REMAIN LOOKING DOWN FROM YOUR STUPID PEDESTAL



Nail. Head. You hit it right there.


----------



## Tad (Aug 12, 2009)

Tooz said:


> People with children are in a different category because there is someone dependent on you, therefore your actions affect their wellbeing, which is the rub here.



Actually, I think kids is one of those areas that generally gets avoided in discussion of fat acceptance in general, and feeding/gaining in particular. Almost every discussion Ive seen that has touched on this has very quickly either degenerated or just stopped. Most people, I think, are uncomfortable including sexual kinks and kids in the same discussion, even if the kinks have nothing to do with kidsI think we just have this gut instinct that the two topics should be kept far apart or something.

Anyway, into the minefield that is feederism and family. For several years while I was growing up, the only boy my age who lived nearby was the only child of two fat parents. I was, I admitted, fascinated by their family and how different it was from my own; decadence such as him getting driven to school in the morning, being allowed soda after school, and being allowed to have as much fries as he wanted when they got fast food. He was, Ill add, right about the same build as me, which is to say heavier than average but far from fat at that time. Of particular interest to me was that his Dad seemed especially fat and self-indulgent, but him Mom never seemed to do or say anything at all disapproving of it. In fact at one point she lost a fair bit of weight (going say from smaller end of SSBBW to larger end of BBW, depending on your definitions), after which she took over mowing the lawn and shoveling the snow. The scandalized rumour that went up and down the block was that she did all that because her husband was so fat she was worried hed have a heart attack doing those things; but again no sign that she was critical of him for that.

In hindsight, I suspect that they were both FA, and that she may have been an encourager of some sort and him a gainer of some sort. We moved away for a couple of years, and theyd moved by the time we moved back, and I dont know how things worked out later on. Their son did become somewhat fat during middle school, but I heard he lost the weight later in high school, and I think I heard that he was working as equipment manager for a professional hockey team a few years ago, so I guess things worked out OK for him, despite the parents indistinguishable from evil feeding folk.

In the end, I dont think there is a single best way to raise a child. Lots of love, support, communication, and help to become independent are always part of a good formula of course, but I think parenting is much more like cooking than baking, in that there is not a precise recipe. Do you put your kid in music lessons, or karate class, or figure skating, or just give them more free time? Do you buy that big house in a great neighborhood, even though it means youll be broke and cant afford anything else, or do you buy the small place in a less desired area and travel the world, or do you just scrape every penny together you can just to keep a roof over their head because you are trying to make it as an artist and that doesnt pay so well? Do you take the fast track job with lots of travel where you are away a week or two every month, or the more dead-end job where you can be home by five-thirty every single night? Do you stay home with the kids, or do you put them in day care and go to work? And on and on and on and on. 

I guess Im saying that in my point of view, obviously the more health and energy you have available for your children, the better, but it is only one of many betters. If the worst thing you do to your children is make them put up with a fat parent who cant keep up with them physically after a certain age, but you still find ways to love them and care for them and give them opportunities to grow and thrive, then you are probably doing at least as well as most of us. It isn't as 'good' as you theoretically could be doing, but hopefully for the weakness in one area you find strengths in others.


----------



## katorade (Aug 12, 2009)

LoveBHMS said:


> Yes exactly. When somebody else's well being is affected by your choices, it is an issue.
> 
> As I type this, I am eating a salad and drinking a glass of white wine. If I lose weight, and in fact lose so much weight I can no longer work, pay my bills, or put a roof over my head, well then...that affects ME. MY choices about MY actions harmed ME.



And doesn't _possibly _harm anyone else? You've never seen someone break their family's heart because they chose to take a risk that wasn't absolutely vital?

I dunno, maybe it's just me, but I honestly don't see gratification through a sexual fetish as a necessity. If someone can't find ANYTHING in their life that is gratifying besides sex, then I'm sorry. That's pathetic, or possibly a sign that it's time for some therapy. I have my own kinks and preferences, and have experimented with them, but I don't need them to be happy in my life or relationships. They're cake frosting.


----------



## Carl1h (Aug 12, 2009)

katorade said:


> That's pathetic, or possibly a sign that it's time for some therapy.



That's really the point of this discussion right there. People who don't see and do things your way are pathetic or need therapy.

What's it like to be so perfect?


----------



## mergirl (Aug 12, 2009)

katorade said:


> And doesn't _possibly _harm anyone else? You've never seen someone break their family's heart because they chose to take a risk that wasn't absolutely vital?
> 
> I dunno, maybe it's just me, but I honestly don't see gratification through a sexual fetish as a necessity. If someone can't find ANYTHING in their life that is gratifying besides sex, then I'm sorry. That's pathetic, or possibly a sign that it's time for some therapy. I have my own kinks and preferences, and have experimented with them, but I don't need them to be happy in my life or relationships. They're cake frosting.



Though, i don't believe that being, say, a gainer is purely sexual. I think it could be anything from a lifestyle preference/need to a reaction to a body dysmorphic disorder. I think the satisfaction expereinced is above and beyond sexual (Though i think sexuality will normally play a part) or i'm not sure there would be so much of a defensive fight when people are opposed to it. Being gay is not just about sex, its chosing to be with someone of the same gender for a whole host of other reasons. If you are a submissive you may chose to be with a Dom because being with someone who knows your sexuality and has the same interest will be hugely fullfilling- If this wasn't the case, all the people in the s n m communities would never bother looking for, nor would they ever want or need a partner.


----------



## katorade (Aug 12, 2009)

Carl1h said:


> That's really the point of this discussion right there. People who don't see and do things your way are pathetic or need therapy.
> 
> What's it like to be so perfect?



I'm sorry, but there's nothing about that statement that is condescending. If your life revolves around a fetish, or habit, or hobby to the point where you openly dismiss the importance of the other aspects of your life and the people in it, then you're a fantastic candidate for therapy. That goes WAY beyond the world of gaining or feederism, or being an FA. It encompasses obsession.


----------



## katorade (Aug 12, 2009)

mergirl said:


> Though, i don't believe that being, say, a gainer is purely sexual. I think it could be anything from a lifestyle preference/need to a reaction to a body dysmorphic disorder. I think the satisfaction expereinced is above and beyond sexual (Though i think sexuality will normally play a part) or i'm not sure there would be so much of a defensive fight when people are opposed to it. Being gay is not just about sex, its chosing to be with someone of the same gender for a whole host of other reasons. If you are a submissive you may chose to be with a Dom because being with someone who knows your sexuality and has the same interest will be hugely fullfilling- If this wasn't the case, all the people in the s n m communities would never bother looking for, nor would they ever want or need a partner.



True, but there are many, maaaany people in the bdsm community that would gain a world of good from some therapy. I would know because I have actively participated in the scene and the MAJORITY of people I came across had lived through some kind of sexual trauma, myself included. 
I wouldn't really compare homosexuality because I don't really consider it a lifestyle "choice". I would say, though, that therapy has helped a good many gay people become more comfortable with themselves and it was actually those who had a battle with trying to be hetero that needed the most help. 
I don't even need to say that those with body dysmorphic disorder need help.

My point is that sexuality is part of our life, and it's healthy to embrace and explore it, but once it takes over your life and starts changing it in a negative or dangerous manner, then you're on thin ice. I'm not saying this from on top of a pedestal, I'm saying this from experience.


----------



## chaoticfate13 (Aug 12, 2009)

who's playing the victim?


----------



## LillyBBBW (Aug 12, 2009)

katorade said:


> True, but there are many, maaaany people in the bdsm community that would gain a world of good from some therapy. I would know because I have actively participated in the scene and the MAJORITY of people I came across had lived through some kind of sexual trauma, myself included.
> I wouldn't really compare homosexuality because I don't really consider it a lifestyle "choice". I would say, though, that therapy has helped a good many gay people become more comfortable with themselves and it was actually those who had a battle with trying to be hetero that needed the most help.
> I don't even need to say that those with body dysmorphic disorder need help.
> 
> My point is that sexuality is part of our life, and it's healthy to embrace and explore it, but once it takes over your life and starts changing it in a negative or dangerous manner, then you're on thin ice. I'm not saying this from on top of a pedestal, I'm saying this from experience.



I've also run in the bdsm comminuity, very closely in fact. Of the many people in this control group who from all outward appearances appear in need of therapy an astonishingly significant amont have sought or are currently in therapy. It's the sensible thing to do: 


You have a driving passion that seems out of order. 
You try to put it from your mind but you can't. 
You look for someone or something to blame but the connection is remote at best.
So you go to a therapist, then another, then another.... so what do you do? Assisted suicide? At some point you have to come out of denial, examine what you've got and try to find a safe happy medium from which you can exist. That line will be drawn in a different place for everyone. What someone else does is their own affair and if it endagers someone else then yes, it should be soundly condemned. But I cant' speak for them and I don't want anyone speaking for me either. I'm doing what I need to do and leave everyone else alone.


----------



## mergirl (Aug 12, 2009)

katorade said:


> True, but there are many, maaaany people in the bdsm community that would gain a world of good from some therapy. I would know because I have actively participated in the scene and the MAJORITY of people I came across had lived through some kind of sexual trauma, myself included.
> I wouldn't really compare homosexuality because I don't really consider it a lifestyle "choice". I would say, though, that therapy has helped a good many gay people become more comfortable with themselves and it was actually those who had a battle with trying to be hetero that needed the most help.
> I don't even need to say that those with body dysmorphic disorder need help.
> 
> My point is that sexuality is part of our life, and it's healthy to embrace and explore it, but once it takes over your life and starts changing it in a negative or dangerous manner, then you're on thin ice. I'm not saying this from on top of a pedestal, I'm saying this from experience.



Hmm..See, there is a study that says that "people sexualize something that has traumatised them when they were young". I'm not sure to what extent i subscribe to this, though if it were true, well what then? Many people are happy with thier fetish/fantasy and don't want to change it and in many cases it is impossible.
I am in 'NO WAY' connecting feederism with pedophellia, but there have been many studies done on the subject so there are some sort of percentages of the rates to which therapy can basically stop people re-offending. The percentage is very low. Even in the cases where pedophiles stop reoffending, its not because their sexual prediliction has vanished, its because they have been shown that thier actions cause harm and so they fight to supress thier urges. 
There have not been so many studies done on other sexual predilictions-mainly because they are harmless to society but i am pretty sure that the findings would be the same-That its pretty much impossible to stop people from having whatever sexual urges they have. 

Its weird you say that the majority of people you know from the bdsm comunity have had some sort of sexual trauma because thats not been my experience at all. Although, i'm not deeply into the 'scene' and only really know people who are into it through my friends who also are into it, there is only one women i know who was raped (of course one is enough), and this is out of a LOT of people. If i suggested to any of my friends who are on the bdsm scene that they might need therapy, i'm sure they would be really angry! We just never know where our fetish/fantasies come from- even though we can guess. My friend suspects she is into spanking because her dad spanked her when she was wee. Over analysing this would only ruin her sexuality, so why bother, because she really really enjoys it!
You never hear-"Hmm..she likes giving blowjobs, maby its because someone attaked her with a sausage when she was small"- Because this is seen as 'normal' sexual behaviour. Perhaps to a lesbian (not me i'm cool with Bj's) this act might seem abhorant and the fact that women might enjoy it would warrent some sort of deeply routed explaination. Maby there is..maby there isn't. Its pretty difficult though to draw the boundary lines between what sexual acts/desires require an explaination and some therapy thrown in and what ones are socially acceptable. These things change between people and throughout history.


----------



## exile in thighville (Aug 12, 2009)

katorade said:


> I'm not saying this from on top of a pedestal, I'm saying this from experience.



the amount of cautionary tales re: feederism so far outnumber Actual Deaths that it's absurd and tiring how often these discussions come up for no reason


----------



## Jack Skellington (Aug 12, 2009)

exile in thighville said:


> guys - IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS STOP BADGERING US WITH HYPOTHETICALS SO YOU CAN REMAIN LOOKING DOWN FROM YOUR STUPID PEDESTAL



While I never fail to find your mix of "look at what a bad ass I am" with your constant self pity darkly amusing, let's not forget the thread was started to ask other people's opinions. 

The requested viewpoints have been stated very patiently and politely. If you don't want to hear them, don't listen. Your child like tantrums and theatrics, while precious and all, are also in no way helping your side of the discussion.


----------



## Tina (Aug 12, 2009)

furious styles said:


> i remember talking with your husband, we had some good conversation and even touched on some of these issues .. we're similar animals. my post was more out of frustration, being one of 'those people' and, as others have pointed out, feeling a part of me demonized as almost a "lesser of two evils" in this very thread .. like you stated it's a complicated thing. simply being an fa, gaining / feeding / whatever else _aside_, is a complicated thing. most of the things mentioned in this thread as negatives associated with feeding and gaining could be mentioned simply as negatives associated with being fat, period. like your husband i'm put into the difficult position of liking what i like. for me my fa-ism is an orientation like being gay or straight; it defines me, it is not optional. i am wired this way, and i often wish i wasn't simply because of the complications therein. i could prattle on for hours about that but i'll try to stay on topic.


I'd be reading, were you to write. I'm sure there's plenty of room on the FA/FFA board for your thoughts.  You've lived a life, I have gathered, that has required you to think outside the box and to contemplate things, and not just be some mindless idiot who goes along to get along and not think about what things mean and who you are. You are correct that "most of the things mentioned in this thread as negatives associated with feeding and gaining could be mentioned simply as negatives associated with being fat, period." I'm not a feedee, though I've been open to encouragement. Heh. But while I've found the idea intriguing, I'd never really let myself cross over into it, because as it is I am in pain quite a lot and it's fucked up. You love your music. Were you to not be able to do what you do because of some disease, accident, or whatever (the reason doesn't really matter, but mine was gaining weight and then also having arthritis and fibromyalgia set in) and couldn't do it any more, you'd grieve it, I believe. I grieve being able to dance to music and being able to get down into the soil and garden. Yes, there are other ways to garden, but that was what I loved. But when we get right down to it, I chose food over those things -- and also, my body just wants to be fat naturally, so, such is life. I want those things back, but doubt I'll ever have them back. There's an up-side and down-side to everything, though. I love the way my body feels, and I love how I can see and feel in my mind that my husband kind of swoons when we're in bed together, skin-on-skin, and caressing each other -- doesn't even have to be actual sex, though it's rare that it doesn't lead to it.  And that's not even accounting for how I love to eat. That is part of how it's complicated for me, from my perspective, too, and I know I'm not alone. 


> what exactly is mentally/emotionally challenged; can we draw a line in the sand? could being young and carefree, or receptive to suggestion, or having an exceptionally strong desire to please your lover be considered being challenged? seems like a valid and difficult question.


I don't have a lot of examples, just a couple, but one was here on this board, only in an earlier incarnation of the board; the old software. One of the posters, who I rarely see any more, talked about how he saw a developmentally disabled girl (and by "girl" I mean that she may have just been a teen, so that on top of it all) and was turned on by her and wanted to feed her. It read like it was more than a fantasy, but I'm not sure that he actually did it. It was a good while ago, but I believe that if he could have, he would have. We all know that some people, in all walks of life, have no conscience. THAT is what I mean by "mentally/emotionally challenged," because I've really never forgotten reading that and how screwed up it was, and how if he'd ever find a way, he'd do it. 


> _life_ leads to health problems.


I cut this paragraph down, which makes it read simplistic, even though we know it's not, but it's such a truism. The simple fact that we are breathing means we will die one day, and some air we breathe may serve to speed that process up, and that's just life. I do believe each of us goes when it's our time and so we might as well enjoy it. That's why I feel it's not a big deal for two consenting adults. Some aspects of feederism have creeped me out, but it's always been the extreme stuff. So I suppose I do cast judgment when it comes to that. I got myself into trouble here over discussing part of it once, and learned something from the whole process, though I do still have a hard time with forced, and willing, tubes. That touches on some of my own issues, so that it feels like possibly a kind of abuse to me. Because of that I stay away from those discussions. I'm allowed to feel how I feel, and so I really just avoid anything here that has to do with tube feeding and forced feeding and don't have the desire to go looking for it so I can scold those who are into it.


> i feel though that the parties actually involved here have reached a stalemate and are no longer really advancing any further from this type of discussion. it seems to me that each side is aware of the facts, and each other's position .. i don't see many people here reading what they don't already know. that's why i said i felt this thread didn't accomplish anything, but aside from that i took issue with what i mentioned before; feeling like the defense for feeding was that it's not necessarily gaining .. it might be true but it still feels alienating. there's more than one issue at play here.


That's partly the impetus for me asking LBHMS why she started the thread. It has, in ways, gone as most others have gone, but I will say that it is, on the whole, less inflammatory than many others have been. There is more talking, more trying to understand, more patience (in general) than I've seen in other threads of this sort, and I think that's a good thing.


> all in all i hate the politics of these things and that's why i rarely try to get involved. i probably shouldn't have but i did, so be it. you know how much i respect your opinion, anyway ... so now here i am; really a part of the thread.


And I'm glad you are. I wanted to have this discussion with you in particular, after you posted, because I also value your opinion. I got a very good vibe from you when we met, and feel you're a very thoughtful, intelligent person. 


LoveBHMS said:


> This is what I meant. Feederism is part of some people's sexuality.
> 
> If I get on a horse to go horseback riding, I already know about Christopher Reeve. I wear a helmet, I work with a trainer, I have even worked with a trainer on learning to fall properly to minimize potential harm. But all the paralyzed folks on the planet likely won't stop me from going riding because I enjoy it.


I see. I got something different from some of your earlier posts, and from your original post, where you said, with no qualifications, that feederism isn't unhealthy. That's really what I took issue with. I do think it's important to make the distinction that in your comparison, though, you wouldn't have been Chris Reeve, because you're not really taking a risk with your own body, though, no? But I do see what you're saying and think that if a couple is going to get into activities that have the potential for harm, that is the best one (or two, really) can do.


----------



## superodalisque (Aug 12, 2009)

exile in thighville said:


> the amount of cautionary tales re: feederism so far outnumber Actual Deaths that it's absurd and tiring how often these discussions come up for no reason



i have to agree with that. there is a lot of paranoia surrounding that here. i think thats mainly because people are afraid to share thier real experiences here and get the info out since there are a lot of people so very hostile to it here. they are afraid to talk and even afraid to let people know who they are. if i have a question in a thread because i just want to know, people often respond to me only in PM because they don't want to get jumped on--which they can almost guarantee will happen. the problem with that is we don't get the open flow of information that we could have access to and people are left to their own prejudices without much to contrast them.

and when someone does die and they don't want thier health info on the net for anyone to see people often assume it was only because they were fat. hey, fat people get diseases and have complications just like other people. some is weight related some is not. but its all health related and depends on how proactive you are with your health. your weight does not prescribe everything that happens to you. and no one is talking about the fact that many more women die from self induced anorexia than feeding or even just being overweight by a long shot.

also i think there are a lot of people here who feel out of control of thier own weight and are so afraid that their own fat will kill them that the idea of other people getting to where they are on purpose makes them panic for other folks. so, i don't think they say the things they say just to be mean but because they have real fear thats driving what hey say.


----------



## cheekyjez (Aug 12, 2009)

LillyBBBW said:


> So you go to a therapist, then another, then another.... so what do you do? Assisted suicide? At some point you have to come out of denial, examine what you've got and try to find a safe happy medium from which you can exist.



I think Katorade is talking about seeing a therapist with the goal of self-acceptance, rather than denial. 

(If I'm reading something that isn't there, I'm sorry.)


----------



## Brenda (Aug 12, 2009)

""I just wish some could understand that sometimes it's not about what is healthy, what is "right" and what you're supposed to do. It's what you as an individual feel the need to do. That if you don't do it, you'll never be whole.""

Here is the thing that catches me up on saying yeah great go gangbusters on it. How ever much one gains (or watches their partner gain) they don't feel fat enough. They think 300 is the magic number get there and think this is not as great as I thought it would be, let's go for 400. 400 is exciting for a while but... The game can't satisfy long term but you are sure it can so you continue because in one's minds eye heaven's just a plate of cookies away.


----------



## mergirl (Aug 12, 2009)

Brenda said:


> ""I just wish some could understand that sometimes it's not about what is healthy, what is "right" and what you're supposed to do. It's what you as an individual feel the need to do. That if you don't do it, you'll never be whole.""
> 
> Here is the thing that catches me up on saying yeah great go gangbusters on it. How ever much one gains (or watches their partner gain) they don't feel fat enough. They think 300 is the magic number get there and think this is not as great as I thought it would be, let's go for 400. 400 is exciting for a while but... The game can't satisfy long term but you are sure it can so you continue because in one's minds eye heaven's just a plate of cookies away.


You sound like you are talking from experience.


----------



## LoveBHMS (Aug 12, 2009)

> I see. I got something different from some of your earlier posts, and from your original post, where you said, with no qualifications, that feederism isn't unhealthy. That's really what I took issue with. I do think it's important to make the distinction that in your comparison, though, you wouldn't have been Chris Reeve, because you're not really taking a risk with your own body, though, no? But I do see what you're saying and think that if a couple is going to get into activities that have the potential for harm, that is the best one (or two, really) can do.



Feederism isn't unhealthy. How one practices it has the potential to be unhealthy. Having the fetish is not unhealthy; practicing it in certain ways can be. 

Nobody is saying that unlimitted weight gain or over-consumption of certain foods is not unhealthy. But as I said in my OP, your body does not know that you weigh X number of pounds or consumer X amount of fast food due to feederism. Plenty of people have encountered health problems due to their size or consumption of certain foods without having a fetish or having a partner with a fetish. On the same note, i'm sure right now *somebody* is reading the story thread an masturbating; hell, I've read the story thread and masturbated. If I, or somebody else does that, there is no eating, weight gain, unhealthy eating, or even another person involved, but it is an orgasm achieved via feederism. Is that a detriment to anyone's health? No.


----------



## Tad (Aug 12, 2009)

LoveBHMS said:


> On the same note, i'm sure right now *somebody* is reading the story thread an masturbating; hell, I've read the story thread and masturbated. If I, or somebody else does that, there is no eating, weight gain, unhealthy eating, or even another person involved, but it is an orgasm achieved via feederism. Is that a detriment to anyone's health? No.



Chafing, leading to nasty infections.....

But yes, I agree with what you said.

The thing with having a feeding related fetish is that the less you really indulge in following it, in a straight-up sort of sense, the better. Now, maybe it is all the hotter for being kept almost all to fantasy, role-playing, and the like, but at the least it can be frustrating to know that you really never should really cut loose.

Actually, I'm just going to quote myself here. Here is a post originally from the old web boards, editted and archived on my geocities page. I've linked to it in the past, so apologies to those who have already read it.

===================================================

The Beatles asked:

"Will you still need me, Will you still feed me,

When I'm sixty-four?"



A few years ago, I was riding the chairlift with a friend during a ski weekend a group of us were taking. The hill had a few chalets right beside the slopes, with big second story decks. It was the sort of mild, sunny, glorious March day that lets you ditch the toque and scarf and goggles, unzip the neck of your jacket, and ski in sunglasses (and get a really good sunburn!). We were complaining about how we never had enough time to ski. When my friend pointed to the deck of one of the chalets, and said. "That is where I want to be when I retire, sitting there and relaxing after a morning of skiing, with a beer in one hand and a joint THIS big in the other, with a couple of ski bunnies waiting to bring me refills."

That isn't quite my retirement fantasy, personally, but his point was a good one. When I reach 65, I hope I have the money, and the health and fitness, to ski all winter and to be on or near water all summer.

I realize that by then I may not be ready to ski double black diamond trails all day long, but there is no reasons I shouldn't be able to downhill ski, not to mention cross country ski, snow shoe, and maybe get in a bit of curling. I also hope that my wife will be sharing these activities with me.

What does all this have to do with the feeder board? Well, at heart, I'm a feeder/feedee. My very first erotic fantasy involved the heaviest girls and boys in my grade six classes all getting together and seeing who became the fattest. I'm almost three times as old as I was back then, but my feelings haven't changed much, I still adore fat, and I'm still excited by weight gain. The thought of mutual feeding and admiration of our ever softer, rounder bodies has tremendous attraction for me.



BUT......

How far can it go? How long? Being fat doesn't automatically make you unhealthy, but there are limits on the human machine, and the bigger you are the more things you can't do. I'm still fairly young and strong, so I could probably gain a hundred pounds and still downhill ski, albeit more carefully.

But what about when I'm 64? I doubt I could be that weight then, and still take part in the activities I love. And that is just another hundred pounds. My desire will never be happy with any one weight, whatever weight I'm at, or my wife is at, I'll always be excited by the thought of gaining more, then still more.

Where would it end? At some point we simply wouldn't be able to gain any more, because the effort to move our mass around, and the difficulty in simply preparing food, would prevent us from eating more than was needed just to sustain our weight.

By that point we would have rather limited mobility, and as we aged, and our vigor reduced, that mobility would be even lessened. The weight we could barely get up the stairs at perhaps 35 would practically imprison us at 65, without even considering, say, 85.

Maybe I could care for myself at 400 pounds now, but what sort of nursing home care could I get at 85 and 400 pounds? Perhaps at that point you begin to hope that indeed the extra pounds will kill you young, I don't know.

What it comes down to for me is these two facts: at some point the gaining has to stop, and the ability to carry weight will decrease as we age. So if I will always want more, is wanting more at 200 pounds any worse than wanting more at 300 pounds? Certainly, the lower a weight I can accept, the more active and busy and exciting my retirement promises to be.

I certainly enjoy weight gain fantasy stories, but I can't help but wonder what happens after "...and they lived happily ever after." Of course, those are stories and fantasies, so I don't worry about it much. When I see discussions on this board of people who sound like they are aiming to live out some of those stories, however, I always wonder, what ever after are they hoping for?


----------



## exile in thighville (Aug 12, 2009)

Jack Skellington said:


> Your child like tantrums and theatrics, while precious and all, are also in no way helping your side of the discussion.



i don't have any side of the discussion, dude, i _am_ a side

this is another pointless thread where for some reason opinions of What I Do are proffered by people who Don't. no one who practices _any_ fetish responsibly should care what anyone who doesn't has to say about it - positive or negative. it's out of my hands if someone likes it or not, they may as well be condoning/condemning my freckles.


----------



## Brenda (Aug 12, 2009)

""no one who practices any fetish responsibly should care what anyone who doesn't has to say about it - positive or negative.""

Yet you seem to care a great deal.


----------



## Jack Skellington (Aug 12, 2009)

exile in thighville said:


> this is another pointless thread where for some reason opinions of What I Do are proffered by people who Don't. no one who practices _any_ fetish responsibly should care what anyone who doesn't has to say about it - positive or negative. it's out of my hands if someone likes it or not, they may as well be condoning/condemning my freckles.



I'm impressed, see, you can respond in a realitively polite thoughtful way. You should do it more often. But again, the topic was started _asking_ for opinions. That's the point of the thread. If you don't like the topic, it's pointless and self defeating to lash out at the polite responses, which again were asked for.


----------



## Ernest Nagel (Aug 12, 2009)

Dianna touched briefly on this aspect a few pages ago without using the specific term "informed consent" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informed_consent. I have stated on numerous occasions that I have no problem with _any_ consensual activity among adults as long as they are honest from the outset about their predilections (and I'm not being forced to watch). 

That said, _informed consent_ is where things get really tricky and even medical ethicists are often in strong disagreement. In fact The UK has long held a different legal standard for informed consent concerning potentially harmful interaction between sadists and masochists, for example, holding that individuals do NOT have a right to consent to be injured. 

I've excerpted some of the criteria I feel may be potentially relevant to feederism for determination of consent from Wikipedia. Anyone is welcome to demur from the authority of that source if you can cite contradictory information from more convincing sources (e. g., AMA). I've thoughtfully added boldface for those in a hurry to leap to conclusions and tell me this is completely irrelevant.  (please note the following does not pertain to medical consent so much as sexual activity between adults).

Assessment of consent

*Informed consent can be complex to evaluate, because neither expressions of consent, nor expressions of understanding of implications, necessarily mean that full adult consent was in fact given, nor that full comprehension of relevant issues is internally digested.* Consent may be implied within the usual subtleties of human communication, rather than explicitly negotiated verbally or in writing. In some cases consent cannot legally be possible, even if the person protests he does indeed understand and wish. There are also structured instruments for evaluating capacity to give informed consent, although no ideal instrument presently exists.

*There is thus always a degree to which informed consent must be assumed or inferred based upon observation, or knowledge, or legal reliance. This especially is the case in sexual or relational issues.* In medical or formal circumstances explicit agreement by means of signature which may normally be relied upon legally, regardless of actual consent, is the norm.

Brief examples of each of the above:

*1. A person may verbally agree to something from fear, perceived social pressure, or psychological difficulty in asserting his true feelings. The person requesting the action may honestly be unaware of this and believe the consent is genuine, and rely upon it. Consent is expressed, but not internally given.*
2. A person may state he understands the implications of some action, as part of his consent, but in fact has failed to appreciate the possible consequences fully and later deny the validity of his consent for this reason. *Understanding needed for informed consent is stated to be present but is in fact (through ignorance) not present.*
3. A person may move from friendship to sexual contact on the basis of body language and apparent receptivity, but very few people on a date that results in sexual contact have explicitly asked the other if his or her consent is informed, *if he does in fact fully understand what is implied, and all potential conditions or results. Informed consent is implied (or assumed unless disproved) but not stated explicitly.*
4. A person below the age of consent may agree to sex, knowing all the consequences, but his or her consent is deemed invalid as he is deemed to be a child unaware of the issues and thus incapable of being informed consent. Individual is barred from legally giving informed consent, despite what they may feel (1)
5. *In some countries (notably the United Kingdom), individuals may not consent to injuries being inflicted upon them, and so a person practicing sadism and masochism upon a consenting partner may be deemed to have caused actual bodily harm without consent, actual consent notwithstanding. Individual is barred from legally giving informed consent, despite what they may feel (2). See also Spanner case and 'consensual non-consensuality'.*

The above are just some of the basic logistical/legal formalities of informed consent as they _might_ be applied to feederism. This concept is clearly by no means exclusive to feederism but pretending you can write any final or definitive opinion on feederism without addressing this issue seems to me specious and naive, at best. Since this is auspiciously a forum for all viewpoints on the subject consider this my contribution. :bow:


----------



## thatgirl08 (Aug 12, 2009)

MissToodles said:


> Why do people act as if their kink is their sexual orientation. I don't see why they feel like they can't control it. Two different things, in my opinion.



It's not my sexual orientation but it's just as ingrained into my sexuality as my sexual orientation is. It's not something I can eliminate. I can control it, to an extent, but it's nothing something I can wish away or ignore. I don't think that's something you could truly understand unless you were in the same position.



katorade said:


> It's a valid question, though. Say you have two wants in life, gaining weight and having a family. Which one takes the spotlight? You'd think everyone would say their children, but we've all seen people set their parental responsibilities aside for their own selfish reasons.



I'm responding to this from a personal POV, but for me, it's either gaining or children. They're mutually exclusive. I don't think it's responsible to have children if you have severely limited mobility or an array of health issues. However, we can't control what two other adults choose to do in there lives. Does that make it right? No, of course not.. but that's reality. 



exile in thighville said:


> this is another pointless thread where for some reason opinions of What I Do are proffered by people who Don't. no one who practices _any_ fetish responsibly should care what anyone who doesn't has to say about it - positive or negative. it's out of my hands if someone likes it or not, they may as well be condoning/condemning my freckles.



Yeah, this. 



Jack Skellington said:


> I'm impressed, see, you can respond in a realitively polite thoughtful way. You should do it more often. But again, the topic was started _asking_ for opinions. That's the point of the thread. If you don't like the topic, it's pointless and self defeating to lash out at the polite responses, which again were asked for.



What exactly have _you_ added to this thread?


----------



## katorade (Aug 12, 2009)

thatgirl08 said:


> I'm responding to this from a personal POV, but for me, it's either gaining or children. They're mutually exclusive. I don't think it's responsible to have children if you have severely limited mobility or an array of health issues. However, we can't control what two other adults choose to do in there lives. Does that make it right? No, of course not.. but that's reality.



That's actually not true. If someone were to choose having their cake and eating it, too (no pun intended), then that is why agencies like CPS exist. Your children can and will be taken away if you can no longer care for them because at that point you're no longer gambling with your own life, but with theirs.


----------



## thatgirl08 (Aug 12, 2009)

katorade said:


> That's actually not true. If someone were to choose having their cake and eating it, too (no pun intended), then that is why agencies like CPS exist. Your children can and will be taken away if you can no longer care for them because at that point you're no longer gambling with your own life, but with theirs.



Right, that's true.. but chances are, even if one parent, let's say the mother is immobile, if the other parent is still able to care fully for the child he/she will not be taken away. To me though, that doesn't make it okay. I still think that's irresponsible because one parent isn't active in the kids life.


----------



## Jack Skellington (Aug 12, 2009)

thatgirl08 said:


> What exactly have _you_ added to this thread?



For starters, I have not lashed out at opinions that were asked for.


----------



## thatgirl08 (Aug 12, 2009)

Jack Skellington said:


> For starters, I have not lashed out at opinions that were asked for.



Cool. My question though was what have you _added?_


----------



## Jack Skellington (Aug 12, 2009)

thatgirl08 said:


> Cool. My question though was what have you _added?_



Here you go. Polite and on topic.



Jack Skellington said:


> Being on a size acceptance site is not a get out jail free card for a lack of social skills.
> 
> As an example, we would not tolerate a guy with a breast fetish sending random women PMs or comments they would look so hot with breast implants and we should not tolerate similar random comments about weight gain. Understanding why a person might do something like that (poor social skills), doesn't mean the behavior should be excused.
> 
> People of any sexual fetish are their own worst enemies.


----------



## thatgirl08 (Aug 12, 2009)

Jack Skellington said:


> Here you go. Polite and on topic.



Appreciated. I missed that post. :]


----------



## exile in thighville (Aug 12, 2009)

politeness != internet


----------



## Tina (Aug 12, 2009)

LoveBHMS said:


> Feederism isn't unhealthy. How one practices it has the potential to be unhealthy. Having the fetish is not unhealthy; practicing it in certain ways can be.


Well, you're saying that now, but that totally is not what you said before, and that is what I was responding to. Your _*NO*_ was completely unqualified and stood on its own. The clarification is appreciated.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Aug 12, 2009)

Ernest Nagel said:


> Dianna touched briefly on this aspect a few pages ago without using the specific term "informed consent" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informed_consent. I have stated on numerous occasions that I have no problem with _any_ consensual activity among adults as long as they are honest from the outset about their predilections (and I'm not being forced to watch).
> 
> That said, _informed consent_ is where things get really tricky and even medical ethicists are often in strong disagreement. In fact The UK has long held a different legal standard for informed consent concerning potentially harmful interaction between sadists and masochists, for example, holding that individuals do NOT have a right to consent to be injured.
> 
> ...



It is very difficult to prove any of this stuff in a court of law. Most legal experts would balk at doing so unless they wanted to fleece a grieving family of their money. Even if a person were alive to tell the tale and say they "thought" they knew the ramifications but were a bit fuzzy on the full extent once those consequences were realized. You can't get anywhere with that claim either. The thing you posted is merely for argumentative purposes but holds no real weight with anything as of now unless you can prove that the person was of unsound mind. Claims of insanity never lead anywhere in court though. They couldn't even get an insanity plea for Jeffrey Dahmer to stick.

This also seems a haughtily assumptive stance. Do you honestly think you are more informed on this issue? "Gee, thanks for informing me yet again of the ramifications for what I am doing. I was totally unaware of them before you came along because I had forgotten the last six times you posted." You are not privy to more information, lectures, public service announcements and worried looks than people with a desire to gain. Please stop assuming that people like it because they don't have the capacity to comprehend without the award winning reasoning skills you possess.


----------



## Ned Sonntag (Aug 12, 2009)

If we're at the peak of a panglobal Obesity Epidemic then we can in our defense Blame Society For This. Always worked for me.


----------



## superodalisque (Aug 12, 2009)

Ned Sonntag said:


> If we're at the peak of a panglobal Obesity Epidemic then we can in our defense Blame Society For This. Always worked for me.



obesity can never be a worldwide pandemic if we continue as we are going. the true pandemic is starvation and malnutrition. the other is diet industry bs.


----------



## msbard90 (Aug 12, 2009)

superodalisque said:


> obesity can never be a worldwide pandemic if we continue as we are going. the true pandemic is starvation and malnutrition. the other is diet industry bs.



completely agreed. we should feed them too


----------



## Carl1h (Aug 12, 2009)

What bothers me most about many of the arguments I see here against feeders is that they are the same arguments that are more broadly used against people being fat. Oh, they aren't being aimed directly at the fat people (unless they also happen to be feeders) but the bottom line of most of these arguments is that making someone fat or fatter is a bad thing, and the reason it's a bad thing is that fat is a bad thing. I don't see how my 500lbs are ok if I ate the food and gained the weight without anyone else enjoying it but becomes mental illness or plain stupidity if some feeder was there enjoying it with me. If someone with children is fed to a certain weight they're called irresponsible here, but how are they different than any other parent at that weight? When you tar feeders you tar with a broad brush that hits fat people in general.

No wonder the SSBWs wanted a private forum. They don't need the disapproval of their weight that is obviously so close to the surface with some of you.


----------



## msbard90 (Aug 12, 2009)

Carl1h said:


> If someone with children is fed to a certain weight they're called irresponsible here, but how are they different than any other parent at that weight? When you tar feeders you tar with a broad brush that hits fat people in general.
> 
> No wonder the SSBWs wanted a private forum. They don't need the disapproval of their weight that is obviously so close to the surface with some of you.



I appreciate this ^^....  but I also feel that if you have children, then get fed to the point of immobility, that is being knowingly irresponsible. That person gained the weight to satisfy their fetish solely, without any regard to the lives of the children they created beforehand. On the other note, if the person unintentionally gained enough weight to the point of immobility or it was the case beforehand, then that is a different story in itself.


----------



## Jack Skellington (Aug 12, 2009)

Carl1h said:


> No wonder the SSBWs wanted a private forum. They don't need the disapproval of their weight that is obviously so close to the surface with some of you.



Uh, no. To be totally blunt, it's actually a private forum so they can discuss certain matters specifically related to SSBBWs in private without the fear of men finding arousal from these issues and posting inappropriate remarks.


----------



## Carl1h (Aug 12, 2009)

msbard90 said:


> I appreciate this ^^....  but I also feel that if you have children, then get fed to the point of immobility, that is being knowingly irresponsible. That person gained the weight to satisfy their fetish solely, without any regard to the lives of the children they created beforehand. On the other note, if the person unintentionally gained enough weight to the point of immobility or it was the case beforehand, then that is a different story in itself.



I get what you're saying. For myself, I am uncomfortable pointing fingers even at extremes, mostly because what is considered extreme varies from person to person. There are people for whom an extra 20 pounds is extreme (I was told about a mother accusing her adult child of waddling at 20 pounds extra). Also I think people will camouflage their criticism by aiming at a larger group and then claiming to refer only to the extreme (and, no I don't mean to say that you are doing that).


----------



## exile in thighville (Aug 13, 2009)

Carl1h said:


> What bothers me most about many of the arguments I see here against feeders is that they are the same arguments that are more broadly used against people being fat. Oh, they aren't being aimed directly at the fat people (unless they also happen to be feeders) but the bottom line of most of these arguments is that making someone fat or fatter is a bad thing, and the reason it's a bad thing is that fat is a bad thing. I don't see how my 500lbs are ok if I ate the food and gained the weight without anyone else enjoying it but becomes mental illness or plain stupidity if some feeder was there enjoying it with me. If someone with children is fed to a certain weight they're called irresponsible here, but how are they different than any other parent at that weight? When you tar feeders you tar with a broad brush that hits fat people in general.
> 
> No wonder the SSBWs wanted a private forum. They don't need the disapproval of their weight that is obviously so close to the surface with some of you.



post of the year, seriously


----------



## bdog (Aug 13, 2009)

msbard90 said:


> but I also feel that if you have children, then get fed to the point of immobility, that is being knowingly irresponsible. That person gained the weight to satisfy their fetish solely, without any regard to the lives of the children they created beforehand. On the other note, if the person unintentionally gained enough weight to the point of immobility or it was the case beforehand, then that is a different story in itself.



The score is

Msbard90: 1
PeopleWhoThinkThatNeglectingChildrenIsOK: 0


----------



## bdog (Aug 13, 2009)

katorade said:


> I'm sorry, but there's nothing about that statement that is condescending. If your life revolves around a fetish, or habit, or hobby to the point where you openly dismiss the importance of the other aspects of your life and the people in it, then you're a fantastic candidate for therapy. That goes WAY beyond the world of gaining or feederism, or being an FA. It encompasses obsession.



I wonder how many of our greatest thinkers and artists were obsessed with their work to the exclusion of other aspects of their life?

"The only love affair I have ever had was with music." - Maurice Ravel

Just playing devil's advocate here... 

but anyway, continuing with the devil's advocate thing... let's just suppose that you're right, that in some cases this thing call feederism is an obsession...

I would say..

Obsessions and compulsions often serve functions in a person's life. It's not something someone can just switch off because they think they should, or someone else thinks they should. Repression does not work in the long run. What's important is how one relates to the obsession, and what one learns from it... about themselves, about others. It can be a long mysterious process, lasting years or more. And sometimes it just so happens that the very unraveling of an obsession is a great gift that could not have come about any other way. Grand stories aside, it just seems a little wrongheaded to reduce such a complicated beast like the human psyche to statements about the "right" way someone should conduct their life.

There needs to be no final word. People are going to do what they think will make them happy (not necessarily what _will_ make them happy). And if it makes them happy, good, and if it doesn't, they'll figure it out. Eventually. The mighty law of karma dictates that you're experiencing the life that you're living. :bow:

BUT FOR HEAVENS SAKE ALL YOU FEEDEES PLEASE DON'T EAT THE CHILDRENZ.


----------



## Weeze (Aug 13, 2009)

is this thread still going on?

my cli-tor-is ain't none yo' biz-nis

End of discussion.


----------



## D_A_Bunny (Aug 13, 2009)

bdog said:


> BUT FOR HEAVENS SAKE ALL YOU FEEDEES PLEASE DON'T EAT THE CHILDRENZ.



But chocolate covered sugar babies taste so.darn.good. 

View attachment chocolatesugarbabies-sm[1].jpg


----------



## mergirl (Aug 13, 2009)

superodalisque said:


> obesity can never be a worldwide pandemic if we continue as we are going. the true pandemic is starvation and malnutrition. the other is diet industry bs.





msbard90 said:


> completely agreed. we should feed them too


I think we should feed fat people to the starving. That way we kill two birds with one stone!


----------



## mergirl (Aug 13, 2009)

krismiss said:


> is this thread still going on?
> 
> my cli-tor-is ain't none yo' biz-nis
> 
> End of discussion.



I thought the discussion was started by a feeder? 
discussion on.
People have a right to share thier views, especially if they are asked for them. Don't you think? Otherwise what would be the point of this as a discussion forum. It would just be a long list of one post monologues!


----------



## MissToodles (Aug 13, 2009)

bdog said:


> I wonder how many of our greatest thinkers and artists were obsessed with their work to the exclusion of other aspects of their life?
> 
> "The only love affair I have ever had was with music." - Maurice Ravel



off the original topic, but if you ever had to deal with something similar personally as with the above, you wouldn't be so rah rah either. It's called narcissism and it works great at pushing away anything and anyone from your life. end of ot rant.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Aug 13, 2009)

Jack Skellington said:


> Uh, no. To be totally blunt, it's actually a private forum so they can discuss certain matters specifically related to SSBBWs in private without the fear of men finding arousal from these issues and posting inappropriate remarks.



Here's a can of worms for ya'. This is true but what Carl says is true also, hence the reason bbws under 350 pounds are not allowed in either. For example there are people who lurk on feeder boards and will show up at feeder meet and greets under the guise of wanting to educate themselves but nothing can be farther from the truth. They nod their heads knowingly among the feeder crowd but leap at the chance to denounce them all as freaks among friends or when given the platform to do so. These kinds of people unfortunately exist in every social genre and taking measure to avoid such things makes many of the ssbbws feel more comfortable about sharing personal struggles. It's not a perfect system, just better than the alternative.


----------



## mergirl (Aug 13, 2009)

LillyBBBW said:


> Here's a can of worms for ya'. This is true but what Carl says is true also, hence the reason bbws under 350 pounds are not allowed in either. For example there are people who lurk on feeder boards and will show up at feeder meet and greets under the guise of wanting to educate themselves but nothing can be farther from the truth. They nod their heads knowingly among the feeder crowd but leap at the chance to denounce them all as freaks among friends or when given the platform to do so. These kinds of people unfortunately exist in every social genre and taking measure to avoid such things makes many of the ssbbws feel more comfortable about sharing personal struggles. It's not a perfect system, just better than the alternative.



See, i don't get that Feeder bashers would need to go along to meet n greets for amunition. All they need to do is watch a docu such as 'fat girls and feeders' or to watch the film 'feed' to get all the amunition they would need. In a way its down to feeders/feedees to be honest and open about thier fetish as the only means of getting others to have some sort of acceptance of the fetish, at least as something not 'EVIL'. In the same breath i am thinking why the hell should anyone have to explain anything to anyone. I think it seems to be seen as something outside the community as a bit far fetched and not actually real. I wonder how many people are out feeders/feedees to their friends and families. (I mean out to everyone not just a few). The whole -"Yeah, but would you tell your granny about you fisting your boyfriend" thing isnt really relevant. One is a purely sexual act and the other (as has been said here by many) is a lifestyle.


----------



## LoveBHMS (Aug 13, 2009)

Carl1h said:


> *What bothers me most about many of the arguments I see here against feeders is that they are the same arguments that are more broadly used against people being fat. Oh, they aren't being aimed directly at the fat people (unless they also happen to be feeders) but the bottom line of most of these arguments is that making someone fat or fatter is a bad thing, and the reason it's a bad thing is that fat is a bad thing. I don't see how my 500lbs are ok if I ate the food and gained the weight without anyone else enjoying it but becomes mental illness or plain stupidity if some feeder was there enjoying it with me. * If someone with children is fed to a certain weight they're called irresponsible here, but how are they different than any other parent at that weight? When you tar feeders you tar with a broad brush that hits fat people in general.
> 
> No wonder the SSBWs wanted a private forum. They don't need the disapproval of their weight that is obviously so close to the surface with some of you.



This is kind of where I was going in pointing out that your body won't know the difference between weight gain and weight gain brought on by feederism.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Aug 13, 2009)

mergirl said:


> See, i don't get that Feeder bashers would need to go along to meet n greets for amunition. All they need to do is watch a docu such as 'fat girls and feeders' or to watch the film 'feed' to get all the amunition they would need. In a way its down to feeders/feedees to be honest and open about thier fetish as the only means of getting others to have some sort of acceptance of the fetish, at least as something not 'EVIL'. In the same breath i am thinking why the hell should anyone have to explain anything to anyone. I think it seems to be seen as something outside the community as a bit far fetched and not actually real. I wonder how many people are out feeders/feedees to their friends and families. (I mean out to everyone not just a few). The whole -"Yeah, but would you tell your granny about you fisting your boyfriend" thing isnt really relevant. One is a purely sexual act and the other (as has been said here by many) is a lifestyle.



I've gotten around finally to telling my mom. Mom is such a hand wringer anyway. I wasn't going to bother because I felt it would stress her out even more than was necessary. She started to put two and two together anyway though so I sat her down and had the talk with her before she came to psychotic conclusions that weren't at all based on fact. She still doesn't like it but what can she do? I was going to tell her about the fisting too but she held her hand up and said, "Enough."


----------



## Tau (Aug 13, 2009)

tonynyc said:


> *All this debating - it can make one pretty hungry :eat1: ... for those in the mood I humbly present the following photo :eat2:*



I just came :eat2:


----------



## Tau (Aug 13, 2009)

LillyBBBW said:


> I've gotten around finally to telling my mom. Mom is such a hand wringer anyway. I wasn't going to bother because I felt it would stress her out even more than was necessary. She started to put two and two together anyway though so I sat her down and had the talk with her before she came to psychotic conclusions that weren't at all based on fact. She still doesn't like it but what can she do? I was going to tell her about the fisting too but she held her hand up and said, "Enough."



Oh to be a fly on that wall - particularly with regards to the fisting!


----------



## mergirl (Aug 13, 2009)

Tau said:


> Oh to be a fly on that wall - particularly with regards to the fisting!


The fly is suspiciously walking poo into the wallpaper while saying "I smell shite" -Which in Scotland you say, when you don't think someone is being entirly truthful!!


----------



## EtobicokeFA (Aug 13, 2009)

Carl1h said:


> What bothers me most about many of the arguments I see here against feeders is that they are the same arguments that are more broadly used against people being fat. Oh, they aren't being aimed directly at the fat people (unless they also happen to be feeders) but the bottom line of most of these arguments is that making someone fat or fatter is a bad thing, and the reason it's a bad thing is that fat is a bad thing. I don't see how my 500lbs are ok if I ate the food and gained the weight without anyone else enjoying it but becomes mental illness or plain stupidity if some feeder was there enjoying it with me. If someone with children is fed to a certain weight they're called irresponsible here, but how are they different than any other parent at that weight? When you tar feeders you tar with a broad brush that hits fat people in general.
> 
> No wonder the SSBWs wanted a private forum. They don't need the disapproval of their weight that is obviously so close to the surface with some of you.



I also found this sadly funny as well. It sad that even fat people in the size acceptance, are railing against the bigger among us, specially if they give any hint that their weight gain is intentionally. This seems also to be the case even if you doing intentionally gaining alone. The concept seems to be that one side is okay because they are taking personally responsible for themselves because they are trying to maintain their weight, while the other is not because they are trying to gain. 

On the topic of being a parent and taking care of yourself, I believe that as you can get yourself out of bed and into a wheelchair or scooter(if needed) without much trouble then you should be qualified to take care of yourself as well as children. 

While I am at it, I would also like to point out that the little cold war, that seems to be brewing between those who are intentional fat, and those who are not.


----------



## mergirl (Aug 13, 2009)

EtobicokeFA said:


> I also found this sadly funny as well. It sad that even fat people in the size acceptance, are railing against the bigger among us, specially if they give any hint that their weight gain is intentionally. This seems also to be the case even if you doing intentionally gaining alone. The concept seems to be that one side is okay because they are taking personally responsible for themselves because they are trying to maintain their weight, while the other is not because they are trying to gain.
> 
> On the topic of being a parent and taking care of yourself, I believe that as you can get yourself out of bed and into a wheelchair or scooter(if needed) without much trouble then you should be qualified to take care of yourself as well as children.
> 
> While I am at it, I would also like to point out that the little cold war, that seems to be brewing between those who are intentional fat, and those who are not.



Also, there are psychological theories that point towards people subconciously wanting to be fat for a number of reasons. Sufferers of sexual abuse being an extreme version of this. So it seems the 'need' to be fat isn't always apparent nor does it have sexual undertones. So why are feedees so misunderstood/not believed? Perhaps the fact that sex and fat is still taboo (to some extent even in this community) is the fact that so many people find it hard to grasp that some people find pleasure in becoming fat??!
I posed a question about a year ago relating gainers to transgendered people. If it is easy(ish) for people to accept that people feel they have been born into the wrong bodies for their gender then is it so far out to consider that some people may feel fat on the inside and want to change or they will never feel happy or satisfied. Not saying that all gainers feel an innate need to be fat, but it is something to consider.


----------



## EtobicokeFA (Aug 13, 2009)

mergirl said:


> Also, there are psychological theories that point towards people subconciously wanting to be fat for a number of reasons. Sufferers of sexual abuse being an extreme version of this. So it seems the 'need' to be fat isn't always apparent nor does it have sexual undertones. So why are feedees so misunderstood/not believed? Perhaps the fact that sex and fat is still taboo (to some extent even in this community) is the fact that so many people find it hard to grasp that some people find pleasure in becoming fat??!
> I posed a question about a year ago relating gainers to transgendered people. If it is easy(ish) for people to accept that people feel they have been born into the wrong bodies for their gender then is it so far out to consider that some people may feel fat on the inside and want to change or they will never feel happy or satisfied. Not saying that all gainers feel an innate need to be fat, but it is something to consider.



We should also consider that a lot of women are (sorry to say) still battling over their relationship with their bodies(a lot of the time with themselves). Specially when they feel that their body play a overwhelming role in their identity.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Aug 13, 2009)

mergirl said:


> The fly is suspiciously walking poo into the wallpaper while saying "I smell shite" -Which in Scotland you say, when you don't think someone is being entirly truthful!!



You got me!  As to the other points you made, I'm not really on a mission to get people to accept feeding. If it's not your thing/you don't like it at all I think that's perfectly ok. I don't want anyone ramming stuff I don't like down my throat either. Feederism alone is pretty inert. The way it is used can range anywhere from being fun, wonderful, odd, rediculous or just downright horrible - just like anything else. I know a few from here but most of the feedees I know are thin. Being in this fat community can obscure the fact that this fantasy can belong to absolutely anybody and is mostly a thin person's kink in my experience. My friends would give anything to be fat for a day and feel what it's like to plop down on a couch with great force and feel their heavy bodies ripple in response. Someone mentioned that most of the feedee videos on Youtube are of skinny people sticking their bellies out and claiming to have gained. People use the same kind of logic on them used here. *cue grave announcer's voice*: Fat is no laughing matter. If you truly knew what it was like to be fat you would change your mind once you see how poorly fat people are treated in the world. How painful, how marginalizing, what about the children and so fourth. Feedees here who at 400+ pounds have already realized those things are being told the same kinds of things. If you really knew bla bla bla, you would change your mind. That stuff is just simply not true. The circumstances may change but the mind certainly wont.

Someone telling their families seems pointless too. For the gainers it would seem that gaining is less about sex and more about feeling sexy. It's like body building, wearing a bikini, flashy pumps, etc. It's more about what makes them happy and less about sex though feeling sexy is a part of the equasion. Calling it a sexual fetish or a kink is a bit misleading. Having someone who loves them that way or encourages it obviously enhances the experience but it's not necessary. Telling family members would be up to them but I don't see how it can be avoided. If you go from a size 16 to a size 26 and you're still reaching for a second peice of sweet potato pie at the family reunion somebody is going to blurt something out at you eventually. It's how familes are. :wubu: Pretty soon it will become evident to all that you're not planning on joining Jenny Craig anytime soon which I think is announcement enough in my view. As for those who are in to the fantasy aspect only I don't see why anyone needs to be told at all. It's not relevant to anything. What's practiced in the bedroom is nobody's business and has nothing to do with nothing. Being fat and into thsi fantasy gives people the gumption to put a hot poker to your back and make you confess which I think is absurd. Merely another point of rediculous penance for being fat.


----------



## thatgirl08 (Aug 13, 2009)

mergirl said:


> The whole -"Yeah, but would you tell your granny about you fisting your boyfriend" thing isnt really relevant. One is a purely sexual act and the other (as has been said here by many) is a lifestyle.



I'd just like to point out that it doesn't HAVE to become a lifestyle and for many people, it isn't. For me, it's something that strictly stays in the bedroom. 



EtobicokeFA said:


> On the topic of being a parent and taking care of yourself, I believe that as you can get yourself out of bed and into a wheelchair or scooter(if needed) without much trouble then you should be qualified to take care of yourself as well as children.



I know this is your opinion and you're entitled to it but I just wanted to say that I disagree because there are a lot of things that I think a child would miss out on if there parents were not active enough to enjoy with them. Most things are handicapped accessible but I'm thinking back to my own childhood and thinking about things like bike rides, camping trips, practicing soft ball in my backyard with my parents pitching, going to the playground, playing hide and seek etc. I just think it would be a shame if neither or only one parent was able to enjoy this stuff with their child. Being active is something most children naturally want to do (I was a fat kid and even I wanted to be active a lot of the time) and I think it'd be sad, and unhealthy, for the kid to not be able to enjoy that.


----------



## exile in thighville (Aug 13, 2009)

private feeder/feedee forum


----------



## thatgirl08 (Aug 13, 2009)

exile in thighville said:


> private feeder/feedee forum



I don't know if you're being serious or not but I actually think that'd be a really good idea. Just sayin'


----------



## Oldtimer76 (Aug 13, 2009)

mergirl said:


> Also, there are psychological theories that point towards people subconciously wanting to be fat for a number of reasons. Sufferers of sexual abuse being an extreme version of this. So it seems the 'need' to be fat isn't always apparent nor does it have sexual undertones. So why are feedees so misunderstood/not believed? Perhaps the fact that sex and fat is still taboo (to some extent even in this community) is the fact that so many people find it hard to grasp that some people find pleasure in becoming fat??!
> I posed a question about a year ago relating gainers to transgendered people. If it is easy(ish) for people to accept that people feel they have been born into the wrong bodies for their gender then is it so far out to consider that some people may feel fat on the inside and want to change or they will never feel happy or satisfied. Not saying that all gainers feel an innate need to be fat, but it is something to consider.



For some people even eating itself is a taboo, let alone eating more than you should. I know too many women always talking about being two or three pounds overweight and that chocolate, chips, pizza, etc is the worst! So these people will never understand a thing of gaining weight on purpose and feeding at all And this group is very large!


----------



## Oldtimer76 (Aug 13, 2009)

exile in thighville said:


> private feeder/feedee forum



We have such one in the chatrooms, but they are not active most of the times


----------



## EtobicokeFA (Aug 13, 2009)

thatgirl08 said:


> I know this is your opinion and you're entitled to it but I just wanted to say that I disagree because there are a lot of things that I think a child would miss out on if there parents were not active enough to enjoy with them. Most things are handicapped accessible but I'm thinking back to my own childhood and thinking about things like bike rides, camping trips, practicing soft ball in my backyard with my parents pitching, going to the playground, playing hide and seek etc. I just think it would be a shame if neither or only one parent was able to enjoy this stuff with their child. Being active is something most children naturally want to do (I was a fat kid and even I wanted to be active a lot of the time) and I think it'd be sad, and unhealthy, for the kid to not be able to enjoy that.



Well except for being not able to go up stair, or hike in the back woods, I fail to see how the child will be missing out on anything. The question is how much effort are the parents are willing to put out. 

Plus, you are assuming that the person in question is mostly inactive. Are handicap people automatic consider inactive as well? Do kids of regular handicap people think they are missing out of something, or they are not as loved? 

I am above average height-wise, if I had kids should my parenting ability be judged on if I can following them through the kid's jungle set at McDonald's? If I can't fit my legs into a kids ride, am I a bad parent? 

No, it shouldn't.


----------



## thatgirl08 (Aug 13, 2009)

EtobicokeFA said:


> Well except for being not able to go up stair, or hike in the back woods, I fail to see how the child will be missing out on anything. The question is how much effort are the parents are willing to put out.
> 
> Plus, you are assuming that the person in question is mostly inactive. Are handicap people automatic consider inactive as well? Do kids of regular handicap people think they are missing out of something, or they are not as loved?
> 
> ...



Well, I was referring to having a parent in a scooter or wheelchair who wouldn't be able to go hiking, sleep in a tent, swing with their kids, ride a bike with them, run around to play sports or tag or hide and seek, etc. I think a kid who doesn't have a parent who can do these things, is going to miss out. I'm not saying fat parents are bad parents.. my mom was well over 200 and my dad well over 300 when I was little but both were physically active enough that we could still enjoy these things together. If a parent is in a wheelchair due to other causes, that's one thing.. it's out of their control.. but to choose a lifestyle in which your mobility will be compromised when you have children or plan on having children is irresponsible, in my opinion. Unfortunately, the kids are the ones that suffer. All the effort in the world is not going to help a 600 pound parent be able to freely run around with their children in the backyard.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Aug 13, 2009)

EtobicokeFA said:


> Well except for being not able to go up stair, or hike in the back woods, I fail to see how the child will be missing out on anything. The question is how much effort are the parents are willing to put out.
> 
> Plus, you are assuming that the person in question is mostly inactive. Are handicap people automatic consider inactive as well? Do kids of regular handicap people think they are missing out of something, or they are not as loved?
> 
> ...



I agree. My parents were both perfectly capable human beings but they didn't go running up and down main street chasing me on my bike either. In fact, I don't know anybody's parents who did that. They worked and did parenty things while I played outside with my friends. My parents took us for a ride in the car. When we got there they said, "NO RUNNING!" set up chairs, laughed at cryptic jokes and tossed a fishing rod while my sister and I ran the beach and collected shells. I did not play with my parents. There really isn't any reason a person with a physical handicap can not or should not raise their own children.


----------



## SocialbFly (Aug 13, 2009)

LillyBBBW said:


> You got me!  As to the other points you made, I'm not really on a mission to get people to accept feeding. If it's not your thing/you don't like it at all I think that's perfectly ok. I don't want anyone ramming stuff I don't like down my throat either. Feederism alone is pretty inert. The way it is used can range anywhere from being fun, wonderful, odd, rediculous or just downright horrible - just like anything else. I know a few from here but most of the feedees I know are thin. Being in this fat community can obscure the fact that this fantasy can belong to absolutely anybody and is mostly a thin person's kink in my experience. My friends would give anything to be fat for a day and feel what it's like to plop down on a couch with great force and feel their heavy bodies ripple in response. Someone mentioned that most of the feedee videos on Youtube are of skinny people sticking their bellies out and claiming to have gained. People use the same kind of logic on them used here. *cue grave announcer's voice*: Fat is no laughing matter. If you truly knew what it was like to be fat you would change your mind once you see how poorly fat people are treated in the world. How painful, how marginalizing, what about the children and so fourth. Feedees here who at 400+ pounds have already realized those things are being told the same kinds of things. If you really knew bla bla bla, you would change your mind. That stuff is just simply not true. The circumstances may change but the mind certainly wont.
> 
> Someone telling their families seems pointless too. For the gainers it would seem that gaining is less about sex and more about feeling sexy. It's like body building, wearing a bikini, flashy pumps, etc. It's more about what makes them happy and less about sex though feeling sexy is a part of the equasion. Calling it a sexual fetish or a kink is a bit misleading. Having someone who loves them that way or encourages it obviously enhances the experience but it's not necessary. Telling family members would be up to them but I don't see how it can be avoided. If you go from a size 16 to a size 26 and you're still reaching for a second peice of sweet potato pie at the family reunion somebody is going to blurt something out at you eventually. It's how familes are. :wubu: Pretty soon it will become evident to all that you're not planning on joining Jenny Craig anytime soon which I think is announcement enough in my view. As for those who are in to the fantasy aspect only I don't see why anyone needs to be told at all. It's not relevant to anything. What's practiced in the bedroom is nobody's business and has nothing to do with nothing. Being fat and into thsi fantasy gives people the gumption to put a hot poker to your back and make you confess which I think is absurd. Merely another point of rediculous penance for being fat.



this post reallllllly rocked the info for me, thank you Lilly...i think people can learn from each other, we just have to take the time to see where their mind is going and escort it there...this made the murky water clearer for me, thank you.


----------



## EtobicokeFA (Aug 13, 2009)

thatgirl08 said:


> Well, I was referring to having a parent in a scooter or wheelchair who wouldn't be able to go hiking, sleep in a tent, swing with their kids, ride a bike with them, run around to play sports or tag or hide and seek, etc. I think a kid who doesn't have a parent who can do these things, is going to miss out. I'm not saying fat parents are bad parents.. my mom was well over 200 and my dad well over 300 when I was little but both were physically active enough that we could still enjoy these things together. If a parent is in a wheelchair due to other causes, that's one thing.. it's out of their control.. but to choose a lifestyle in which your mobility will be compromised when you have children or plan on having children is irresponsible, in my opinion. Unfortunately, the kids are the ones that suffer. All the effort in the world is not going to help a 600 pound parent be able to freely run around with their children in the backyard.





LillyBBBW said:


> I agree. My parents were both perfectly capable human beings but they didn't go running up and down main street chasing me on my bike either. In fact, I don't know anybody's parents who did that. They worked and did parenty things while I played outside with my friends. My parents took us for a ride in the car. When we got there they said, "NO RUNNING!" set up chairs, laughed at cryptic jokes and tossed a fishing rod while my sister and I ran the beach and collected shells. I did not play with my parents. There really isn't any reason a person with a physical handicap can not or should not raise their own children.



Exactly. Why is the reason that you are in the wheelchair determine if your plans for having children is irresponsible or not? 

And, remember we are not talking about people are to the point where they lost the ability to take care themselves. That a whole other debate. 

So, if there is a 600 pound parent, that can still basically move under their own power, then all the power to them.


----------



## Ernest Nagel (Aug 13, 2009)

LillyBBBW said:


> It is very difficult to prove any of this stuff in a court of law. Most legal experts would balk at doing so unless they wanted to fleece a grieving family of their money. Even if a person were alive to tell the tale and say they "thought" they knew the ramifications but were a bit fuzzy on the full extent once those consequences were realized. You can't get anywhere with that claim either. The thing you posted is merely for argumentative purposes but holds no real weight with anything as of now unless you can prove that the person was of unsound mind. Claims of insanity never lead anywhere in court though. They couldn't even get an insanity plea for Jeffrey Dahmer to stick.
> 
> This also seems a haughtily assumptive stance. Do you honestly think you are more informed on this issue? "Gee, thanks for informing me yet again of the ramifications for what I am doing. I was totally unaware of them before you came along because I had forgotten the last six times you posted." You are not privy to more information, lectures, public service announcements and worried looks than people with a desire to gain. Please stop assuming that people like it because they don't have the capacity to comprehend without the award winning reasoning skills you possess.



Simple fact - cases are decided based on the doctrine of informed consent nearly every day. Everything from predatory lending practices to professional sports injuries to nearly every type of liability. You may consider it difficult to prove but legally there is a mountain of case law dictating what does and doesn't constitute informed consent. I simply raised it as an issue because it seemed relevant to me. JMO, like everyone else's here. I didn't assume anything other than the fact that it is not a widely understood concept which hadn't been brought up in this thread. 

Another possibly relevant consideration to this conversation would be the potential inclusion of both obesity and food addiction in the DSM-V whenever it's published. http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/164/5/708 If food addiction _were_ classified as a psychiatric disorder (as anorexia and bulimia already are) will feeders be deemed as culpable as someone who supplies any other addiction? I'm just raising questions. I haven't pretended to have a single answer. I think it's a complicated and challenging issue, even if people's lives and health weren't in play.

BTW, Lilly, If you choose to reply please see if you can manage some semblance of actual facts and not just conjecture or personal attacks. Thanks!


----------



## katorade (Aug 13, 2009)

EtobicokeFA said:


> Exactly. Why is the reason that you are in the wheelchair determine if your plans for having children is irresponsible or not?
> 
> *And, remember we are not talking about people are to the point where they lost the ability to take care themselves. That a whole other debate. *
> 
> So, if there is a 600 pound parent, that can still basically move under their own power, then all the power to them.



No, it really isn't a different debate when you're talking about gaining, because if someone continuously gains, eventually they're going to hit a point of immobility, or to a point where they have to rely on other people for help. That's not speculation, that's just the way it is. There is a limit to the weight that the human body can handle, and sure that weight varies differently for people, but not indefinitely. EVERYONE has their limits.

Someone that weighs 600 lbs. might be able to still be mobile and care for themselves, but can they sustain it? Simply put, no. Your musculoskeletal system is only designed to take so much for so long, so the fact that someone is able to be mobile at that size doesn't necessarily mean they SHOULD be for a long period.

It's a very risky gamble when you decide to have kids based on your _current_ physiological abilities. The most able-bodied people get tuckered out quickly by their children, and children require PHYSICAL interaction for well into a decade. Lifting, carrying, aid in walking, aid in learning how to do things with their body, etc. Knowingly putting yourself in a position where those activities become very difficult or impossible is just straight up selfish. Even if you have an able-bodied significant other, it's selfish to put that responsibility solely on them, especially if it gets to a point where not only are they physically responsible for your child, but for you.

I also think a really light view is being taken by some posters here, especially those that DON'T have any physical limitations. It's not something you can toss about that easily when you already know how difficult it is to care for yourself in a handicapped state, let alone someone else.


----------



## D_A_Bunny (Aug 13, 2009)

This has nothing to do with the original post and everything to do with the side topic being discussed about being able to parent.

My parents were 40 and 41 when I was born. I was the last of six children and definitely not planned. Both parents worked full time and my father was an active drinker. My parents were tired when they got home and busy trying to make a life on the weekends. They did not play with me. They sent me out to play with my friends or pawned me off on my older siblings.

One week per year we went on vacation down the shore. They sat in chairs on the beach and we played, went in the water, etc. My parents never took me in the water.

Did I miss out? I don't know. I never knew any different. I will tell you though, that they raised me with core values that I still posess. I was raised to honor your family name, be able to live by your word and when you give a handshake on a deal you mean it.

Being physically active is not the only requirement to raise children well. Being able to keep them safe is a priority. I would hope that anyone who has difficulties, whether it be physical, mental or emotional would choose to put their children in the top spot and make accomodations for whatever was necessary.


----------



## exile in thighville (Aug 13, 2009)

thatgirl08 said:


> I don't know if you're being serious or not but I actually think that'd be a really good idea. Just sayin'



only if i was a mod, which i wouldn't want to

babysitting you children


----------



## Fuzzy Necromancer (Aug 13, 2009)

> No, it really isn't a different debate when you're talking about gaining, because *if someone continuously gains*, eventually they're going to hit a point of immobility, or to a point where they have to rely on other people for help.



That's a VERY big "if" to casually toss in there. Even when they are trying their hardest to get as fat as possible, feedees still hit platues.

You're not talking about gaining, You're talking about people who want to get as big as humanly possible.


----------



## exile in thighville (Aug 13, 2009)

it's beyond mental how many on here assume people just gain and gain beyond their point of comfort

i don't want to know how long you sickos keep your sissy in the dungeon


----------



## TotallyReal (Aug 13, 2009)

This entire community is self-trolling


----------



## bdog (Aug 13, 2009)

TotallyReal said:


> This entire community is self-trolling



Hah.. yah. F*ck this thread. In the end it doesn't really affect my real life and the life of my absolutely gargantuan miserable wife and our 11 neglected welfare children, anyway. 

ps give me your food stamps.


----------



## exile in thighville (Aug 13, 2009)




----------



## katorade (Aug 13, 2009)

exile in thighville said:


> it's beyond mental how many on here assume people just gain and gain beyond their point of comfort
> 
> i don't want to know how long you sickos keep your sissy in the dungeon




I'm not talking about the large percentage of people that can keep themselves in check, I'm talking about the people that lose control. I'm talking about the people that thought they could handle being a certain size and simply couldn't do it for a prolonged period. 

This might be hard for you to grasp since you obviously do everything perfectly, but it is possible, and very LIKELY, for someone's weight to snowball out of control once they cross over the limit their body can handle, not just the weight they're comfortable with in their heads or at that moment.


----------



## exile in thighville (Aug 13, 2009)

bdog said:


> absolutely gargantuan miserable wife





bdog said:


> absolutely gargantuan miserable wife





bdog said:


> absolutely gargantuan miserable wife





bdog said:


> absolutely gargantuan miserable wife





bdog said:


> absolutely gargantuan miserable wife





bdog said:


> absolutely gargantuan miserable wife





bdog said:


> absolutely gargantuan miserable wife



all day i tell you


----------



## exile in thighville (Aug 13, 2009)

katorade said:


> I'm not talking about the large percentage of people that can keep themselves in check, I'm talking about the people that lose control. I'm talking about the people that thought they could handle being a certain size and simply couldn't do it for a prolonged period.
> 
> This might be hard for you to grasp since you obviously do everything perfectly, but it is possible, and very LIKELY, for someone's weight to snowball out of control once they cross over the limit their body can handle, not just the weight they're comfortable with in their heads or at that moment.



it's perfectly possible my next door neighbor will steal my hoisin sauce

starting a thread brb


----------



## LillyBBBW (Aug 13, 2009)

Ernest Nagel said:


> Simple fact - cases are decided based on the doctrine of informed consent nearly every day. Everything from predatory lending practices to professional sports injuries to nearly every type of liability. You may consider it difficult to prove but legally there is a mountain of case law dictating what does and doesn't constitute informed consent. I simply raised it as an issue because it seemed relevant to me. JMO, like everyone else's here. I didn't assume anything other than the fact that it is not a widely understood concept which hadn't been brought up in this thread.
> 
> Another possibly relevant consideration to this conversation would be the potential inclusion of both obesity and food addiction in the DSM-V whenever it's published. http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/164/5/708 If food addiction _were_ classified as a psychiatric disorder (as anorexia and bulimia already are) will feeders be deemed as culpable as someone who supplies any other addiction? I'm just raising questions. I haven't pretended to have a single answer. I think it's a complicated and challenging issue, even if people's lives and health weren't in play.
> 
> BTW, Lilly, If you choose to reply please see if you can manage some semblance of actual facts and not just conjecture or personal attacks. Thanks!



Nagel I did not personally attack you. Like you I rendered an observation based on a hunch which I followed up by asking someone in the know where I work. I'm sorry my answer didn't satisfy you but if you'd like to argue with my source you can PM me and I will give you his number since approaching him again with a casual inquiry in the coffee room is out of the question. Be prepared to pay though, he will probably bill you for his time since it is a requirement here. Again, this is not a personal attack nor conjecture.

As for enablers for addiction I'm not certain that applies to food which is a necessity for everyone. People have been trying to implicate the restaurants with this theory citing them as the cause for obesity but that so far hasn't worked. The law now requires restaurants and food companies to post labels and nutrition facts about their products which they have all done. Now they are required to no longer use trans fats which they are all in the process of doing. This in my estimation seems to instantly remove the restaurants from liability in this and place it squarely on the shoulders of the consumer. ONCE AGAIN this is not a personal attack, just an opinion based on observation.


----------



## tonynyc (Aug 13, 2009)

bdog said:


> Hah.. yah. F*ck this thread. In the end it doesn't really affect my real life and the life of my absolutely gargantuan miserable wife and our 11 neglected welfare children, anyway.
> 
> ps give me your food stamps.









Sorry Bdog:

You -the lovely gargantuan, cute;but,miserable wife and 11 kids got to cough up the stamps. This needy gentleman is on a diet of steriods and beer. 




*Time for Dinner - Take a Break Folks*


----------



## bdog (Aug 13, 2009)

katorade said:


> I also think a really light view is being taken by some posters here, especially those that DON'T have any physical limitations. It's not something you can toss about that easily when you already know how difficult it is to care for yourself in a handicapped state, let alone someone else.



I just feel that you (and some others) are doing the equivalent of telling alcoholics not to drink, to a mixed crowd, most of whom don't have drinking problems. 

People aren't arguing with your points so much as they're having trouble finding the relevance. An honest message based on real experience (which has already been eloquently given on this thread) is a far more compelling read to anyone who might be headed down a bad road.

As someone who has experienced physical limitations, I think my views on obesity, weight gain, and health are quite balanced, and are actually more conservative than a lot of non-feedee/feeders on this board based on what I've read.


----------



## Ernest Nagel (Aug 13, 2009)

LillyBBBW said:


> It is very difficult to prove any of this stuff in a court of law. Most legal experts would balk at doing so unless they wanted to fleece a grieving family of their money. Even if a person were alive to tell the tale and say they "thought" they knew the ramifications but were a bit fuzzy on the full extent once those consequences were realized. You can't get anywhere with that claim either. *The thing you posted is merely for argumentative purposes but holds no real weight with anything as of now unless you can prove that the person was of unsound mind. Claims of insanity never lead anywhere in court though. * They couldn't even get an insanity plea for Jeffrey Dahmer to stick.
> 
> *This also seems a haughtily assumptive stance. Do you honestly think you are more informed on this issue? "Gee, thanks for informing me yet again of the ramifications for what I am doing. * I was totally unaware of them before you came along because I had forgotten the last six times you posted." You are not privy to more information, lectures, public service announcements and worried looks than people with a desire to gain. *Please stop assuming that people like it because they don't have the capacity to comprehend without the award winning reasoning skills you possess.*





LillyBBBW said:


> Nagel I did not personally attack you. Like you I rendered an observation based on a hunch which I followed up by asking someone in the know where I work. I'm sorry my answer didn't satisfy you but if you'd like to argue with my source you can PM me and I will give you his number since approaching him again with a casual inquiry in the coffee room is out of the question. Be prepared to pay though, he will probably bill you for his time since it is a requirement here. Again, this is not a personal attack nor conjecture.
> 
> As for enablers for addiction I'm not certain that applies to food which is a necessity for everyone. People have been trying to implicate the restaurants with this theory citing them as the cause for obesity but that so far hasn't worked. The law now requires restaurants and food companies to post labels and nutrition facts about their products which they have all done. Now they are required to no longer use trans fats which they are all in the process of doing. This in my estimation seems to instantly remove the restaurants from liability in this and place it squarely on the shoulders of the consumer. ONCE AGAIN this is not a personal attack, just an opinion based on observation.



Lilly. I've bolded the points in your post that I think could reasonably be considered personal attacks. Statements like "Claims of insanity never get anywhere in court" are not only inaccurate they have almost nothing to do with my original post. Just a straw man for you to tear down. You barely address the issue of informed consent and feederism in favor of your subjective and vituperative assertions re some attitude you think I have. Why ever would I feel attacked?  

You don't like me. Got it. Why not just put me on "ignore" if I'm so grating and offensive? It's clearly not to refute any actual statements I've made. Just get that you can't read my mind. You have no idea what my intentions are or where I'm coming from. I don't pretend to know any such things about you, do I? 

If your _expert_ honestly believes one has to prove unsound mind to challenge informed consent whatever he's charging is too much, at least for advice on that subject. JMO. 

The equivalent of an ingredient list or calorie count does not by any means necessarily satisfy what is often required to fulfill the requirements of informed consent. Read the warnings on cigarette packages for a better idea of what can be required to sufficiently inform a user/customer of risks involved. Why do you think electrical appliances always have labels warning against use in the shower or tub? They don't say "contains volts, watts and amps", do they? They say "may result in electrocution and death". This is not a personal attack either, just another opinion based on observation.

And if you don't think the possibility food addiction and obesity may be classified as mental disorders is relevant to the feederism discussion then what exactly is? Maybe you should make us a list?


----------



## Tina (Aug 13, 2009)

exile in thighville said:


> private feeder/feedee forum


Heheh! Tried to rep you for my first Dims laugh of the day, but it hasn't been long enough.


exile in thighville said:


> it's beyond mental how many on here assume people just gain and gain beyond their point of comfort


Actually, I could name at _least_ five from this community (way more, if I go back a good while) who have done that very thing -- more probably -- but it wouldn't be polite. Some things just cannot be claimed and that's one of them. It's their business what they do, so that's up to them, but claims like that are just ridiculous.

Not all feedees are going to ever become immobile, sick and/or in pain, but a percentage will, and have. Some have even been on TV extolling the virtues of being a gainer, until they had WLS because their size had become untenable and they couldn't lose the weight.


----------



## katorade (Aug 13, 2009)

bdog said:


> I just feel that you (and some others) are doing the equivalent of telling alcoholics not to drink, to a mixed crowd, most of whom don't have drinking problems.
> 
> People aren't arguing with your points so much as they're having trouble finding the relevance. An honest message based on real experience (which has already been eloquently given on this thread) is a far more compelling read to anyone who might be headed down a bad road.
> 
> As someone who has experienced physical limitations, I think my views on obesity, weight gain, and health are quite balanced, and are actually more conservative than a lot of non-feedee/feeders on this board based on what I've read.




Alcoholism is a disease, feeder...ism(?) is not. Not sure how you can compare the two. Also, the basis behind my posts was not to point out that what people are doing is wrong, they were posted to understand why people that go beyond the fantasy to make it a lifestyle chose to do so.


----------



## mergirl (Aug 13, 2009)

thatgirl08 said:


> I'd just like to point out that it doesn't HAVE to become a lifestyle and for many people, it isn't. For me, it's something that strictly stays in the bedroom.
> .



I said "many have said its a lifestyle". I wanted to make the distinction between something that is a part (for some) of the act of fucking and something which may take up more thought outside the bedroom. Hmm.. i guess in the same way i obviously want to be having sex with a big woman while i am having sex, but i also want to be with a big woman, and will be interested in things that are also non directly sexual. When i'm actually in bed though there can be many acts that happen, that i wouldn't attribute much of my odentity (haha..i'm leaving that typo in!!) space to. I state "I'm queer or i'm an Fa" Never "I'm a cunilinguist". Do you know what i mean?
I have fed people in bed and they have fed me, though i have never considered myself a feeder or feedee. So whats the difference? Is it mental? Or is it dependent on partners?


----------



## LillyBBBW (Aug 13, 2009)

Ernest Nagel said:


> Lilly. I've bolded the points in your post that I think could reasonably be considered personal attacks. Statements like "Claims of insanity never get anywhere in court" are not only inaccurate they have almost nothing to do with my original post. Just a straw man for you to tear down. You barely address the issue of informed consent and feederism in favor of your subjective and vituperative assertions re some attitude you think I have. Why ever would I feel attacked?
> 
> You don't like me. Got it. Why not just put me on "ignore" if I'm so grating and offensive? It's clearly not to refute any actual statements I've made. Just get that you can't read my mind. You have no idea what my intentions are or where I'm coming from. I don't pretend to know any such things about you, do I?
> 
> ...



Nagle I am really disturbed by this post and even more so at the perception that I don't like you wich is completely untrue. I am honestly shocked by your acusation and can not fathom why or how you could view the first bolded statment as a personal attack. It was an opinion on the interpretation of the law. People in general are held responsible for their own actions. The way I worded my inquiry was if I met a man who wined and dined me at fancy restaurants for months to gain my affections, and if as a result of this I gained weight and developed diabetes can I sue him? I said it as a joke which of course made him laugh but the short answer was no. Being love struck and bedazzled by a smooth talking stealth feeder does not count as uninformed consent unless you can prove that I were mentally impaired on unable to distinguish the difference between right and wrong. This is not a personal attack, just a discussion of how the law works. At no point in our exchange did I say anything at all derogatory about you. I'm sorry if it appeared that way.

As for the second bolded statements I simply asked you a question. Your inquiries make it appear as if you have an agenda so I asked you about it. All you had to do was say no, you're wrong and either clarify your meaning or say nothing further if you wish. To me that seemed clear. Again I'm sorry if you feel attacked but I merely presented before you the impression I was getting with a chance to clarify yourself rather than leave things to assumptions and have people dismiss you out of hand.


----------



## Fascinita (Aug 13, 2009)

BothGunsBlazing said:


> I just wish some could understand that sometimes it's not about what is healthy, what is "right" and what you're supposed to do. It's what you as an individual feel the need to do. That if you don't do it, you'll never be whole.
> 
> As for those concerned about people destroying themselves in the process ...
> 
> ...



My post here in no way endorses or condemns "feederism." I only feel I should point out that arguments like this, BGB, are easy to take apart. Substitute "serial killing" (forgive the lurid example) for "feederism" in your post above, and you can see what I mean.

In other words, arguments of "because I'm wired that way," won't do a thing to silence critics who point out the possibility of real harm. 

Better to preach safe practices in the fetish, I think. Everybody wins that way.

On a slightly different note: Isn't saying that erotic feeding does not cause weight-gain-related diseases a little like saying that farming doesn't cause soil depletion? You can try to separate the idea from the practices until the cows come home, and yet the fact remains that a farmer is never a farmer "in the abstract." Some farmers farm responsibly and others not so much. Again, it might be helpful to acknowledge that there are irresponsible practices and try to encourage safety, rather than playing a round of semantics that is essentially unconvincing. 

Feederism is a practice, as far as I know. The hardwiredness of it is up for debate. Whether _any_ sexuality is hardwired or socially constructed is also still up for debate. Essentialist arguments about what otherwise should be understood as socially constructed practices have been used to exonerate AND indict all kinds of behaviors that are ultimately just grounded in carefully shored power structures. See Michel Foucault for the word on power, knowledge and social discourse.


----------



## thatgirl08 (Aug 13, 2009)

LillyBBBW said:


> I agree. My parents were both perfectly capable human beings but they didn't go running up and down main street chasing me on my bike either. In fact, I don't know anybody's parents who did that. They worked and did parenty things while I played outside with my friends. My parents took us for a ride in the car. When we got there they said, "NO RUNNING!" set up chairs, laughed at cryptic jokes and tossed a fishing rod while my sister and I ran the beach and collected shells. I did not play with my parents. There really isn't any reason a person with a physical handicap can not or should not raise their own children.





EtobicokeFA said:


> Exactly. Why is the reason that you are in the wheelchair determine if your plans for having children is irresponsible or not?
> 
> And, remember we are not talking about people are to the point where they lost the ability to take care themselves. That a whole other debate.
> 
> So, if there is a 600 pound parent, that can still basically move under their own power, then all the power to them.





D_A_Bunny said:


> This has nothing to do with the original post and everything to do with the side topic being discussed about being able to parent.
> 
> My parents were 40 and 41 when I was born. I was the last of six children and definitely not planned. Both parents worked full time and my father was an active drinker. My parents were tired when they got home and busy trying to make a life on the weekends. They did not play with me. They sent me out to play with my friends or pawned me off on my older siblings.
> 
> ...



I'm not saying that if you have a disability you can't have children.. all I'm saying is that there is a big difference between being wheelchair bound or having limited mobility due to disease or an accident that was out of your control and purposefully putting yourself in that situation through intentionally gaining a lot of weight. I'm not saying that this situation would be the end of the world, I'm simply stating that it's not the ideal situation. Personally, if I chose to have children, I would want them to be in most ideal situation I could provide and I don't think that being 600 pounds and wheelchair bound would be that ideal situation. This to me, is what makes it irresponsible. It's like, intentionally making things more difficult for your kids.

Are your kids going to end up horrible people if you don't play with them or do active things with them? No, not at all. I just think that my parents being able to help me practice sports, play games and introduce me to things like hiking, cross country skiing, horseback riding, snowshoeing, camping, etc. was an extremely valuable part of my childhood and our "family time." Kids want to be active and I personally think it's important to let them do that. Kids learn through playing, and a lot of that playing is being outdoors and doing active things. Like I said before, it's not the end of the world if you can't be there doing those things with your kids but in my personal opinion, I feel like your kids will really miss out. I mean, just looking at your example Lilly.. do you know how difficult it would be to do that if you had limited mobility? Impossible? No.. but difficult. If you had to have a special van that was wheelchair accessible and then you'd have to find a spot where you could wheel/drive the wheelchair or scooter.. not all fishing places/beaches are equipped for that sort of thing. A simple day at the beach isn't so simple when someone can't walk on their own.

This is all ignoring the other issues that would arise as well. To me, it's not appropriate to raise children in a situation in which you're living out a fetish related lifestyle. To me it seems like you're putting them in a semi-sexual environment. Kids are more perceptive than you think and they will notice things that seem out of the ordinary.. especially when they begin to go to other children's houses and seeing other families. It'd be like someone into BDSM walking around in leather all day, everyday. They may not whip each other or refer to eachother as slave or master in front of their kids but you don't think the kids are going to notice eventually that gee, mom and dad are always wearing weird outfits? The older the kids get, the more obvious it's going to be because the more perceptive they will be.

Not to mention, how are you going to teach children the value of eating healthy? It's one thing for a consenting adult to choose to overeat or eat things that aren't very healthy for them in order to gain and a completely different thing to allow kids to eat whatever the hell they want and not teach them the value of a nutritional meal. How do you explain to them that it's okay for mommy or daddy or both to eat _____ but kids have to eat _____. Kids learn best by example.. is intentionally gaining weight the best example to set for kids? I don't think so.


----------



## Tina (Aug 13, 2009)

thatgirl08 said:


> Are your kids going to end up horrible people if you don't play with them or do active things with them? No, not at all. I just think that my parents being able to help me practice sports, play games and introduce me to things like hiking, cross country skiing, horseback riding, snowshoeing, camping, etc. was an extremely valuable part of my childhood and our "family time." Kids want to be active and I personally think it's important to let them do that. Kids learn through playing, and a lot of that playing is being outdoors and doing active things.


I don't really have much comment for the rest of the post, as I have no desire to get into the rest of the discussion, and feel that this subject isn't by nature always related to feederism, but I have to agree with the above. My parents were the same way when it came to camping and boating and other activities. And I have always been glad that I had my son when I had full mobility so that I *could* run after him (there's always going to be a point -- or several -- where you're outside with your toddler, playing, and they get an evil gleam in their eye and make for the street), go to his baseball practices and games, play with him in the sandy playground, etc. Now, I honestly couldn't do it and he would be missing out. He might be very understanding to my face, but inside he might feel like he'd have missed out (and he would have). This is my preference and I'm glad for those years. As it is, we have a puppy and it's my husband who usually takes him out for walks, as I'm not able, and I miss that.

And yet, I don't think it's up to me to preach what other parents should be or do, as long as they're not abusing their child/ren; and being a disabled parent certainly is not akin to child abuse (I know you're not saying it is; it's just a comment).

I think there are some ways around it, like the other parent doing things with the child that the parent with mobility problems cannot, or a family member or good friend; it's just not the same.


----------



## BothGunsBlazing (Aug 13, 2009)

Well, I wasn't really thinking it could be so easily replaced with "serial killing" when I posted that and it actually crossed my mind that it'd be taken that way because obviously some one could say well, pedophiles say they are wired that way too, so shouldn't they be allowed to do as they please? 

It's just not the same once you drag another party into the picture and they're not consenting. I was talking about an adult making the decision on their own to gain weight. 

As some one who has been involved in multiple relationships where feederism was such a big part of it, I can tell you as the feeder it felt like from the beginning I was with a girl who was into weight gain for herself and I just so happened to be lucky enough at the time to be along for the ride and help out. I guess I have a hard time looking at all the negative aspects of feederism because it's never been anything but something I've done with some one I loved at the time and tried to practice as safely as possible.

All I can say is that the majority of people who really practice this are very very aware of the risk involved and take it very seriously, almost one day at a time and it takes A LOT of reassurance on the parts of both people involved.

The ones who I think make it easy to worry about feederism? Yeah, they're not really getting past the initial "HOW FAT R U ARE U GAINING I WANT TO MAKE U HUGE" private message.


----------



## mergirl (Aug 13, 2009)

thatgirl08 said:


> This is all ignoring the other issues that would arise as well. To me, it's not appropriate to raise children in a situation in which you're living out a fetish related lifestyle. To me it seems like you're putting them in a semi-sexual environment. Kids are more perceptive than you think and they will notice things that seem out of the ordinary.. especially when they begin to go to other children's houses and seeing other families. It'd be like someone into BDSM walking around in leather all day, everyday. They may not whip each other or refer to eachother as slave or master in front of their kids but you don't think the kids are going to notice eventually that gee, mom and dad are always wearing weird outfits? The older the kids get, the more obvious it's going to be because the more perceptive they will be.
> 
> Not to mention, how are you going to teach children the value of eating healthy? It's one thing for a consenting adult to choose to overeat or eat things that aren't very healthy for them in order to gain and a completely different thing to allow kids to eat whatever the hell they want and not teach them the value of a nutritional meal. How do you explain to them that it's okay for mommy or daddy or both to eat _____ but kids have to eat _____. Kids learn best by example.. is intentionally gaining weight the best example to set for kids? I don't think so.



You posted recently, that you find it sad when people seem to stop living somehow and become 'boring' when they become older. Though, what you are saying here is that people should stop or at least curb their fetish/sexuality/fantasies when they have children. will you? Wont this then make you somehow 'more boring', 'less like you'...'having to compromise your life, perhaps to some detriment to your own happieness'? If you decide to have kids that is. 
So, (correct me if i'm wrong) Its ok to partake in feeder/feedee fantasy play unless you have children? 
Remember what you said to me about, feederism being contained to the bedroom for some and being the fantasy of the thin for many.. I'm not sure i see how this interferes with having children.


----------



## ashmamma84 (Aug 13, 2009)

Tina said:


> Heheh! Tried to rep you for my first Dims laugh of the day, but it hasn't been long enough.
> 
> Actually, I could name at _least_ five from this community (way more, if I go back a good while) who have done that very thing -- more probably -- but it wouldn't be polite. Some things just cannot be claimed and that's one of them. It's their business what they do, so that's up to them, but claims like that are just ridiculous.
> 
> Not all feedees are going to ever become immobile, sick and/or in pain, but a percentage will, and have. Some have even been on TV extolling the virtues of being a gainer, until they had WLS because their size had become untenable and they couldn't lose the weight.



That's something I've wondered about - if people know the full ramifications of their actions and they have WLS or turn to some other drastic measures isn't that defeating the whole purpose of the gainer/feedee lifestyle? 

I honestly don't know...


----------



## bdog (Aug 13, 2009)

katorade said:


> Alcoholism is a disease, feeder...ism(?) is not. Not sure how you can compare the two. Also, the basis behind my posts was not to point out that what people are doing is wrong, they were posted to understand why people that go beyond the fantasy to make it a lifestyle chose to do so.



"If your life revolves around a fetish, or habit, or hobby to the point where you openly dismiss the importance of the other aspects of your life and the people in it, then you're a fantastic candidate for therapy." 

While I don't disagree with the above statement, I would say that your curiosity seems to carry a certain amount of bias.

In any case, I had no idea that's what you were getting after but then again I think I joined this thread about 2 pages past ridiculous.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Aug 13, 2009)

Yes I do actually know how difficult it is to take someone who is mobility impaired to the shore. My dad actually took our aunt Pearlie with us one year and it was wretched and rough. Everything was a huge ceremony. My auntie was 600 pounds and moving her was an effort that involved the whole family almost. Bear in mind back then they didn't have mobility scooters and all that stuff. It was a plain old wheelchair that we had to push... uphill... both ways... in the snow... carrying my uncle on my back because he had a bad hip. Sorry, just couldn't resist some agist absurdity. My aunt was wheelchair bound due to something horrible that left her partially paralyzed. Her fat had nothing to do with her condition yet people thought that when they saw us. She was looked down upon, glared at, resented and seeing this as a child made me angry. It did not make me wish she would go away or take better care of herself. Instead it made me wonder why a brilliant woman like her has to remain shut up in her house and never see the ocean andd nearly be reduced to tears if she tries. She was no animal and the situation was just plain unacceptable. Thankfully there are places out there that make things to help people like her participate in life rather than be punished and shamed because of their disposition that is through no fault of their own. I undestand your point but these arguments about who would make a better parent and who has more to offer sadden me just the same. 

There are any number of reasons a parent can't take their kid horseback riding or bobsledding. My parents didn't do any of those things. We took a trip to the shore which I loved and looked forward to and we went on foliage trips every year. My mother had children at an early age and dropped out of school. She could barely read and was as dumb as a box of hammers on some respects. She knew first hand how important education was and pushed for it. She was disappointed when I didn't go on to college. My dad however is so smart he's no earthly good. He has almost zero social skills but could take my toys completely apart and put them back together with enhanced features that would terrify my friends for weeks before my mother would find out about it and take it away.

Were my parents better than yours? No. Parenting goes beyond just being able to take your kids on trips, ride horses and stuff. I'm really uncomfortable with what can easily become "My dad's better than your dad" isms based on superficial things. I'm glad you were able to experience the things you did but it is not a trump card when it comes to parenting. If you dont like what someone is doing fine but good parenting is not about having money, status or youthful physical abilities.


----------



## Fascinita (Aug 13, 2009)

BothGunsBlazing said:


> It's just not the same once you drag another party into the picture and they're not consenting. I was talking about an adult making the decision on their own to gain weight.



This is a fair point. A discussion of what qualifies as consent is already taking place here. Consent implies an exchange of power taking place: "I authorize you to do X to me." And it's because this power exchange must take place in consent that I think this discussion can't take place without acknowledging that we are ultimately talking about ethics and possibly about legalities.

In terms of what's ethical, again, I think it comes down to evaluating what's at stake, possible dangers, safe practices. We may wish that it were as simple as demanding that our sexual lives be free of public scrutiny, but no one--not even boring old middle class heterosexuals--gets to have it that way (normative heterosexuality is as oppressive to heterosexuals as it is to the rest of humanity, ironically--though true that it's constructed in a way such that power has traditionally been located at the heterosexual pole.) It always comes down to practices and behavior. The discussion of private acts can never be fully separated from the social context in which those acts take place. And that's why I think essentialist claims about hardwiredness eventually do more harm than good to the cause proper: it amounts to clamoring for a privilege that _no one_ is entitled to, and thus it's technically easy to dismantle such a claim.

Persecution is another matter. But who here is claiming that feeders are Satan incarnate? (I know you weren't complaining of this and that you were just flying your freak flag with pride ) What I've seen here, for the most part, is a call for proceeding responsibly, something most feeders who've posted seem to have no problem with endorsing anyway.



> All I can say is that the majority of people who really practice this are very very aware of the risk involved and take it very seriously, almost one day at a time and it takes A LOT of reassurance on the parts of both people involved.



Yeah, this is what my gut feeling has always told me. :bow:


----------



## thatgirl08 (Aug 13, 2009)

mergirl said:


> You posted recently, that you find it sad when people seem to stop living somehow and become 'boring' when they become older. Though, what you are saying here is that people should stop or at least curb their fetish/sexuality/fantasies when they have children. will you? Wont this then make you somehow 'more boring', 'less like you'...'having to compromise your life, perhaps to some detriment to your own happieness'? If you decide to have kids that is.
> So, (correct me if i'm wrong) Its ok to partake in feeder/feedee fantasy play unless you have children?
> Remember what you said to me about, feederism being contained to the bedroom for some and being the fantasy of the thin for many.. I'm not sure i see how this interferes with having children.



This is a multilayered question. Firstly, you're assuming I want to have children. I don't. I don't particularly like kids and for various personal reasons don't think I would make a good parent and frankly, I would not want to subject a child to that. This isn't etched in stone, of course, time may change my opinion, but that is where I currently stand. 

Secondly, you're assuming I have the desire to gain to extreme weights, which is what this discussion was about. I don't. I do not intend to go above a certain weight and have already come to the realization that I will most likely face a time in my life where I will need to actively lose weight to stay under my personal maximum. 

I don't think there is any problem whatsoever with two parents enjoying feederism as part of their sex life. There are ways to indulge in it without gaining a single pound and I don't think there's anything wrong with people doing that if they have kids. It's living it as a lifestyle and indulging it until you have limited mobility that I think is wrong to drag kids into.

Let's say I did want to have children and I also wanted to gain to 600 pounds.. I would personally choose one over the other because I simply think it's selfish to do both. Would I lose a part of me either way? Yes, I suppose. But that's life. I think when you choose to have children, you do have to make some sacrifices because children will take up a lot of time, money, attention, etc. Maybe living out the feeder/feedee lifestyle is a sacrifice you (general you) have to make.


----------



## Tina (Aug 13, 2009)

Yeah, I don't see how it would go away once one gets older, but who knows? Often, tastes change as one ages, but that could also mean that the fetish could become more intense, not less so. I tend to think that the majority of feeders and feedees that we converse with here at Dims are closer to this post than the way out there ones who really don't care what damage is done:


BothGunsBlazing said:


> As some one who has been involved in multiple relationships where feederism was such a big part of it, I can tell you as the feeder it felt like from the beginning I was with a girl who was into weight gain for herself and I just so happened to be lucky enough at the time to be along for the ride and help out. I guess I have a hard time looking at all the negative aspects of feederism because it's never been anything but something I've done with some one I loved at the time and tried to practice as safely as possible.





ashmamma84 said:


> That's something I've wondered about - if people know the full ramifications of their actions and they have WLS or turn to some other drastic measures isn't that defeating the whole purpose of the gainer/feedee lifestyle?


Ash, I think yes and no. I believe if it's done for someone else, as a feedee, and not for oneself it's already problematic from the get-go. I also think that there are some times when the ramifications are not fully understood, and down the road the feedee is in a situation where they find out they really prefer being able to walk, or whatever, and get WLS or find a way to try to lose weight. 

But the more I read, in general (not just in this thread), I'm thinking that this fetish is more of a drive than anything else, and in that case it's not necessarily so easily controlled. We can say that people have the choice, and ultimately that's true, theoretically. However, I know just from my own experience as someone with food issues, that it's not that easy to just make the supposed 'right' choice, and it's not even sexual with me. Having the sex aspect in addition, so that it's a drive and a fetish... I think the best people can do is to be aware and informed and make the best decisions for themselves and as a couple as possible.


----------



## Wagimawr (Aug 13, 2009)

BothGunsBlazing said:


> The ones who I think make it easy to worry about feederism? Yeah, they're not really getting past the initial "HOW FAT R U ARE U GAINING I WANT TO MAKE U HUGE" private message.


Oh GOD so true.


----------



## thatgirl08 (Aug 13, 2009)

LillyBBBW said:


> Yes I do actually know how difficult it is to take someone who is mobility impaired to the shore. My dad actually took our aunt Pearlie with us one year and it was wretched and rough. Everything was a huge ceremony. My auntie was 600 pounds and moving her was an effort that involved the whole family almost. Bear in mind back then they didn't have mobility scooters and all that stuff. It was a plain old wheelchair that we had to push... uphill... both ways... in the snow... carrying my uncle on my back because he had a bad hip. Sorry, just couldn't resist some agist absurdity. My aunt was wheelchair bound due to something horrible that left her partially paralyzed. Her fat had nothing to do with her condition yet people thought that when they saw us. She was looked down upon, glared at, resented and seeing this as a child made me angry. It did not make me wish she would go away or take better care of herself. Instead it made me wonder why a brilliant woman like her has to remain shut up in her house and never see the ocean andd nearly be reduced to tears if she tries. She was no animal and the situation was just plain unacceptable. Thankfully there are places out there that make things to help people like her participate in life rather than be punished and shamed because of their disposition that is through no fault of their own. I undestand your point but these arguments about who would make a better parent and who has more to offer sadden me just the same.
> 
> There are any number of reasons a parent can't take their kid horseback riding or bobsledding. My parents didn't do any of those things. We took a trip to the shore which I loved and looked forward to and we went on foliage trips every year. My mother had children at an early age and dropped out of school. She could barely read and was as dumb as a box of hammers on some respects. She knew first hand how important education was and pushed for it. She was disappointed when I didn't go on to college. My dad however is so smart he's no earthly good. He has almost zero social skills but could take my toys completely apart and put them back together with enhanced features that would terrify my friends for weeks before my mother would find out about it and take it away.
> 
> Were my parents better than yours? No. Parenting goes beyond just being able to take your kids on trips, ride horses and stuff. I'm really uncomfortable with what can easily become "My dad's better than your dad" isms based on superficial things. I'm glad you were able to experience the things you did but it is not a trump card when it comes to parenting. If you dont like what someone is doing fine but good parenting is not about having money, status or youthful physical abilities.



You're reading things in my posts that simply aren't there. I already said a million times that this is all in my personal opinion. I'm not trying to say it makes someone a bad parent if they can't or won't be physically active with their children.. I'm just saying it makes them a better parent if they are, IMO.

My parents weren't saints. I was an accident and they had a quick wedding so no one would notice, they were absolutely broke as fuck and living with my grandmother who we lived with until I was nearly 12 years old, neither had a college education until a few years after I was born and my dad worked his ass off to get into an industry that didn't want anyone over the age of 25 but they did the best they could with what they had. My parents never had money when I was little but they scraped and saved so they could let me have, see, do, experience all that I possibly could. That was their way of showing love to me. Did they have to do it? No, and it wouldn't have made them terrible parents if they didn't but they gave me memories and experience that I will never forget. 

I don't think you're going to fuck up your kids if you can't play with them.. all I'm saying is that if you have the chance, why the hell wouldn't you take it? Why would you throw that away when you can get your kids those memories? I don't get it. And not only that, I think it's selfish.. and selfish people shouldn't have kids.


----------



## mergirl (Aug 13, 2009)

thatgirl08 said:


> This is a multilayered question. Firstly, you're assuming I want to have children. I don't. I don't particularly like kids and for various personal reasons don't think I would make a good parent and frankly, I would not want to subject a child to that. This isn't etched in stone, of course, time may change my opinion, but that is where I currently stand.
> 
> Secondly, you're assuming I have the desire to gain to extreme weights, which is what this discussion was about. I don't. I do not intend to go above a certain weight and have already come to the realization that I will most likely face a time in my life where I will need to actively lose weight to stay under my personal maximum.
> 
> ...



No. No assumption about you wanting kids. I said "If you decide you want them". I wasn't assuming you wanted to gain extreme weights-i was replying mainly to the post you made saying that people should leave feederism at the door if they have kids because kids are perceptive and would know something was going on...and the feeder/feedee parents wouldnt/couldn't/might not be great role models as far as eating a healthy diet goes. I just don't really get that feeders/feedees would not be as good parentally as non feeders/feedees, especially if very few feeders get to extreme weights or take thier fetish out of the bedroom.


----------



## thatgirl08 (Aug 13, 2009)

mergirl said:


> No. No assumption about you wanting kids. I said "If you decide you want them". I wasn't assuming you wanted to gain extreme weights-i was replying mainly to the post you made saying that people should leave feederism at the door if they have kids because kids are perceptive and would know something was going on...and the feeder/feedee parents wouldnt/couldn't/might not be great role models as far as eating a healthy diet goes. I just don't really get that feeders/feedees would not be as good parentally as non feeders/feedees, especially if very few feeders get to extreme weights or take thier fetish out of the bedroom.



All of my posts re: children and feederism were based on a post made by someone else (whose name is escaping me at the moment!) saying that as long as a parent was able to move mostly by themselves and use a scooter/wheelchair that it was fine for them to have kids so the discussion was mainly about those who do choose to get to extreme weights.


----------



## Shosh (Aug 13, 2009)

I have a physical disability, and while I am able to have a child, I have decided that it would not be fair to the child as I am quite fragile and unable to do much of the physical stuff that is necessary in raising a child.
I have mornings where I feel so shakey that i cannot get out of bed.
How would it be fair on a child if I am unable to fulfill all of the necessary roles of being a parent?
What kind of a life would that child have?
This is very heartbreaking for me but I have come to terms with it. It is called putting the needs of a child first. 
Anyway I am sick to death of trying to explain this concept.


----------



## mergirl (Aug 13, 2009)

Susannah said:


> I have a physical disability, and while I am able to have a child, I have decided that it would not be fair to the child as I am quite fragile and unable to do much of the physical stuff that is necessary in raising a child.
> I have mornings where I feel so shakey that i cannot get out of bed.
> How would it be fair on a child if I am unable to fulfill all of the necessary roles of being a parent?
> What kind of a life would that child have?
> ...



My friend has MS and sometimes has the symptoms you are describing. Her and her partner are trying for a baby which i think is amazing. She is well much of the time and her BF is well all of the time. She has always wanted kids and wont let Ms stop her. I think people need to start thinking in terms of what they 'can' give to a child as opposed to what they 'can't'!


----------



## exile in thighville (Aug 13, 2009)

Tina said:


> Actually, I could name at _least_ five from this community (way more, if I go back a good while) who have done that very thing -- more probably -- but it wouldn't be polite. Some things just cannot be claimed and that's one of them. It's their business what they do, so that's up to them, but claims like that are just ridiculous.



of course it happens, but blaming it as a direct result of feederism is mass retardation. stupid things happen to stupid people. for some reason, a small group of morons is branded on the entire fetish. do you think people on bondage boards have to contend with DAVID CARRADINE DAVID CARRADINE DAVID CARRADINE all the time?


----------



## mergirl (Aug 13, 2009)

exile in thighville said:


> of course it happens, but it's mistake to blame it on feederism. stupid things happen to stupid people. for some reason, a small group of retards is directly correlated with the entire fetish. do you think people on bondage boards have to contend with DAVID CARRADINE DAVID CARRADINE DAVID CARRADINE all the time?



Exile. I think i am liking you more because you now look like Nigella Lawson. Stop confusing me sexually!


----------



## exile in thighville (Aug 13, 2009)

anyone sexually _confused_ about nigella is overdue for a genital inventory


----------



## bdog (Aug 13, 2009)

thatgirl08 said:


> is intentionally gaining weight the best example to set for kids? I don't think so.



Heh.. but being fat and possibly having health problems without the feeding fetish is ok for parents? My thin and active parents who encouraged me to play loads of sports as a kid might be judgmental of you as a health example for your kids. What's the difference? You're just drawing the line in a different place.

My dad helped me practice to be a baseball pitcher... not sure a butch lesbian couple, or a single mother, could do that. Are they bad parents? 

I'm a proponent of moderation... safety... sanity.. consensual relationships. If I ever become involved in a relationship with a feedee she'll probably be a lot healthier than a lot of non-feedees on these boards. 

ps... None of this is a dig at you, thatgirl08.. just disagree with you on a logical level.


----------



## bdog (Aug 13, 2009)

mergirl said:


> Exile. I think i am liking you more because you now look like Nigella Lawson. Stop confusing me sexually!



Oh, wow, it's almost uncanny how much he looks like Nigella Lawson.


----------



## thatgirl08 (Aug 13, 2009)

bdog said:


> Heh.. but being fat and possibly having health problems without the feeding fetish is ok for parents? My thin and active parents who encouraged me to play loads of sports as a kid might be judgmental of you as a health example for your kids. What's the difference? You're just drawing the line in a different place.
> 
> My dad helped me practice to be a baseball pitcher... not sure a butch lesbian couple, or a single mother, could do that. Are they bad parents?
> 
> ...



We all draw the line _somewhere. _


----------



## Weeze (Aug 13, 2009)

mergirl said:


> I thought the discussion was started by a feeder?
> discussion on.
> People have a right to share thier views, especially if they are asked for them. Don't you think? Otherwise what would be the point of this as a discussion forum. It would just be a long list of one post monologues!



Um. Yes. The conversation was started by a FEEDER. The conversation was NOT started by a feedee. I don't see ANY feedees starting threads like this, but yet we're always dragged into it. A FEEDER asked for discussion, but the feedees and their sexual preferences that are NOT being respected, did not.


----------



## LoveBHMS (Aug 13, 2009)

Fascinita said:


> My post here in no way endorses or condemns "feederism." I only feel I should point out that arguments like this, BGB, are easy to take apart. Substitute "serial killing" (forgive the lurid example) for "feederism" in your post above, and you can see what I mean.
> 
> In other words, arguments of "because I'm wired that way," won't do a thing to silence critics who point out the possibility of real harm.
> 
> ...



No, because there are a variety of ways to practice this kink without actual weight gain, or without a weight gain that leads to poor health. You can do it online, during phone sex, IRL on an infrequent basis, or IRL with a set weight gain limit in mind. Heck, if you were so inclined, you and your partner could probably workout together for an extra hour with the thought in mind "we're burning up extra calories just so we can indulge in a feeding session."

There are even some people who simply get off on the sensation of having an overstuffed stomach and can get off by drinking litres of water so they feel overfull. Last I checked, drinking a lot of water does not cause too many health problems.

Start equating feederism with serial killing and trust me, you lose us all.


----------



## Fascinita (Aug 13, 2009)

LoveBHMS said:


> No, because there are a variety of ways to practice this kink without actual weight gain, or without a weight gain that leads to poor health. You can do it online, during phone sex, IRL on an infrequent basis, or IRL with a set weight gain limit in mind. Heck, if you were so inclined, you and your partner could probably workout together for an extra hour with the thought in mind "we're burning up extra calories just so we can indulge in a feeding session."
> 
> There are even some people who simply get off on the sensation of having an overstuffed stomach and can get off by drinking litres of water so they feel overfull. Last I checked, drinking a lot of water does not cause too many health problems.



Somehow you missed my point that splitting semantic hairs puts you in an untennable position. I never made any generalizations about feederism necessarily leading to poor health or even to weight gain. I did say that there are probably good and bad feederism practices.



> Start equating feederism with serial killing and trust me, you lose us all.



Lord! I need y'all. Wouldn't wanna lose ya.

You kind of lose me with this because I don't care about losing or gaining (hehe) anyone's approval here. Alls I want is to talk about this.

And, nah, I did not equate feederism with serial killing. I said that the argument for hardwiredness may be as easy to take apart as an argument for serial killing that hinges on hardwiredness. Was addressing the logic of what's been said, NOT equating feeders with monsters.

Please, careful with that thing.


----------



## BothGunsBlazing (Aug 13, 2009)

LoveBHMS said:


> No, because there are a variety of ways to practice this kink without actual weight gain, or without a weight gain that leads to poor health. You can do it online, during phone sex, IRL on an infrequent basis, or IRL with a set weight gain limit in mind. Heck, if you were so inclined, you and your partner could probably workout together for an extra hour with the thought in mind "we're burning up extra calories just so we can indulge in a feeding session."
> 
> There are even some people who simply get off on the sensation of having an overstuffed stomach and can get off by drinking litres of water so they feel overfull. Last I checked, drinking a lot of water does not cause too many health problems.
> 
> Start equating feederism with *serial killing* and trust me, you lose us all.



Cereal killing however is the proper way for any feedee to start off their day.


----------



## tonynyc (Aug 14, 2009)

BothGunsBlazing said:


> Cereal killing however is the proper way for any feedee to start off their day.


----------



## alienlanes (Aug 14, 2009)

Fascinita said:


> Feederism is a practice, as far as I know. The hardwiredness of it is up for debate. Whether _any_ sexuality is hardwired or socially constructed is also still up for debate. Essentialist arguments about what otherwise should be understood as socially constructed practices have been used to exonerate AND indict all kinds of behaviors that are ultimately just grounded in carefully shored power structures. See Michel Foucault for the word on power, knowledge and social discourse.



Feed_ing_ is a practice. Feeder_ism_ is a desire (fetish, orientation, kink, etc.)

I think you're misunderstanding the way previous posters have used the term "hardwired." It's not an etiological claim about nature/nurture -- in this context it's simply metaphorical shorthand for "immutable." The subjective desire exists and doesn't go away, even if it's never acted on. In this restricted sense, do you deny the possibility of a "hardwired" feederism? 



Fascinita said:


> In terms of what's ethical, again, I think it comes down to evaluating what's at stake, possible dangers, safe practices. We may wish that it were as simple as demanding that our sexual lives be free of public scrutiny, but no one--not even boring old middle class heterosexuals--gets to have it that way (normative heterosexuality is as oppressive to heterosexuals as it is to the rest of humanity, ironically--though true that it's constructed in a way such that power has traditionally been located at the heterosexual pole.) It always comes down to practices and behavior. The discussion of private acts can never be fully separated from the social context in which those acts take place. And that's why I think essentialist claims about hardwiredness eventually do more harm than good to the cause proper: it amounts to clamoring for a privilege that _no one_ is entitled to, and thus it's technically easy to dismantle such a claim.



I'm not sure that I understand your argument here. Is "what is ethical" the antecedent of "it" in "it always comes down to practices and behavior"?


----------



## Shosh (Aug 14, 2009)

mergirl said:


> My friend has MS and sometimes has the symptoms you are describing. Her and her partner are trying for a baby which i think is amazing. She is well much of the time and her BF is well all of the time. She has always wanted kids and wont let Ms stop her. I think people need to start thinking in terms of what they 'can' give to a child as opposed to what they 'can't'!



We probably have a different form of the illness. Mine is more severe than hers I would imagine.
I wish her well with parenthood.


----------



## Suze (Aug 14, 2009)

just recently consumed 8 cheeseburgers in one day. i would make the perfect feedee y'all  (but i'm not, so no pm's please heh!)


----------



## Tina (Aug 14, 2009)

> exile in thighville said:
> 
> 
> > it's beyond mental how many on here assume people just gain and gain beyond their point of comfort
> ...



Are you saying that acting on a feederism fetish is never the direct result of bad outcomes? Because that is what your quote reads like to me, and if so, I just don't happen to think you are making an honest or factual claim. Seems to me that the words "never" and "always" apply equally as well here. 

Obviously, there is some frustration with the subject, and I understand that some on both sides are feeling defensive. What I'm seeing here in this thread is more people trying to understand than casting blame. If you look at the bulk of the posts, most non-feeders are not doing the kind of blaming that some feeders seem to be expecting and seemingly reacting to. If you've been around long enough to remember most past conversations, you might see this as at least a bit of progress.


----------



## Wild Zero (Aug 14, 2009)

Lucky Charms are pretty ace, but I'd prefer to murder some Frosted Cheerios.

Frosted Cheerios are the most disappointing cereal ever, nobody will miss them when they are gone and I will already be three states away by the time anyone realizes they're missing.


----------



## mergirl (Aug 14, 2009)

exile in thighville said:


> anyone sexually _confused_ about nigella is overdue for a genital inventory



I agree. Though boys that look like here confuse me a bit. Also, that guy from house posts here.


----------



## mergirl (Aug 14, 2009)

bdog said:


> Oh, wow, it's almost uncanny how much he looks like Nigella Lawson.


Totally!! Doesn't is confuse you a bit. Sexually, i mean.??


----------



## bdog (Aug 14, 2009)

Wild Zero said:


> Lucky Charms are pretty ace, but I'd prefer to murder some Frosted Cheerios.
> 
> Frosted Cheerios are the most disappointing cereal ever, nobody will miss them when they are gone and I will already be three states away by the time anyone realizes they're missing.



Yah buddy, well that's what I thought, too, 'fore I ended up in the pen over a little late night skirmish with S'mores Crunch.


----------



## mergirl (Aug 14, 2009)

krismiss said:


> Um. Yes. The conversation was started by a FEEDER. The conversation was NOT started by a feedee. I don't see ANY feedees starting threads like this, but yet we're always dragged into it. A FEEDER asked for discussion, but the feedees and their sexual preferences that are NOT being respected, did not.


Would you feedees prefer to remain underground? Are you talking on behalf of all fedees? There have beeen a couple of feedees here giving their opinions and they don't seem like they have been dragged anywhere. Don't allow anyone to disrespect you. If you see a topic about feeders then feedees are invariably going to be discussed.. you don't have to look. I just don't get the whole "This discussion should end because i dont like it" as its obviously continuing because people are getting something from it.


----------



## bdog (Aug 14, 2009)

mergirl said:


> Totally!! Doesn't is confuse you a bit. Sexually, i mean.??



haha. Actually, no... the fact that he looks like Nigella Lawson means I want to feed him chocolate bunnies until he reaches the point where he can no longer stop his kids from running into the street. Oops... did I say that out loud? :doh:


----------



## Ash (Aug 14, 2009)

bdog said:


> haha. Actually, no... the fact that he looks like Nigella Lawson means I want to feed him chocolate bunnies until he reaches the point where he can no longer stop his kids from running into the street. Oops... did I say that out loud? :doh:



Dear bdog,

Please save some chocolate bunnies for me. 

Adoringly,

Ash


----------



## KHayes666 (Aug 14, 2009)

This is a pretty broad question but...

Have anyone that's posted who's against feederism.....ever tried it? 

I'm not talking about intentionally gaining 200 pounds, but I'm talking going out to eat or having a thanksgiving meal and going absolutely balls on, pig out....or to be the primary cause of someone going balls out, pig out.

Then later on engaging in belly rubs, cheek kisses and a romantic snugglefest for the feeder and feedee that they engage in after (and that's just stopping at 1st base).

Seriously, has any of the haters ever TRIED it? I'm pretty sure they'd like it, that is of course unless they don't like fat people. I'm starting to think there are some fat hating fatties around here, because what is there to oppose about feeder/feedee activity?

I know several that have a feeder/feedee relationship with grown children, who actually turned out alright contrary to what people have said in here about "screwing up kids".

To anyone reading this that's against feederism, has any of you ever had a moment where you were with a husband/wife, bf/gf, fuck buddy, whatever....and had him or her completely stuffed to the gills or YOU were the one stuffed and either rubbed that person's swollen belly, or had your own swollen belly rubbed? Do you know how many people find this to be fucking sexy as hell? So many lurkers would LOVE to admit this but they're afraid they'll get chastised by people that don't like it. 

Why is it that you really don't like it? Are you afraid you'll enjoy it? Have you had a bad experience with it? There's gotta be something to cause you to stand on a soapbox and go "All feeders/feedees be cursed!" Bad experiences can be had with anything. My friend doesn't go on roller coasters because he puked getting off one as a child, but he doesn't shake his fist when he see's his friends pile into one at an amusement park. Same thing about anal sex, one person's horror is another's pleasure. So for those with bad experiences with it, you just haven't had the right person come along for it.

What's the difference between feederism and anal sex when you think about it? Both are preferences that are private and having children will likely affect it, but not so much as people engaging in it will be considered "bad parents" Actually not to go off on a tangent but I find the kids that have very strict parents turn out to be druggies and bums because when they get older they just want to be free of the restrictive bullshit they put up with for 18 years. To people here that say "think of the children" they're not actually thinking LIKE children. Yes, a child does need discipline but each child develops differently. If you see a 400 pound woman waddle across the street holding the hand of a child and you say to yourself "that's wrong, she should lose weight." Who says the child walking with her isn't smiling from ear to ear because she's with her mommy? Who says that mother who's apparently unfit for parenthood isn't doing a damn good job of keeping that kid away from trouble? Just because you see someone on the street doesn't mean you KNOW them. If i was sitting with my friends at a bar, would you know that i DON'T drink unless you looked and saw the coke/pepsi/root beer in front of me? Same as you don't KNOW if a feeder/feedee relationship can actually play a role in helping kids develop.

Ok, sorry for the tangent but its 5:30 in the morning and I guess I woke up on the wrong side of my friend's bed.

Going back to the point of people against feederism, everyone's got a story to tell. Why not just tell yours? I still say people that "don't condone it" or "don't understand it" should just fucking TRY IT. Go out with a significant other and stuff them silly or have them stuff you silly then get romantic afterward, I guarantee you'll love it one way or another.


----------



## mergirl (Aug 14, 2009)

bdog said:


> haha. Actually, no... the fact that he looks like Nigella Lawson means I want to feed him chocolate bunnies until he reaches the point where he can no longer stop his kids from running into the street. Oops... did I say that out loud? :doh:


hahahahahahaha! You know, people like you shouldn't be allowed to keep chocolate bunnies! Yeah, how come no one has been thinking of the chocolate bunnies in all of this??? 
Very specific fetish you have there btw..i'm almost impressed "Feeding exile chocolate bunnies till he can't stop his kids from running into the street"!! Have you met any more of your kind-ie people who want to be fed chocolate bunnies till they cant stop their children running into the street?? Just curious.


----------



## mergirl (Aug 14, 2009)

Ashley said:


> Dear bdog,
> 
> Please save some chocolate bunnies for me.
> 
> ...



For christ sake women! There will be children running all over the street!! Did no-one tell you about the chocolate bunny/child on street co-relation!!


----------



## bdog (Aug 14, 2009)

thatgirl08 said:


> We all draw the line _somewhere. _



http://bothartclass.ytmnd.com/


----------



## LoveBHMS (Aug 14, 2009)

> Are you saying that acting on a feederism fetish is never the direct result of bad outcomes? Because that is what your quote reads like to me, and if so, I just don't happen to think you are making an honest or factual claim. Seems to me that the words "never" and "always" apply equally as well here.



No, but going back to my example of President Clinton, liking oral sex was not what got him impeached, it was how he went about it. In the pursuit of sexual gratification, he lied and cheated and broke the law. That was his problem, it was not the mere fact of wanting a blow job. You can't hold up Bill Clinton as an example to anyone that loves oral sex and warn them they could wind up in huge trouble for it.

I said pretty clearly in my orgininal post that I was never claiming that excessive gaining, or even gaining at all for some people might not be a health risk. I merely claimed that having a fetish was not in and of itself a health risk.

If you want to be very wealthy, you can pursue that all you want but if you do what Bernie Madoff did, you wind up in jail. You can pursue being very thin but if you take it to extremes, you wind up like Karen Carpenter, dead. Athletes who take perfermance enhancing drugs are taking the desire to be the best to an extreme where their careers and health may be ruined.


----------



## KHayes666 (Aug 14, 2009)

LoveBHMS said:


> No, but going back to my example of President Clinton, liking oral sex was not what got him impeached, it was how he went about it. In the pursuit of sexual gratification, he lied and cheated and broke the law. That was his problem, it was not the mere fact of wanting a blow job. You can't hold up Bill Clinton as an example to anyone that loves oral sex and warn them they could wind up in huge trouble for it.
> 
> I said pretty clearly in my orgininal post that I was never claiming that excessive gaining, or even gaining at all for some people might not be a health risk. I merely claimed that having a fetish was not in and of itself a health risk.
> 
> If you want to be very wealthy, you can pursue that all you want but if you do what Bernie Madoff did, you wind up in jail. You can pursue being very thin but if you take it to extremes, you wind up like Karen Carpenter, dead. Athletes who take perfermance enhancing drugs are taking the desire to be the best to an extreme where their careers and health may be ruined.



Everything's a health risk. Oral/vaginal sex leaves you open for STD's....eating meat leaves you open for heart attacks, etc. I could go on but you get the point.

Some people have this "Eh fuck it, live fast and die young" mentality so health risks are of no concern.

But like I said in my previous post, all these haters need to try acting out stuff, they'd probably like it.


----------



## bdog (Aug 14, 2009)

Ashley said:


> Dear bdog,
> Please save some chocolate bunnies for me.
> Adoringly,
> Ash





mergirl said:


> Have you met any more of your kind-ie people who want to be fed chocolate bunnies till they cant stop their children running into the street?? Just curious.



Signs point to yes.


----------



## mergirl (Aug 14, 2009)

LoveBHMS said:


> You can pursue being very thin but if you take it to extremes, you wind up like Karen Carpenter, dead.



Just wanted to point out that Karen Carpenter had a Phychological illness, she wasn't persuing being thin. Being thin was a symptom of anorexia nervosa.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Aug 14, 2009)

Wild Zero said:


> Lucky Charms are pretty ace, but I'd prefer to murder some Frosted Cheerios.
> 
> Frosted Cheerios are the most disappointing cereal ever, nobody will miss them when they are gone and I will already be three states away by the time anyone realizes they're missing.



People need only follow the trail of flatulence to find you out. Frosted Cheerios are the devil.


----------



## LoveBHMS (Aug 14, 2009)

mergirl said:


> Just wanted to point out that Karen Carpenter had a Phychological illness, she wasn't persuing being thin. Being thin was a symptom of anorexia nervosa.



I get that, I just mean physically her body did not know it was being starved due to anorexia, or trying to be a fashion model or living in Ethiopia. Same as your body does not know it's gaining weight due to feederism, eating from depression, a thyroid problem, or just random overindulgence. If there are, or are not going to be health issues, the fact of 'feederism' is not relevant.


----------



## TraciJo67 (Aug 14, 2009)

Please point me to one hater ... just one. Just ONE example of someone who has posted a "hate on" in this thread. One. If you can find one example, I'll eat my shoes. Without condiment. After you've examined this thread carefully and found ... oh, NO examples at all ... perhaps you can share why you felt the need to post this defensive rant.



KHayes666 said:


> This is a pretty broad question but...
> 
> Have anyone that's posted who's against feederism.....ever tried it?
> 
> ...


----------



## Weeze (Aug 14, 2009)

Excuse me. First off, i didn't say the discussion should end BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE IT. I said the discussion should end because it's dumb as fuck and offensive. If you don't like feederism, you don't have to participate. It's fine for feedees to be brought up in a conversation about feeders, but people don't have to go as far as saying we have body issues or are desperate or anything like that. I, as a feedee, am not desperate. I, as a feedee, did not create this thread because I don't give a shit about your opinion, unless you're the one feeding me cake and licking my pussy, it's none of your business. 


And no, nothing is being obtained from this. This is the same exact discussion we keep having. I promise a thread EXACTLY LIKE THIS is going to pop up again in a few months and we'll all be on the exact same merry-go-round again. 



mergirl said:


> Would you feedees prefer to remain underground? Are you talking on behalf of all feedees? There have beeen a couple of feedees here giving their opinions and they don't seem like they have been dragged anywhere. Don't allow anyone to disrespect you. If you see a topic about feeders then feedees are invariably going to be discussed.. you don't have to look. I just don't get the whole "This discussion should end because i dont like it" as its obviously continuing because people are getting something from it.


----------



## mergirl (Aug 14, 2009)

krismiss said:


> Excuse me. First off, i didn't say the discussion should end BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE IT. I said the discussion should end because it's dumb as fuck and offensive. If you don't like feederism, you don't have to participate. It's fine for feedees to be brought up in a conversation about feeders, but people don't have to go as far as saying we have body issues or are desperate or anything like that. I, as a feedee, am not desperate. I, as a feedee, did not create this thread because I don't give a shit about your opinion, unless you're the one feeding me cake and licking my pussy, it's none of your business.
> 
> 
> And no, nothing is being obtained from this. This is the same exact discussion we keep having. I promise a thread EXACTLY LIKE THIS is going to pop up again in a few months and we'll all be on the exact same merry-go-round again.



lmao. Actually, i think this debate has been good. lots of opinions and learning and teaching, without anyone losing the nut, well until now. 
In the past debates have been heated. Maby they are less so this time because the discussion was started by a feeder, or maby because people are getting tired of talking about it. Either way i think its been a good discussion. Sorry you didn't enjoy it. Its clear you don't give a shit about the opinions of others, which is a shame cause you can learn a lot from others and not just those feeding you cake and licking your pussy. Though i'm sure that's enriching too of course.


----------



## Weeze (Aug 14, 2009)

mergirl said:


> Its clear you don't give a shit about the opinions of others, which is a shame cause you can learn a lot from others and not just those feeding you cake and licking your pussy. Though i'm sure that's enriching too of course.



Can you please point out the parts of this discussion that would be of value to me? PLEASE tell me what's going to enrich me, that I was not already aware of, because I haven't seen anything.

I've seen people assume that girls like me are desperate... have body dysmorphic disorder... naive... really? what's helpful about that? 

Oh, and losing a nut, that's awfully funny, you know, considering... well, you know. I don't think we have to go THERE.


----------



## Tooz (Aug 14, 2009)

mergirl said:


> lmao. Actually, i think this debate has been good. lots of opinions and learning and teaching, without anyone losing the nut, well until now.



You know I love you, but I don't see how it's been all too enriching. People preaching and telling what many already know and all that. It may be helpful to the creepy feeders/feedees, but not the responsible ones who have been participating in this thread.


----------



## mergirl (Aug 14, 2009)

Tooz said:


> You know I love you, but I don't see how it's been all too enriching. People preaching and telling what many already know and all that. It may be helpful to the creepy feeders/feedees, but not the responsible ones who have been participating in this thread.


I think the fact that no one has lost thier tempers and has managed to remain civil on a topic that usually ends up with people totally raging is a good sign. Obviously, you wont have learned anything new but i think some people who had false asertions about feeders/feedees might have. Its not your responsibility to teach people but it was nice that they might have learned anyway.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Aug 14, 2009)

Ernest Nagel said:


> <...snipped....>
> If your _expert_ honestly believes one has to prove unsound mind to challenge informed consent whatever he's charging is too much, at least for advice on that subject. JMO.
> 
> The equivalent of an ingredient list or calorie count does not by any means necessarily satisfy what is often required to fulfill the requirements of informed consent. Read the warnings on cigarette packages for a better idea of what can be required to sufficiently inform a user/customer of risks involved. Why do you think electrical appliances always have labels warning against use in the shower or tub? They don't say "contains volts, watts and amps", do they? They say "may result in electrocution and death". This is not a personal attack either, just another opinion based on observation.
> ...



_"The original complaint was dismissed on January 22 by U.S. District Court Judge Robert Sweet, who said plaintiffs failed to show that McDonald's food was 'dangerous in any way other than that which was open and obvious to a reasonable consumer.' 

"But he gave lawyers for the obese McDonald's eaters 30 days to amend the complaint to try to establish that there were dangers that were 'not commonly well known.'" _​
Quoted from CNN *Lawyers revise obesity lawsuit against McDonald's*
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/02/21/obesity.lawsuit/


_The bill seeks to block lawsuits by people because they ate too much and got fat, says Rep. Chris Cannon, R-Utah, one of the bills sponsors.

We should not encourage lawsuits that blame others for our own choices and could bankrupt an entire industry, notes Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas._​
Quoted from Fox News: *House Votes to Ban 'Obesity Lawsuits' Against Fast Food Industry* (this ban is currently in effect by the way)
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,172805,00.html


You can't sue the food industry for becoming obese or getting obesity related illnesses. It would be safe to assume given the language used that one would not be able to sue individuals under the same applications. It is not illegal to distribute food in the US. It is not illegal to distribute too much food in the US. It is not illegal to distribute too much food to a food addict in the US. There are no dangers associated with eating too much food that isn't commonly well known to a *reasonable consumer*. The law favors personal responsibility and will not be inclined to stray from that course. To do so would be detrimental to the legal system so I doubt this rule of informed consent will translate to food matters even if the person involved is a food addict. Drug addicts, sex addicts, all kinds of addicts are also held accountable for their actions in the eyes of the law. Informed consent won't apply unless one can produce evidence that there were additives to the food that would deliberately trigger addiction and make it impossible for a person to stop. Maybe rice soaked in opium or coca cola with cocaine in it.

The only exception I see is with alcohol consumption. Bar tenders are not allowed to serve alcohol to obviously inebriated patrons. They are cut off after a few and once that happens they hop to another bar. Happy Hour has been banned here in the state of MA. These measures have not been applied to food consumption though.


----------



## mergirl (Aug 14, 2009)

krismiss said:


> Can you please point out the parts of this discussion that would be of value to me? PLEASE tell me what's going to enrich me, that I was not already aware of, because I haven't seen anything.
> 
> I've seen people assume that girls like me are desperate... have body dysmorphic disorder... naive... really? what's helpful about that?
> 
> Oh, and losing a nut, that's awfully funny, you know, considering... well, you know. I don't think we have to go THERE.



The way the discussion has been conducted. I think has been useful.
Btw, i would also tell someone to fuck off who was being homophobic or racist to anyone else. Its not losing the nut, its being angry and doing something about it. Why dont you start a feedee thread that will disperse all the negitive myths you talk about. How will people know if you don't tell them? You dont kick fuck out of a dog for pissing on your carpet when you have been a bad owner and not taught it your house rules. (Bad analogy but i'm a busy woman)


----------



## EtobicokeFA (Aug 14, 2009)

KHayes666 said:


> This is a pretty broad question but...
> 
> Have anyone that's posted who's against feederism.....ever tried it?
> 
> ...



First great response for being written at 5:30 in the morning. 

Secondly, this brings up a point we brought up before, that it seems that the average American is a little messed up or afraid of their sexuality. If you want proof, just talk about trying new things, or even better see how unconformable they are talking about it to their kids. 

If I didn't know any better I would think that some people are actually afraid that admitting the sex exist because it will magically turn their children into sexual deviants and sex workers. When all the parents need to do is when the child is old enough to understand, have a frank and open discussion. 

As for the topic of what make a fit parent, I am sorry to derail the discussion like, that but I wanted to attack the idea that you either a perfect parent or a parent that is dragged on to Jerry Springer to be blamed for you skills. 

There is no such thing as a perfect parent outside of fiction, just parents who try they best to provide shelter and a loving environment for they children to grow in. 

Finally, We having this discussion on feederism too many times, before, but that is because the community is fighting the characterization, for fat people over eating themselves to death, and a lot of the time the characterization is not being debunked, but rather be shifted to the larger amongst us, specially the people that are into the feederism. 

Look at the proof, most if not all of the arguments, presented here against feederism, are the same arguments outsiders use against fat people in general.


----------



## BothGunsBlazing (Aug 14, 2009)

mergirl said:


> The way the discussion has been conducted. I think has been useful.
> Btw, i would also tell someone to fuck off who was being homophobic or racist to anyone else. Its not losing the nut, its being angry and doing something about it. Why dont you start a feedee thread that will disperse all the negitive myths you talk about. How will people know if you don't tell them? You dont kick fuck out of a dog for pissing on your carpet when you have been a bad owner and not taught it your house rules. (Bad analogy but i'm a busy woman)



Because people shouldn't need stuff spoonfed to them (unless they get off on that sort of thing. You shouldn't need some one to make you a bullet point presentation to realize that not everyone is the same and you shouldn't make assumptions about every.single.person just because you've heard something negative about a few cases.

Homophobia and racism is all about making assumptions and putting everyone in a very specific category and you should know how ridiculous and insulting that is.


----------



## exile in thighville (Aug 14, 2009)

Tooz said:


> You know I love you, but I don't see how it's been all too enriching. People preaching and telling what many already know and all that. It may be helpful to the creepy feeders/feedees, but not the responsible ones who have been participating in this thread.



lol assuming just because someone posts in this thread that they're not creepy

o masturbatory dimensions be still my heart


----------



## mergirl (Aug 14, 2009)

BothGunsBlazing said:


> Because people shouldn't need stuff spoonfed to them (unless they get off on that sort of thing. You shouldn't need some one to make you a bullet point presentation to realize that not everyone is the same and you shouldn't make assumptions about every.single.person just because you've heard something negative about a few cases.
> 
> Homophobia and racism is all about making assumptions and putting everyone in a very specific category and you should know how ridiculous and insulting that is.



Well, wasn't that a huge part of what this is all about. Dispelling the myth that all feeders/feedees are the same.? Cause a lot of people think they are, even within the community. I think the feeder/non feeder divide on dimensions is a big one and i think any attempt to bridge the gap and gain some understanding can only be a good thing. You will get people who just wont listen and that are set in thier ways, this goes for racists and homophobes too. You can leave them to it, identify them and decide not to interact with them on the subject again because i can see how that could get wearing. I just think this time the debate has been interesting because people have shown patience. I think it is intrinsic that people want to be understood, so surely being able to talk about your sexuality rationally to people who are willing to hear you out is a good thing. If people didn't understand the concept of gay people and thought that all gay guys arse shagged you as soon as you wern't looking i would try my hardest to dispel that myth- cause it only happens in extreme cases!!


----------



## exile in thighville (Aug 14, 2009)

Tina said:


> Seems to me that the words "never" and "always" apply equally as well here.



i don't think i used those words. i agree with you that there have been cases, but like i said, it no longer matters about the fetish when stupidity or manipulation (or at best i guess carelessness) leads to illness or death.

if you've been at a very high weight your entire life and you're at risk for problems down the road, i fail to see why gaining to become that weight is any more harmful than just maintaining a hypothetically unhealthy size your entire life. you can blame a sexual fantasy, enablers, manipulating men, but whatever the motive it comes down to your allowing yourself to have not made a change when you grew past the point of comfort. there's also abuse and coercion, which again, i associate with retardation and lack of self-control on the part of the abuser and not what gets his dick hard.


----------



## LoveBHMS (Aug 14, 2009)

I was not thinking so much about whether or not all feeders/feedees are the same, but more about the wide variations in how this fetish is practiced, and also trying to dispell the myth that only one participant is into it, and that the dominant one has to be male, and that the dominant one has to be the feeder. I think it's great that women like Ashley and LillyBBW have posted about owning their sexuality as single women and saying they gain/maintain a high weight because they love it and it makes them feel good about themselves.

Part of my overall frustration was/is the feedee's sexuality being left out of it. The male feedees I've been with have wanted to gain, wanted to be fed, and wanted to engage in fetish activity. Absent my presence across the table or next to them on the couch, they'd do it anyway. They no more *need* a feeder than a straight female using a vibrator *needs* a male body. It's desirable, it's nice, it's preferable...but not necessary for sexual expression.


----------



## TraciJo67 (Aug 14, 2009)

LoveBHMS said:


> No, but going back to my example of President Clinton, liking oral sex was not what got him impeached, it was how he went about it. In the pursuit of sexual gratification, he lied and cheated and broke the law. That was his problem, it was not the mere fact of wanting a blow job. You can't hold up Bill Clinton as an example to anyone that loves oral sex and warn them they could wind up in huge trouble for it.



Bill Clinton isn't an example for people who love oral sex. Bill Clinton is a sublime cautionary example of what can go wrong when someone puts a desire to have oral sex above all else -- at great cost to self, spouse, children ... and, in his case, country.


----------



## mergirl (Aug 14, 2009)

When you add 'ee' at the end of a word it means you are the reciever of something. employee, payee and 'even sexually' sitee (the one who gets sat on by a sitter). Would a person who gains by and for themselves not be a gainer? Or are you talking about people who like to feed themselves only? Hmm its maby silly to argue over symentics but i think this might be where some of the confusion lies as to the 'feedee' being the 'passive' one or the 'victim'. symantically speaking unless you were being fed you could not call yourself a 'feedee'. Though, anyone has the right to call themselves anything, it would not be the correct morpheme to use when you were taking about a singular action.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Aug 14, 2009)

mergirl said:


> When you add 'ee' at the end of a word it means you are the reciever of something. employee, payee and 'even sexually' sitee (the one who gets sat on by a sitter). Would a person who gains by and for themselves not be a gainer? Or are you talking about people who like to feed themselves only? Hmm its maby silly to argue over symentics but i think this might be where some of the confusion lies as to the 'feedee' being the 'passive' one or the 'victim'. symantically speaking unless you were being fed you could not call yourself a 'feedee'. Though, anyone has the right to call themselves anything, it would not be the correct morpheme to use when you were taking about a singular action.



It's a generic term that most feedees don't like but no one can seem to come up with a better one that all can agree on.


----------



## mergirl (Aug 14, 2009)

LillyBBBW said:


> It's a generic term that most feedees don't like but no one can seem to come up with a better one that all can agree on.



Hmm, yeah i was wondering if that was the case. I think (maby) this could be part of the problem with people's attitude to feedees as the passive partner. I think people absorb more from words than they realise.


----------



## LoveBHMS (Aug 14, 2009)

If you like to gain weight, you are a gainer.

Any number of women have posted on here that they are, or consider themselves, their own feeder because they intentionally gain weight under their own steam.

No sane adult is in favor of a victim in a sexual context. Doesn' matter if you refer to sexual intercouse, weight gain, or abortion. I am only in favor of mentally competent adults doing what they genuinely want to do without fear of harm or social/sexual repercussions.

Simply put, weight gained with a feeder should be weight you'd have wanted to gain anyway.


----------



## mergirl (Aug 14, 2009)

LoveBHMS said:


> If you like to gain weight, you are a gainer.
> 
> Any number of women have posted on here that they are, or consider themselves, their own feeder because they intentionally gain weight under their own steam.
> 
> ...



See, this is where i get confused. I think the terms feedee/gainer can sometimes be used to mean the same thing. I always thought the first was someone who liked to be fed (in whatever way) but that weight gain was not the focus and that a gainer was someone who wanted to gain weight but food was not the focus. I suppose you can then have feedee/gainers where food and gaining are both the focus.
So, would you say that being a feedee is related to weight gain? A lot of people on this thread have said this.


----------



## mergirl (Aug 14, 2009)

LoveBHMS said:


> Simply put, weight gained with a feeder should be weight you'd have wanted to gain anyway.



Hmm i think thats a good way of putting it.


----------



## mergirl (Aug 14, 2009)

LoveBHMS said:


> Simply put, weight gained with a feeder should be weight you'd have wanted to gain anyway.





mergirl said:


> Hmm i think thats a good way of putting it.



Hmm thinking about it though, you might have a goal in mind or a limit but be having so much fun with your partner that you just keep going. I can totally understand how that might happen without either partner either being 'naive' or 'manipulative' or 'not careful' or any of the other things that have been said. I think that people might genuinly just be enjoying themselves and be happy and forget about the intentions they had.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Aug 14, 2009)

mergirl said:


> Hmm thinking about it though, you might have a goal in mind or a limit but be having so much fun with your partner that you just keep going. I can totally understand how that might happen without either partner either being 'naive' or 'manipulative' or 'not careful' or any of the other things that have been said. I think that people might genuinly just be enjoying themselves and be happy and forget about the intentions they had.



Honestly there is nothing really that a feedee is doing that is more intensive than what the average person does. Feedees are not endowed with magical powers that enable them to eat more than the average person. While what an average person does might be spur of the moment compulsion, a feedees indulgences are controlled and premeditated but don't go much beyond the scope of their natural abilities. The irony of feederism for me is that since I decided to embrace this part of myself and became one I've stopped gaining. I swear on a stack of bibles it's true. I weigh six pounds less than I did a year ago in fact. I've been teetering at the same weight for three years straight, something I've never experienced before in my life. Possibly it's just a coincidence but fascinating none the less. Also I notice other feedees for all their braggadocio don't generally gain quickly either unless they are supplementing with shakes. There is only so long I can do that though before the mere thought of a shake makes me barf, can't say for anyone else. There are no studies on this obviously but I am theorizing that nobody is gaining anything that they would not have gained anyway if they were not in to this kink. Not unless they were supplementing. As soon as the supplementation stops the excess weight comes off.


----------



## katorade (Aug 14, 2009)

I don't really think anyone here that is in opposition of the OP is saying they disagree with feederism as a whole. It was just stated in a roundabout way in the OP that all opposition of feederism is wrong, and I think that there are a lot of people that don't ENTIRELY agree with that statement.

I think everyone is in agreement that there are both harmless and harmful ways to practice this particular fetish, but there's opposition when it comes to the importance of the number of people doing it right and doing it wrong.


----------



## KHayes666 (Aug 14, 2009)

TraciJo67 said:


> Bill Clinton isn't an example for people who love oral sex. Bill Clinton is a sublime cautionary example of what can go wrong when someone puts a desire to have oral sex above all else -- at great cost to self, spouse, children ... and, in his case, *country.*



I wouldn't say Country by a long shot.

Hell, go back in time....while President Clinton was in office getting blowjobs, virtually nobody screwed with the US.

Then Bush takes office and then 9/11 happens, we go to war, gas prices skyrocket, Hurricaine Katrina is mishandled....

Hell, bring back Slick Willy, least life was easier then.


----------



## NoWayOut (Aug 14, 2009)

KHayes666 said:


> I wouldn't say Country by a long shot.
> 
> Hell, go back in time....while President Clinton was in office getting blowjobs, virtually nobody screwed with the US.
> 
> ...



I'd say country. The man nearly got removed from office. He was impeached, but acquitted.

As for the comparisons to Bush...I have my thoughts, but here is not the place.

As for the topic, if both adults consent to it, there's no problem. But the desire has to be mutual. As long as the feedee wants to gain weight and the feeder wants to see the feedee gain weight, enjoy.


----------



## katorade (Aug 14, 2009)

KHayes666 said:


> I wouldn't say Country by a long shot.
> 
> Hell, go back in time....while President Clinton was in office getting blowjobs, virtually nobody screwed with the US.
> 
> ...



Uh, you do realize that the Clinton administration is largely (not entirely, but largely) responsible for the housing/mortgage crisis this country is facing now, right? I mean, I liked Clinton and all, but c'mon...


----------



## katorade (Aug 14, 2009)

NoWayOut said:


> I'd say country. The man nearly got removed from office. He was impeached, but acquitted.
> 
> As for the comparisons to Bush...I have my thoughts, but here is not the place.
> 
> As for the topic, if both adults consent to it, there's no problem. But the desire has to be mutual. As long as the feedee wants to gain weight and the feeder wants to see the feedee gain weight, enjoy.



Yeah, the problem here is "as long as". I think what a lot of the people here are trying to say is that not facing or admitting to the possible ramifications of one's actions is just as irresponsible as disregarding them entirely.

It's easy for anyone to say that if a practice eventually gets to be too difficult to handle, whether physically or emotionally, that they'll "just stop doing it", or just deal with the outcome, and that's where their responsibility ends. 
Many don't want to listen to ANYONE trying to caution them against their actions, and while they're well within their rights to do that, there's no denying that it can be reckless, especially if those with cautionary tales are speaking out of experience of how difficult it truly is to deal with the BAD results, not just the benefits.


----------



## cheekyjez (Aug 14, 2009)

mergirl said:


> Hmm, yeah i was wondering if that was the case. I think (maby) this could be part of the problem with people's attitude to feedees as the passive partner. I think people absorb more from words than they realise.



This was something I was discussing with the missus, since it seemed like people were talking past each other in this thread. There's an ocean of difference between a feeder/feedee relationship as KHayes describes it - feeding for the sake of feeling really full and bloated - and a feeder/gainer relationship where the goal is for the gainer to just keep on going indefinitely.

I don't think anyone is objecting to the former - it's not my cup of tea, but I wouldn't want to stop anyone else. The latter is a power exchange lifestyle and as such it requires care just as a D/s relationship does. I think we're all aware that the predatory feeders and vulnerable gainers are a small minority, but when they meet it can be devastating, in the same way that an uncaring dom can really screw up a fragile sub's life.

One way of dealing with that is community policing - on the occassions when someone does something horrific - say a feeder pushes his/her partner into gaining to immobility and then leaves them because they can't be bothered to take care of them, it's crucial to let other gainers know so that they can avoid the bad feeder.


----------



## Carl1h (Aug 14, 2009)

katorade said:


> Uh, you do realize that the Clinton administration is largely (not entirely, but largely) responsible for the housing/mortgage crisis this country is facing now, right? I mean, I liked Clinton and all, but c'mon...



Oh, I guess that proves that Feederism is bad after all. How could I have been so wrong with that obvious evidence available to me all along.


----------



## TraciJo67 (Aug 14, 2009)

So now we've veered into politics. Hello, Hyde Park ... hello ... lover <purrrr> 

I agree with Fascinita. I don't see a lot of people condemning the practice of feederism; in fact, I don't see *anyone* doing that. I do understand that the cautionary tales can be irritating to people who, by and large, don't need or want advice and input. There are things that I do (or rather, don't do) that I know are, or at least could be, at some point, detrimental to my health. My eyes are wide open, and I don't need to be told the obvious. Especially when it's being preached.

But, I've pored through this thread several times ... and I don't see any preaching going on, nor outright condemnation. Even the occasional bit of disapproval here and there is inferred, rather than direct. I don't understand what is motivating some of what appears to me to be extreme defensiveness in response, by those who self-identify as feeders/feedees. And Dan, I got it the first time you posted an indignant "I don't need to explain myself to anyone" response; hell, I agreed with it. But then, why keep driving the point home with continued e-stomping and posturing? I have to assume that it amuses you. Otherwise, what's the point? 

What is wrong with acknowledging that ANY fetish/habit/practice, if taken to extremes, is going to cause harm? There's no finger pointing going on. What I really despise seeing are the responses to women who have shared their own personal experiences of weight gain (whether intentional or not) and their subsequent health problems. This is *their* reality. Dismissing it as offensive in context of this thread, or claiming that they are "haters", or that they must hate their own bodies and/or other fat people ... that's harsh. Would it diminish anyone to simply acknowledge the point, that yes, there are possible risks involved? 

I think that a lot of people are trying only to understand. I am. Feederism is something that I'm not well-educated about. I don't believe that it's generally well understood by mainstream society, at all. I am pleased by the people who took the time to explain their viewpoints, while also acknowledging that they didn't have to. And to those who feel like bugs under a microscope ... I didn't put you there. You did.


----------



## NoWayOut (Aug 14, 2009)

Seriously, let's leave the political stuff out of this. There's another place for that.


----------



## katorade (Aug 14, 2009)

Carl1h said:


> Oh, I guess that proves that Feederism is bad after all. How could I have been so wrong with that obvious evidence available to me all along.



Oh yes, quote me because _I'M_ the one that went off track and fail to acknowledge the fact that I brought it right back on track in my next post. Good job.


----------



## bdog (Aug 14, 2009)

katorade said:


> I think everyone is in agreement that there are both harmless and harmful ways to practice this particular fetish, but there's opposition when it comes to the importance of the number of people doing it right and doing it wrong.



Hmmm... obviously everyone wants the number of people doing it 'wrong' to be as close to 0% as possible. However, what difference does it really make to the people doing it 'right'? And let's try not to venture too far into hypothetical land on this, ok? I'm assuming that number of people doing it wrong is 1% or hopefully much less. 

I wish we had some real data to back things up.

group a: consequences could be dire ... happiness is low, dysfunction is high.

group b: perhaps engaged in it a little too far but will make adjustments as happiness is a higher priority than kinkyness. perhaps will look back with a degree of both fondness and regret.

group c: there will probably be some consequences, just like there are consequence for drinking or smoking. lives are more or less normal.

group d: cautious and controlled. probably more healthy than many average BBWs/BHMs because they're aware of the dangers.

My ill informed totally ridiculous based on nothing guess would be 
80% C
17% D
2.8% B
.2% A 

But there are others who are far more intimate with the scene than I am so I'd love to get other guesses. Maybe A & B are much higher than I realize. 

There's also the largest group, e, which is people who don't really realize they have a kink per se... They just do it moderately and think it's a normal part of being a couple. The phrase 'bringing home the bacon' probably has it's origins in the fact that it's probably quite common for one partner to take the role of provider, and for me feeding is just something that falls under that larger category. Also, most women I've met, thin or fat, like to receive chocolate. They also like to be treated like a princess every now and then.


----------



## cheekyjez (Aug 14, 2009)

TraciJo67 said:


> What I really despise seeing are the responses to women who have shared their own personal experiences of weight gain (whether intentional or not) and their subsequent health problems. This is *their* reality. Dismissing it as offensive in context of this thread, or claiming that they are "haters", or that they must hate their own bodies and/or other fat people ... that's harsh. Would it diminish anyone to simply acknowledge the point, that yes, there are possible risks involved?



I'd add that hating your body for various reasons isn't an unreasonable stance, and doesn't mean you hate other people with similar bodies. 

For a non-weight related example, I have pretty bad eyesight for which I wear thick glasses. There's genetic causes, but then I stare at computer screens for 12-16 hours a day most days which is not good for them. To continue the analogy, my wife loves the glasses - which would make her a Myopia Admirer I guess. And... I hate it. I would love to have perfect (or at least passable) vision. I hate the fumbling around to find my glasses every morning. I hate having to write off half the sports and activities out there because I can't see anything when I'm playing them. 

But I don't judge anyone else with bad eyesight. I just know it's not what I would have chosen if I'd had the choice.


----------



## katorade (Aug 14, 2009)

TraciJo67 said:


> What is wrong with acknowledging that ANY fetish/habit/practice, if taken to extremes, is going to cause harm? There's no finger pointing going on. What I really despise seeing are the responses to women who have shared their own personal experiences of weight gain (whether intentional or not) and their subsequent health problems. This is *their* reality. Dismissing it as offensive in context of this thread, or claiming that they are "haters", or that they must hate their own bodies and/or other fat people ... that's harsh. Would it diminish anyone to simply acknowledge the point, that yes, there are possible risks involved?



This basically gets down to why I, personally, don't understand the viewpoints of some people that can be so dismissive about risks. I live with mobility issues 24/7 due to a disease, not of my own doing. Regardless, it's the same mobility issue that many obese people face when their body can no longer handle the stresses of the extra weight they've carried for X amount of time.

I wouldn't wish the pain, humiliation, and frustration that I go through every SECOND of my life on anyone, and I simply do NOT understand why it's so freaking easy for some people to just dismiss it as something that may or may not happen as a result of their WILLING participation in an act or lifestyle choice. 
Imagine telling an amputee that you're not going to stop wrestling alligators because it makes you feel alive, and losing an arm is just a risk you're willing to take. Now imagine telling that amputee they have absolutely no reason to be offended by that or they aren't allowed to try and tell you that you're irresponsible and taking the life you know and enjoy for granted.

Saying that that's just a risk they're willing to take...when they've never experienced what it is to go through it...good god, that's maddening. I assure ALL of you that it really isn't fucking worth it, whether you've got a good chance at avoiding it or not. I would give anything to trade places with any of you for one goddamn day so that I could have the freedom to do as I please, and so you could have a crystal clear view of what it means to lose your gamble.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Aug 14, 2009)

cheekyjez said:


> mergirl said:
> 
> 
> > Hmm, yeah i was wondering if that was the case. I think (maby) this could be part of the problem with people's attitude to feedees as the passive partner. I think people absorb more from words than they realise.
> ...



I don't think it has anything to do with the term 'feedee' at all. I realize that it's hard to look on here and fathom why despite clear concise explanations people still keep going back to the same straw man. I've been around here for years and have been flabbergasted at this phenomenon time and time again. I can assure you, if we called it "Wonkipuss Ewok" the results would be the same.

A strange dynamic that exists for some gainers, and I speak from experience, is that it comes coupled with a need to bring your mate pleasure. There are times one might lie about difficulties you are facing because you don't want to stop. You enjoy pleasing your mate which pleases you and don't want any form of crisis to enter in to the relationship. So though you are experiencing occasional headaches or you're experiencing other signs of fatigue or stress you are in denial because YOU don't want to stop. And you won't tell your mate either because you know that if you do it will spook him/her right the fruck out (unneccesarily in your mind) and the games will come to a close. Eventually the problem becomes too much of an issue to ignore and once this happens there is still a tendency to blame the feeder as if he or she were forcing their mate in to it. Even though the feedee emphatically denies this to be the case, minds are already made up about it and the 'poor' feedee is now the victim and the feeder is the villain. The relationship takes on a new dynamic now in that the feeder doesn't feel s/he can trust what the feedee says any longer about how s/he's feeling and does not enjoy being seen as a predator. Sometimes this can be overcome but if the relationship naturally peters out due to lack of trust then its, OMG she left him when he got sick and too fat!!!


----------



## Shosh (Aug 14, 2009)

krismiss said:


> Excuse me. First off, i didn't say the discussion should end BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE IT. I said the discussion should end because it's dumb as fuck and offensive. If you don't like feederism, you don't have to participate. It's fine for feedees to be brought up in a conversation about feeders, but people don't have to go as far as saying we have body issues or are desperate or anything like that. I, as a feedee, am not desperate. I, as a feedee, did not create this thread because I don't give a shit about your opinion, unless you're the one feeding me cake and licking my pussy, it's none of your business.
> 
> 
> And no, nothing is being obtained from this. This is the same exact discussion we keep having. I promise a thread EXACTLY LIKE THIS is going to pop up again in a few months and we'll all be on the exact same merry-go-round again.



This thread was not started by anybody opposing feederism,so I do not know what merry-go-round it is to which you refer.
That Pandora's box was not opened by those not into the fetish after a long time of no discussion on the matter.


----------



## EtobicokeFA (Aug 14, 2009)

katorade said:


> This basically gets down to why I, personally, don't understand the viewpoints of some people that can be so dismissive about risks. I live with mobility issues 24/7 due to a disease, not of my own doing. Regardless, it's the same mobility issue that many obese people face when their body can no longer handle the stresses of the extra weight they've carried for X amount of time.
> 
> I wouldn't wish the pain, humiliation, and frustration that I go through every SECOND of my life on anyone, and I simply do NOT understand why it's so freaking easy for some people to just dismiss it as something that may or may not happen as a result of their WILLING participation in an act or lifestyle choice.
> Imagine telling an amputee that you're not going to stop wrestling alligators because it makes you feel alive, and losing an arm is just a risk you're willing to take. Now imagine telling that amputee they have absolutely no reason to be offended by that or they aren't allowed to try and tell you that you're irresponsible and taking the life you know and enjoy for granted.
> ...



Knowing a friend that has been a demolition expert for 40 years without incident, and have him almost drown from a freak tidal wave over a vacation at the beach, I know that the difference between reckless risk tasking and calculated risk taking. 

People who wrestling alligators (at least the smart one), don't jump into reckless, they prepare for it, just like a mountain climber before he even walks out of the front door. And, I that thing about amputees, that is like saying I fall off a horse a hurt myself, so riding horses are wrong. 

And I have to believe that feedie that are doing actual weight gain (at least the smart) ones are not going into this blind. 

And, again this is the same points that outsiders, make about all fat people (150+ pounds).


----------



## bdog (Aug 14, 2009)

katorade said:


> I would give anything to trade places with any of you for one goddamn day so that I could have the freedom to do as I please, and so you could have a crystal clear view of what it means to lose your gamble.



I appreciate the honesty of your post, and your intentions, and I understand where you're coming from. I, too, have physical limitations, and have had them since I was 7.

15 year old bdog's mom: "It's snowing outside. You should put on your coat."
15 year old bdog: "Are you f$cking kidding me?"

I think what you take as dismissiveness is actually something more akin to, "hello, i'm not retarded."

I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I'm hoping for a happy life with a happy woman who is easily mobile enough to stop our happy kids from running into the street when a car is coming. *shrug*


----------



## Tooz (Aug 14, 2009)

exile in thighville said:


> lol assuming just because someone posts in this thread that they're not creepy
> 
> o masturbatory dimensions be still my heart



Dude, look at-- oh whatever, this is completely pointless


----------



## Fascinita (Aug 14, 2009)

alienlanes said:


> Feed_ing_ is a practice. Feeder_ism_ is a desire (fetish, orientation, kink, etc.)
> 
> I think you're misunderstanding the way previous posters have used the term "hardwired." It's not an etiological claim about nature/nurture -- in this context it's simply metaphorical shorthand for "immutable." The subjective desire exists and doesn't go away, even if it's never acted on. In this restricted sense, do you deny the possibility of a "hardwired" feederism?



Oh, no way do I deny that it's a valid desire. When you frame it as a desire, it's something I'm happy to cop to sharing in, even. But people haven't been talking about desires... they've been talking about feederism as a kind of sexual orientation--some have even said they were born that way. And it's been talked about that way in the interest of making a claim for "I'm made that way and I can't be expected to do anything about it." In fact, the OP's main argument has been that feederism is a kind of sexual orientation that must be understood separately from the actual practices of feeders (or is it feederists?)

So, no, I don't think I've misunderstood. 

I have no problem with anyone saying that feederism (or fetish in general) is an "orientation" or a "preference" on the level of other sexual orientations--hetero- or homosexuality, for example, as has been done here.

My only interest in this is in challenging the proposition that "sexual orientation" (ANY sexual orientation, so it's clear I'm not picking on feeders) is "hardwired" or "immutable" (to use your term.) In fact, no one is quite sure to what extent sexual orientation is socially constructed. Any number of thinkers on the subject have been able to account for the acceptability of ideas about medicine and sexuality in terms of socializing and power constructs. This bears keeping in mind when anyone makes claims for the immutability of their desires. If we could re-think the conversation in terms of claiming validity (along with responsibility) for the practices of feederism, I think it might be more fruitful than railing and fist-pumping and demanding to be left alone. No man is an island, right?



> I'm not sure that I understand your argument here. Is "what is ethical" the antecedent of "it" in "it always comes down to practices and behavior"?



"It" in "It always comes down to practices and behavior" = "The crux of a discussion of this type," (i.e., a discussion on the nature of feederism in relationship to human sexuality) which has been framed variously in terms of "sexual orientation" and "preference" for the purposes of the OP's initial argument (way more often than it's been framed in terms of "fantasy" and "desire".)

Looking forward to your reply.


----------



## Tina (Aug 14, 2009)

LoveBHMS said:


> I said pretty clearly in my orgininal post that I was never claiming that excessive gaining, or even gaining at all for some people might not be a health risk. I merely claimed that having a fetish was not in and of itself a health risk.


I'm thinking that the whole Clinton analogy is not only off, but is actually diverting the thread. But beyond that, I was responding to Dan, not to any of your posts. I've already given my own perspective of what you said above, which I don't really want to repeat, but still feel the same about.


krismiss said:


> Excuse me. First off, i didn't say the discussion should end BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE IT. I said the discussion should end because it's dumb as fuck and offensive. If you don't like feederism, you don't have to participate. It's fine for feedees to be brought up in a conversation about feeders, but people don't have to go as far as saying we have body issues or are desperate or anything like that. I, as a feedee, am not desperate. I, as a feedee, did not create this thread because I don't give a shit about your opinion, unless you're the one feeding me cake and licking my pussy, it's none of your business.


A feeder started this thread, Kris -- someone pro-feeding. This was not started by anyone against it trying to stir the shit. I can understand that you might feel like you're somehow in the spotlight and that the attention to being a feedee makes you feel defensive, even though no one is naming you. In fact, no one is saying that you, or all feedees, are desperate or that you have body issues. I'm not sure where you're getting that. At any rate, you cannot control the existence of this thread just because you don't like it. Actually, nor can I, just for not liking something.


> And no, nothing is being obtained from this. This is the same exact discussion we keep having. I promise a thread EXACTLY LIKE THIS is going to pop up again in a few months and we'll all be on the exact same merry-go-round again.


Not true. You might not have been around for a lot of years to see, but this thread is very tame and measured in comparison. I think people are trying harder to understand than they have historically. That includes me, though I'd already gotten something from the clusterfuck that I created over the subject a couple of years ago, or so, so my general opinion is different than it used to be. Because of a discussion and thinking about it. THAT is how these discussions can actually be helpful, Kris. Maybe not even in this moment, but after reading and the subject is pondered more. This is why I think that a discussion on just about anything can turn out to be a good thing, even if people get upset and defensive. Sometimes it actually _can_ change minds, to whatever degree.


krismiss said:


> Can you please point out the parts of this discussion that would be of value to me? PLEASE tell me what's going to enrich me, that I was not already aware of, because I haven't seen anything.
> 
> I've seen people assume that girls like me are desperate... have body dysmorphic disorder... naive... really? what's helpful about that?


This thread my not be of value to you, but it might be of value to others. Again you mention that people are assuming things about girls like you. How is it that you would fit that? Because I've not seen a number of people assuming that all feedees fit any one profile.


exile in thighville said:


> i don't think i used those words. i agree with you that there have been cases, but like i said, it no longer matters about the fetish when stupidity or manipulation (or at best i guess carelessness) leads to illness or death.


Dan, see this post to see the words of yours that I quoted directly. It pretty much says that, from what I can see. You left no room for alternatives.


> if you've been at a very high weight your entire life and you're at risk for problems down the road, i fail to see why gaining to become that weight is any more harmful than just maintaining a hypothetically unhealthy size your entire life. you can blame a sexual fantasy, enablers, manipulating men, but whatever the motive it comes down to your allowing yourself to have not made a change when you grew past the point of comfort. there's also abuse and coercion, which again, i associate with retardation and lack of self-control on the part of the abuser and not what gets his dick hard.


Okay, well, I wasn't saying what you are attributing to me, Dan, so I'm not sure how to answer that. And really, I don't "blame" anyone but those who would take advantage of someone unable to make sound decisions for themselves and those who would secretly feed a person in order to make them gain. Fortunately, such walking pustules are in the minority. It is they that I blame; no others. You're seeing boogey men in my words where there are none. And in addition, you've got my personal narrative somewhat wrong, but I'm not in the mood to correct it, so you may assume, and be at least partly incorrect in your assumption.


----------



## thatgirl08 (Aug 14, 2009)

krismiss said:


> I, as a feedee, did not create this thread because I don't give a shit about your opinion, unless you're the one feeding me cake and licking my pussy, it's none of your business.



I just wanted to quote this so I could giggle at it some more.


----------



## cheekyjez (Aug 14, 2009)

LillyBBBW said:


> There are times one might lie about difficulties you are facing because you don't want to stop. You enjoy pleasing your mate which pleases you and don't want any form of crisis to enter in to the relationship. So though you are experiencing occasional headaches or you're experiencing other signs of fatigue or stress you are in denial because YOU don't want to stop. And you won't tell your mate either because you know that if you do it will spook him/her right the fruck out (unneccesarily in your mind) and the games will come to a close. Eventually the problem becomes too much of an issue to ignore and once this happens there is still a tendency to blame the feeder as if he or she were forcing their mate in to it.



See, that reinforces the questions about informed consent. If you're not willing or able to communicate your needs to your partner, it's a really bad idea to be involved in high risk behavior. I mean, it's your life and you can do what you want, but if I had a close friend who was doing this I would do everything I could to get them to stop.

(From the BDSM analogy, this is why safe words exist. And subs who DON'T call a safe word when they're past their comfort zone get put on "No Play" lists because it's no fun putting them back together afterwards.)


----------



## exile in thighville (Aug 14, 2009)

NoWayOut said:


> Seriously, let's leave the political stuff out of this. There's another place for that.



where?



Tina said:


> Dan, see this post to see the words of yours that I quoted directly. It pretty much says that, from what I can see. You left no room for alternatives



ctrl+f "always" and "never" on that link - i didn't use those words because there's always (retarded/abusive) exceptions


----------



## Tina (Aug 14, 2009)

Dan, as I said...


Tina said:


> It pretty much says that, from what I can see. You left no room for alternatives.


 The exact words? No, but the gist.

Anyway.


----------



## alienlanes (Aug 14, 2009)

Fascinita said:


> But people haven't been talking about desires... they've been talking about feederism as a kind of sexual orientation--some have even said they were born that way. And it's been talked about that way in the interest of making a claim for "I'm made that way and I can't be expected to do anything about it." In fact, the OP's main argument has been that feederism is a kind of sexual orientation that must be understood separately from the actual practices of feeders (or is it feederists?)





> "It" in "It always comes down to practices and behavior" = "The crux of a discussion of this type," (i.e., a discussion on the nature of feederism in relationship to human sexuality) which has been framed variously in terms of "sexual orientation" and "preference" for the purposes of the OP's initial argument (way more often than it's been framed in terms of "fantasy" and "desire".)



I'm still not clear on the distinction here. If someone has a particular set of fantasies and desires which remain constant throughout their life, why is it inaccurate to describe them as having a "preference" or "orientation"? And why _isn't_ it accurate to distinguish between what that person fantasizes about doing and what they actually do?

Again, I think the debate about biological vs. social etiology is a red herring, although I understand that the casual use of phrases like "hardwired" and "born this way" tends to muddy the discussion. Sexual desires stem at least in part from formative early-life experiences (nobody, as far as I'm aware, believes in a literal "feeder gene"), and in this sense they're the product of specific social and historical conditions. But it doesn't follow that they can't at the same time be largely unchanging over the course of an individual's lifetime.

From the perspective of a particular person struggling to deal with their non-vanilla sexuality in a responsible way, their "immutable" orientation is phenomenologically real. Thinking and talking about it as if it's ontologically real, IMO, helps that process more than it hurts.



> I have no problem with anyone saying that feederism (or fetish in general) is an "orientation" or a "preference" on the level of other sexual orientations--hetero- or homosexuality, for example, as has been done here.
> 
> My only interest in this is in challenging the proposition that "sexual orientation" (ANY sexual orientation, so it's clear I'm not picking on feeders) is "hardwired" or "immutable" (to use your term.) In fact, no one is quite sure to what extent sexual orientation is socially constructed. Any number of thinkers on the subject have been able to account for the acceptability of ideas about medicine and sexuality in terms of socializing and power constructs. This bears keeping in mind when anyone makes claims for the immutability of their desires.



Any number of thinkers have said any number of things. So what? I want specifics. 

Less glibly: having challenged the proposition, what alternative proposition(s) do you suggest? If feederism (or any other sexual desire -- like, say, homosexuality) isn't immutable, then presumably it _is_ mutable. Mutable by whom? Under what conditions? With what methods? Does this mean that people who "make claims for the immutability of their desires" are wrong? If that's the case, do they have a right to persist in their error, or does someone else have the duty to correct them?



> If we could re-think the conversation in terms of claiming validity (along with responsibility) for the practices of feederism, I think it might be more fruitful than railing and fist-pumping and demanding to be left alone. No man is an island, right?



I have trouble imagining what this would look like in practice. How do you answer the question "why in the world would someone deliberately gain weight (or practice any other offbeat sexual behavior)?" without making an implict or explicit claim about their motivations?


----------



## LillyBBBW (Aug 14, 2009)

Fascinita said:


> Oh, no way do I deny that it's a valid desire. When you frame it as a desire, it's something I'm happy to cop to sharing in, even. But people haven't been talking about desires... they've been talking about feederism as a kind of sexual orientation--some have even said they were born that way. And it's been talked about that way in the interest of making a claim for "I'm made that way and I can't be expected to do anything about it." In fact, the OP's main argument has been that feederism is a kind of sexual orientation that must be understood separately from the actual practices of feeders (or is it feederists?)
> 
> So, no, I don't think I've misunderstood.
> 
> ...



I'm not really up on the terms and not realy certain how you are using them. I'm not sure if I agree or disagree because I dont understand you. Feederism for me is just another aspect of what turns my crank. I have a cop gang bang fantasy too. Cops beat Rodney King. I didn't like that but it doesn't change my fantasy. I don't actually want to be raped by cops, I'm pretty sure I would be just as traumatized as the next person but the turn on is exactly the same. It's a fantasy. I don't know if you'd say I'm hard wired, it's an orientation, I was born that way. Nobody really knows and I don't recall any trauma or experience that would explain it, it's just one of the many things that appeals to me as opposed to some of the other stuff that doesn't. I suppose people here are compelled to use strong language to define the way the feeder fantasy manifests in order to drive home the point that it's not something that can simply be turned off, modified, tidied up or change their minds about just because it's used in an ugly and irresponsible way elsewhere. This is not a scolding or anything, just a clarification as to what terminology you'd like to use because I'm unclear of what the terms mean or specifically what they mean to you.


----------



## exile in thighville (Aug 14, 2009)

Tina said:


> Dan, as I said... The exact words? No, but the gist.
> 
> Anyway.



to clarify, the alternatives would be the exceptions who are either coerced or stupid


----------



## LillyBBBW (Aug 14, 2009)

katorade said:


> This basically gets down to why I, personally, don't understand the viewpoints of some people that can be so dismissive about risks. I live with mobility issues 24/7 due to a disease, not of my own doing. Regardless, it's the same mobility issue that many obese people face when their body can no longer handle the stresses of the extra weight they've carried for X amount of time.
> 
> I wouldn't wish the pain, humiliation, and frustration that I go through every SECOND of my life on anyone, and I simply do NOT understand why it's so freaking easy for some people to just dismiss it as something that may or may not happen as a result of their WILLING participation in an act or lifestyle choice.
> Imagine telling an amputee that you're not going to stop wrestling alligators because it makes you feel alive, and losing an arm is just a risk you're willing to take. Now imagine telling that amputee they have absolutely no reason to be offended by that or they aren't allowed to try and tell you that you're irresponsible and taking the life you know and enjoy for granted.
> ...



Katorade I didn't know that you were struggling. I totally didn't know that and I'm really sorry to hear it. This is what I believe about gaining. I could very well be proven wrong but my observations so far support this theory. There is a difference between someone trapped in a body that is gaining uncontrollaby and they simply can't stop and someone who is gaining deliberately. One is in a body that is unstable, out of control and not functioning properly while the other is fighting an uphill battle that only goes as far as the body will allow before it rebels. For those of us that can't gain, gaining is very difficult. Most of the gainers here if they were to suddenly stop celebrating gain their weight would remain nearly the same. Their fatness is not a symptome of being a gainer, they're just fat. Collared Princess has been going on and on about gaining to 1000 pounds for I don't know how long and she's the same weight she was two years ago. It's not because she's lying, it's because biology has the final say. She will never get to 1000 pounds unless that was her biology to begin with. Otherwise it's just a fantasy. If she was intented to be 1000 pounds then she will merely get there faster and develope whatever health issues she would have gotten anyway. That is my heretical belief.


----------



## Tina (Aug 14, 2009)

LillyBBBW said:


> I have a cop gang bang fantasy too.


Wait. Are they gang banging each other, too?


exile in thighville said:


> to clarify, the alternatives would be the exceptions who are either coerced or stupid


Thanks for clarifying, Dan.


LillyBBBW said:


> This is what I believe about gaining. I could very well be proven wrong but my observations so far support this theory. There is a difference between someone trapped in a body that is gaining uncontrollaby and they simply can't stop and someone who is gaining deliberately... That is my heretical belief.


I don't think it's heretical, Lilly, I think you're onto something.

For a while there, before I diagnosed my lymphedema and told my doctor what I had (yeah...), I felt like my body was just kind of undermining me. I still do at times. It felt like I was at the mercy of whatever my bod wanted to do, and most of what it wanted to do was limiting and/or painful. It sucked. So it was from that perspective that I used to view feederism. Truly, I still cannot imagine why anyone would want what I have going on, which leaves me with limited mobility and pain most of the time. Why someone would shoot for that (and a few do -- at least immobility, anyway -- often, from what I've read, they aren't aware of how pain can figure in there until they are at that point) still mystifies me, because it's caused me a lot of grief. But that's me and my perspective, which is informed by my experiences. It used to push my buttons, but it doesn't any more. I now understand much better the perspective of those who have, since childhood, wanted to be fatter and fatter, and whose sexuality is also immutably tied into those fantasies. I figure it's not for me to judge that, and I very much have a live and let live attitude towards feederism now, My hot button issues regarding it will always likely involve those few feeders who are into violence and power-over stuff, and feeding on the sly. Yeah, I know, I've mentioned it enough times, and yes, I know, most are not at all like that.

I think a person's body is theirs to make of it what they will, which includes feeding, dieting, WLS, etc.


----------



## bdog (Aug 14, 2009)

exile in thighville said:


> to clarify, the alternatives would be the exceptions who are either coerced or stupid



O Harsh One, Tina apparently ran into weight related problems and she's not stupid. Don't know the full story, or even if feeding was involved, but certainly food was, and I think there's room to realize that bad things can happen to people that aren't emotionally fucked up and/or stupid.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Aug 14, 2009)

Tina said:


> Wait. Are they gang banging each other, too?
> 
> Thanks for clarifying, Dan.
> 
> ...



I agree with you 100%. At 42 I am at a point now where it would not be wise for me to get any larger than what I am. In my heart of hearts I don't want to. I've got places to go, things to do and people to see - I can't lay around and movement is bad enough already. But in my fantasies it's another story. Could it be that my desires pan out this way simply because my physical reality impliments a natural deterrant? *shrugs* I don't know.

Oh and the cops are only interested in me, not each other.


----------



## exile in thighville (Aug 15, 2009)

bdog said:


> O Harsh One, Tina apparently ran into weight related problems and she's not stupid. Don't know the full story, or even if feeding was involved, but certainly food was, and I think there's room to realize that bad things can happen to people that aren't emotionally fucked up and/or stupid.



clarification #2: shit happens and that's not what i'm knocking. i assume when tina came into problems she altered her routine and shifted priorities as far as gaining vs. health is concerned.


----------



## KHayes666 (Aug 15, 2009)

katorade said:


> This basically gets down to why I, personally, don't understand the viewpoints of some people that can be so dismissive about risks. I live with mobility issues 24/7 due to a disease, not of my own doing. Regardless, it's the same mobility issue that many obese people face when their body can no longer handle the stresses of the extra weight they've carried for X amount of time.
> 
> I wouldn't wish the pain, humiliation, and frustration that I go through every SECOND of my life on anyone, and I simply do NOT understand why it's so freaking easy for some people to just dismiss it as something that may or may not happen as a result of their WILLING participation in an act or lifestyle choice.
> Imagine telling an amputee that you're not going to stop wrestling alligators because it makes you feel alive, and losing an arm is just a risk you're willing to take. Now imagine telling that amputee they have absolutely no reason to be offended by that or they aren't allowed to try and tell you that you're irresponsible and taking the life you know and enjoy for granted.
> ...



Here's the thing, you and a few others on here are losing mobility to DISEASE....feederism is an entirely different story. You and others with MS, degenerative knees and other diseases can't help that.

It sounds like we "dismiss" the risks because as cold as it sounds, a lot of other willing gainers, encouragers, feeders and feedees do not have to deal with what you go through. I'm not dismissing the pain you feel every day, but excuse the rest of us for wanting to enjoy something. The alligator wrestler would feel sorry for the amputee for being an amputee, but that's not going to stop 9 out of 10 alligator wrestlers from continuing to wrestle with reptiles. The same way an Olympic runner would feel sorry for someone with MS, but is that person going to give up running because someone else is in a wheelchair? I don't speak for everyone obviously, but I for one am sorry you have a horrendous disease that limits your mobility, but I'm not going to stop encouraging a willing gainer or feedee because of it.

As for "gambling", the people involved WANT to do this. I don't condone nor like smoking, but I'm not going to stand outside a bash with half the people at it outside smoking and start shouting at everyone. People want to smoke, they want to smoke. People want to drink, they want to drink. Its not my say to stop them no matter how my own personal experiences have been. Its legal and its their own God given right to do what they want. Feederism, gaining, encouraging...same thing. 

By the way, here's another thing....EVERYONE gets old no matter what their physical condition was prior. Do you see any 50 year old major league baseball players clocking 40 home runs a year? Do you see any 60 year old football players racking up 120 tackles a year? Father time catches up with everyone, even someone in their 40's who's in great shape will still have aches in pains that come with 40 year old bodies. Yes...there will be a lot more aches and pains for someone overweight, but the point is even if they weren't overweight...they'd still be dealing with issues. What these feeders, feedees, etc are doing is for the purpose of making themselves happy, and if the happiness outweighs the aches and pains into their 40's, why stop them? 

Sorry to sound so cold, but disease and feederism are two different things in my opinion. People can control feederism, even if someone is at an extremely high weight. Certain diseases can't be stopped, and I'm not dismissing that at all...I really do feel sorry for people with MS and other dehabilitating (can't spell it) illnesses.

Another example, Robert Edwards could have been a Hall of Fame football player if he didn't destroy his knee....but is he going to tell aspiring football players to quit the game before they get hurt? Hell no! Would Robert Edwards go back in time to never play football if it meant 2 functioning knees or would he look back at his college success and his one year of dominance with New England and smile? Chances are, he'd be smiling from ear to ear. The vast majority of gainers and encouragers 20 years from now are probably going to have mobility issues when they reach their 40's, but they will look back on their experiences and wouldn't give them up for anything.

Again, sorry you have your illness, really....however the "risks" someone without a disease go through compared to people with diseases are entirely different. Feederism can be moderated, unfortunately disease can't.

I'm going to try to put myself in your shoes for a minute, lets say tomorrow I go to the doctor and he/she says I have a chronic arthritic condition which will confine me to a wheelchair by aged 50....am I going to be mad at everyone that hop, skip and jump around outside while I wheel on by? Not a chance, to me I'd be thinking about racing in a wheelchair competition and what not. Because I'd lose my ability to walk, why should I get mad at someone who's pastime is to walk on tight ropes with man eating sharks underneath him? I was dealt the cards I was dealt for a reason, and there must be a reason the person tight roping with angry sharks is in that position too. We're all going to get old at some point and I pray that someday there will be cures for chronic arthritis, MS and other horrible diseases....however that doesn't mean I or anyone else should stop feeding, eating and aspiring to be at a very high weight because someone else doesn't approve.

Just my perspective


----------



## Shosh (Aug 15, 2009)

No offense Kevin, but you do not have a degenerative disease, and you are also not a feedee living the daily consequences of extreme weight gain. I cannot see how you can understand how either of those scenarios feel as you have not lived them, and they have not impacted on your life.


----------



## Tina (Aug 15, 2009)

KHayes666 said:


> Here's the thing, you and a few others on here are losing mobility to DISEASE....feederism is an entirely different story. You and others with MS, degenerative knees and other diseases can't help that.


Are you not aware that knee problems (of all kinds) can be, and in fat people frequently are, caused by carrying too much weight for the body to handle, Kevin?


----------



## bdog (Aug 15, 2009)

KHayes666 said:


> I'm going to try to put myself in your shoes for a minute, lets say tomorrow I go to the doctor and he/she says I have a chronic arthritic condition which will confine me to a wheelchair by aged 50....am I going to be mad at everyone that hop, skip and jump around outside while I wheel on by? Not a chance, to me I'd be thinking about racing in a wheelchair competition and what not. Because I'd lose my ability to walk, why should I get mad at someone who's pastime is to walk on tight ropes with man eating sharks underneath him?



No one's mad at your fetish, or mad at anyone's mobility, or feeling sorry for themselves. They're just worried you don't realize how shitty life could be if things go bad. I'm not sure that they're wrong.


----------



## Tina (Aug 15, 2009)

ETA: Kevin, that's a very cavalier statement bdog has quoted. It's very easy for you to say that from a safe distance. You really don't know how you'd react, I'm sure. You don't just get happy; certain things, activities are often grieved.

Lilly, thank you for the response. I'm not sure we ever totally understand where our drives come from, but I do think awareness helps, at lest some of the time.

I must confess, I'd kind of like to see a cop cluster fuck -- uniforms still partly on, of course...


----------



## Miss Vickie (Aug 15, 2009)

Tina said:


> Are you not aware that knee problems (of all kinds) can be, and in fat people frequently are, caused by carrying too much weight for the body to handle, Kevin?



Yup. Plus, once you get to the point of near or total immobility, even if you have the best intention to lose weight, it ain't that easy. So for those who think "When it gets bad, I'll just stop" I have to say... good luck. As someone who didn't intentionally gain and who had to go to extremes to get to a comfortable (though still officially "obese" weight) let me tell you, the human body is often not entirely under our control. Just as some people can't gain past a certain point, some people can't lose either, especially when they're used to eating large amounts of food and are unable to be active. Assuming they can just put down the doughnut and lose weight is, yes, naive.

This isn't a judgment or being a "hater". It's just biology.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Aug 15, 2009)

cheekyjez said:


> See, that reinforces the questions about informed consent. If you're not willing or able to communicate your needs to your partner, it's a really bad idea to be involved in high risk behavior. I mean, it's your life and you can do what you want, but if I had a close friend who was doing this I would do everything I could to get them to stop.
> 
> (From the BDSM analogy, this is why safe words exist. And subs who DON'T call a safe word when they're past their comfort zone get put on "No Play" lists because it's no fun putting them back together afterwards.)



I disagree. I don't think that this is so much about informed consent as it is a demonstration of a person in denial. How many people see the warning signs in their health or physical comfort yet they ignore them because they don't want to go to the doctor, don't have insurance, don't want to stop doing what they've been doing, etc. Feedee games, face sitting and all sorts of other sexual encounters are similar to BDSM in that people do have and use safe words and signals to indicate when they've had enough. In conjunction with educating people on how to avoid bad feeders one needs also to include language about operating with extreme prejuduce when engaging in activities that could be dangerous if done wrecklessly. Signs, no matter how small, should not be ignored because you think things will get better or aren't really all that serious. People who do that definitley belong on the "No Play" list.


----------



## katorade (Aug 15, 2009)

KHayes666 said:


> Here's the thing, you and a few others on here are losing mobility to DISEASE....feederism is an entirely different story. You and others with MS, degenerative knees and other diseases can't help that.
> 
> It sounds like we "dismiss" the risks because as cold as it sounds, a lot of other willing gainers, encouragers, feeders and feedees do not have to deal with what you go through. I'm not dismissing the pain you feel every day, but excuse the rest of us for wanting to enjoy something. The alligator wrestler would feel sorry for the amputee for being an amputee, but that's not going to stop 9 out of 10 alligator wrestlers from continuing to wrestle with reptiles. The same way an Olympic runner would feel sorry for someone with MS, but is that person going to give up running because someone else is in a wheelchair? I don't speak for everyone obviously, but I for one am sorry you have a horrendous disease that limits your mobility, but I'm not going to stop encouraging a willing gainer or feedee because of it.



Excuse me, but I never asked for anyone to feel sorry for me, nor do I think you should feel sorry for anyone else that is still trying to succeed in life and managing to have some quality of life. What I absolutely RESENT is people taking their abilities for granted and willingly casting them by the wayside because they don't think the consequences will be "that bad".



> As for "gambling", the people involved WANT to do this. I don't condone nor like smoking, but I'm not going to stand outside a bash with half the people at it outside smoking and start shouting at everyone. People want to smoke, they want to smoke. People want to drink, they want to drink. Its not my say to stop them no matter how my own personal experiences have been. Its legal and its their own God given right to do what they want. Feederism, gaining, encouraging...same thing.



Go back and read my post. Nowhere did it say I said anyone should stop. In another post I actually said people have every right to do what they want. Don't confuse disagreement with censorship.





> By the way, here's another thing....EVERYONE gets old no matter what their physical condition was prior. Do you see any 50 year old major league baseball players clocking 40 home runs a year? Do you see any 60 year old football players racking up 120 tackles a year? Father time catches up with everyone, even someone in their 40's who's in great shape will still have aches in pains that come with 40 year old bodies. Yes...there will be a lot more aches and pains for someone overweight, but the point is even if they weren't overweight...they'd still be dealing with issues. What these feeders, feedees, etc are doing is for the purpose of making themselves happy, and if the happiness outweighs the aches and pains into their 40's, why stop them?



Kevin...I'm 29 years old. I have had rheumatoid arthritis since I was 14. I have come to terms with the fact that either I am going to be unable to care for myself or dead well before the average person, so please, don't try to use that excuse on me. I'm already old well before my time, and I wish nothing more than be able to take back the last 15 years and be able to live it without arthritis, even though I love my life. I don't get to do the things I love to do because of mobility issues, namely in my hands, hips, and left knee. 
I can barely walk or stand for a long period of time (by long I mean 20 minutes), sitting down and standing up are a monumental effort, I have PISSED myself because I literally couldn't stand up and walk in time to make it to the bathroom 30 feet away because inflammation has compromised my muscle control. I live in constant pain. Imagine trying to walk on a fractured leg with no cast, and nobody will let you take pain killers, because feeling pain is the only way you know you're pushing yourself too hard.
My issues may come from a disease, because I am well under the 300 lb. mark, but the symptoms are exactly the same. The fact that I have arthritis just means that my joints can't handle the smaller amount of weight that someone more able-bodied could.



> Sorry to sound so cold, but disease and feederism are two different things in my opinion. People can control feederism, even if someone is at an extremely high weight. Certain diseases can't be stopped, and I'm not dismissing that at all...I really do feel sorry for people with MS and other dehabilitating (can't spell it) illnesses.
> 
> Another example, Robert Edwards could have been a Hall of Fame football player if he didn't destroy his knee....but is he going to tell aspiring football players to quit the game before they get hurt? Hell no! Would Robert Edwards go back in time to never play football if it meant 2 functioning knees or would he look back at his college success and his one year of dominance with New England and smile? Chances are, he'd be smiling from ear to ear. The vast majority of gainers and encouragers 20 years from now are probably going to have mobility issues when they reach their 40's, but they will look back on their experiences and wouldn't give them up for anything.



Do you know how stupid that sounds? Do you know how many people wish they could turn back time and avoid whatever it was that caused their problems? You don't KNOW what Robert Edwards thinks. "Chances are" it took him a great many years to be able to accept the card he's been dealt and let go of a lot of resentment. You don't just wake up one day without the ability to walk easily or walk at all and go "oh well". Please. The whole POINT is that you CAN control gaining, and if you spend 20 years pushing yourself towards immobility at an early age, good luck spending the next forty years of your life trying to convince yourself it was worth it. Good luck trying to live the next half of your life with the consequences of satisfaction. I don't mean that sarcastically, either. I really do mean good luck. You'll need it.



> Again, sorry you have your illness, really....however the "risks" someone without a disease go through compared to people with diseases are entirely different. Feederism can be moderated, unfortunately disease can't.
> 
> I'm going to try to put myself in your shoes for a minute, lets say tomorrow I go to the doctor and he/she says I have a chronic arthritic condition which will confine me to a wheelchair by aged 50....am I going to be mad at everyone that hop, skip and jump around outside while I wheel on by? Not a chance, to me I'd be thinking about racing in a wheelchair competition and what not. Because I'd lose my ability to walk, why should I get mad at someone who's pastime is to walk on tight ropes with man eating sharks underneath him? I was dealt the cards I was dealt for a reason, and there must be a reason the person tight roping with angry sharks is in that position too. We're all going to get old at some point and I pray that someday there will be cures for chronic arthritis, MS and other horrible diseases....however that doesn't mean I or anyone else should stop feeding, eating and aspiring to be at a very high weight because someone else doesn't approve.
> 
> Just my perspective



It's really easy to think about what you would do under those circumstances when you don't actually have to face the reality of it. Nobody told me I'm going to be immobile by X age. There's just a very real chance that I'll be in that position, and I'm doing everything humanly possible NOT to. I'm on four medications and quite possibly require joint replacement. I'm FIGHTING the card I was dealt, not dealing with it.

The reality is that you have absolutely no grasp on the situation until it hits you. I HOPE that anyone that purposely gains weight and becomes immobile can reconcile the fact they've put themselves there, and that their quality of life is still 100% in their mind, even if it isn't in someone else's mind. 
I'm not mad at them for that, I just think they're horribly unrealistic thinking that the satisfaction they get from gaining weight is going to outweigh the satisfaction of being able to do things for themselves, which is not really something you can fully appreciate until it's gone.


----------



## cheekyjez (Aug 15, 2009)

LillyBBBW said:


> In conjunction with educating people on how to avoid bad feeders one needs also to include language about operating with extreme prejuduce when engaging in activities that could be dangerous if done wrecklessly. Signs, no matter how small, should not be ignored because you think things will get better or aren't really all that serious. People who do that definitley belong on the "No Play" list.



I think we're basically on the same page here. My next question - an open question - is how to protect these people (i.e. the people who ignore the warning signs their own bodies) from themselves, without restricting the fun of people who know what they're doing.

Now, said protection could be in the form of guidelines of warning signs, as well as help for gainers who've got themselves into trouble. I don't have an answer and I don't think there is an answer that will work for everyone. But I'd certainly be interested in people's ideas.

I would add that "going too far" is something that everyone has to define for themselves, not something that ever could or should be externally prescribed. I'm not trying to judge anyone and I hope it doesn't come across that way.


----------



## Fascinita (Aug 15, 2009)

bdog said:


> Don't know the full story, or even if feeding was involved, but certainly food was, and I think there's room to realize that bad things can happen to people that aren't emotionally fucked up and/or stupid.



You would think this would be *obvious*. _And_ that sometimes--in spite of everything else--shit happens (geniuses die, too, genius). 

But who has to make good sense when posturing and fist-pumping are so much cooler?


----------



## bdog (Aug 15, 2009)

KHayes666 said:


> The vast majority of gainers and encouragers 20 years from now are probably going to have mobility issues when they reach their 40's, but they will look back on their experiences and wouldn't give them up for anything.



"Hey babe... remember when you were 235. And then you ate all that food and you were 240."

"Yes."

"That was awesome."


----------



## TraciJo67 (Aug 15, 2009)

KHayes666 said:


> I'm not going to stop encouraging a willing gainer or feedee because of it.



I work with disabled adults. I've worked with several people who are now in long-term care facilities. They aren't old. They're very, very fat, and unable to care for themselves. Some didn't want to go to long-term care facilities. They were declared vulnerable adults and placed in a facility by social services, at court order. I don't know if they were feedees. What I do know is that they managed at much lower weights for a long time, and that something happened along the way -- usually, an injury, that they were slow to recover from. In the duration, they went from a manageable weight to immobility. I don't believe that any of them planned to eat themselves beyond a capacity to care for themselves. I believe that the injury, and the subsequent initial period of immobility while recovering, coupled with an impaired metabolism and an inability to burn those excess calories, led to extreme weight gain. This is far, far, FAR more common than you think it is, Kevin. I'm a social worker. This is MY JOB. Vickie is a nurse. I know that she's probably seen this happen firsthand, herself.

As a relatively healthy middle-aged woman, if I step on a scale and it registers a few pounds over where I'd personally like to be, I can make a few small adjustments and take those pounds of rapidly and relatively painlessly. That wasn't the case when I weighed nearly 300 pounds, and it wasn't through a lack of dieting or willpower. It is beyond my ability to comprehend, how difficult it has to be for a person who is a hundred or two pounds beyond that. Your casually dismissive "people can control feederism" attitude -- especially coming from someone who is probably not at all overweight -- is chilling, to me. That may be true for some. It is not going to be true for all. That isn't hyperbole. That is fact. Right now, I have two men on my caseload, both over 400 pounds (one close to 500). The first was recently diagnosed with a virulent type of lymphoma with a very poor prognosis. He cannot be treated for his disease because he has too many concurrent illnesses, and he wouldn't survive a bone marrow transplant. The other man is suffering from end-stage heart failure, and needs a heart transplant. He won't be getting one, because his doctors believe that his weight has compromised his ability to recover from the operation; he will not be placed on the transplant list. Both are being offered palliative care only. This. Is. Fact. Do you think that any of these people ever PLANNED to get ill? I know, oh do I know, that if they were capable of losing the weight and saving their own lives, they'd have done so. Unfortunately, they are past this point, and probably were for a long time before they even began to feel ill. 

I am not writing this from a place of judgment, or because I'm trying to needlessly frighten anyone (I realize that this is nothing that hasn't been already said before, for many of us, by 'concerned' loved ones and medical doctors who prescribe weight loss for treating a cold). I am writing it because I believe that you, for starters, appear very uneducated about how certain lifestyle choices can rapidly snowball from harmless fun in one span of time to quality of life and actual life-threatening issues, and suggesting that someone making these choices can just ... stop ... seems very misinformed to me. Acknowledge the reality that yes, certain choices carry certain risks. And if you are encouraging that behavior, and those risks become a reality, then you own responsibility as well. You cannot dismiss it as a simple matter of "the people involved WANT to do this", as if that negates your part in it. You cannot excuse it as "everyone gets older, and hey, there are no guarantees in life" because while that's certainly true, most of us still make daily choices to minimize those risks ... we wear seatbelts, we quit smoking, we attempt to get at least a few fruits/vegetables mixed in with our daily servings of carbs, carbs & more carbs, we don't walk down inner-city dark alleys at 2:00 a.m. on a Tuesday night. If you're so intent on just giving up, living in the here and now and dismissing the possibility of real harm with the fatalistic "everyone dies" card, why not just go out and down a few cases of beer and wash 'em down with some uppers? The problem as I see it doesn't begin and end with "everyone dies". All too often it ends with, "he suffered immensely while dying by inches." 

Nobody wants to live with an impaired quality of life. Nobody. The notion of "looking back on those fun years" while living in the HERE and the NOW with an impaired body and a poor quality of life and finding joy and happiness in what once was ... that's ... I can't even find the words. It's not reality. I guarantee you, that if you had a crystal ball and could see into the future and KNEW that choices you were making now were going to cause you & your loved ones untold suffering & grief at some later date, you'd do whatever necessary to ensure that didn't happen ... unless you had a death wish. In which case, I wouldn't believe you to be capable of informed consent. 

And again ... this isn't blanket condemnation of ANYONE'S choices or lifestyle. It is hardly my place to judge. I've got a few planks in my own eyes that I'd need to pluck out, first. This response is purely, 100%, in reaction to what I view to be a very callously dismissive attitude, packed full of excuses to minimize any personal responsibility for choices that can and sometimes do lead to real harm. Acknowledging those risks doesn't make anyone a bad person or stupid. That is the essence of being informed.

Finally, people living with chronic health conditions don't need your pity and wouldn't ask you to feel sorry for them.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Aug 15, 2009)

cheekyjez said:


> I think we're basically on the same page here. My next question - an open question - is how to protect these people (i.e. the people who ignore the warning signs their own bodies) from themselves, without restricting the fun of people who know what they're doing.
> 
> Now, said protection could be in the form of guidelines of warning signs, as well as help for gainers who've got themselves into trouble. I don't have an answer and I don't think there is an answer that will work for everyone. But I'd certainly be interested in people's ideas.
> 
> I would add that "going too far" is something that everyone has to define for themselves, not something that ever could or should be externally prescribed. I'm not trying to judge anyone and I hope it doesn't come across that way.



I think there are universal and obvious things people should look out for. Headaches, gastro issues, general ill feeling and other stuff should definitely spell raincheck when it comes to anything. If it's prolonged then you should see a doctor. Chest pain, dizziness, feeling excessively tired, etc. - in general be vigilent about your health and get regular check ups. Anybody wanting to be a feedee even if just for play should have a good relationship with a primary care doctor. If you don't you need to get one and see him/her once a year at the very least. My personal motto is 'everything in moderation.' I generally watch what I eat but schedule times to fill up on forbidden things and be a wanton food whore every now and then. That's just me but if I get close to that time where I've scheduled a festivus and I'm not feeling so good? The deal is off. Honestly what I'm doing isn't too far off from what the whole world is doing, I just squeeze a little more enjoyment out of it than most. Also I'm single so it's something I do by myself. Having a partner who wants to enjoy it with me is ok as long as I'm not being pushed around. I've never experienced that even though I'm constantly paranoid about it happening.


----------



## katorade (Aug 15, 2009)

TraciJo67 said:


> I work with disabled adults.........****snipped content for length purposes, but really I'd like to quote it alllllllllllll******.................That is the essence of being informed.
> 
> Finally, people living with chronic health conditions don't need your pity and wouldn't ask you to feel sorry for them.



This. A million times over, this. Wish I could rep you, but I can't. Marry me instead?


----------



## ashmamma84 (Aug 15, 2009)

katorade said:


> This. A million times over, this. Wish I could rep you, but I can't. Marry me instead?



Got her for ya'! 

Great post, TraciJo.


----------



## KHayes666 (Aug 15, 2009)

Since I have no idea how to mult quote, I'll just fire my six shooters in different directions.

Shoshie, you're right...I have absolutely no idea what it FEELS like to be sticken with an illness, but I SEE how people are on a daily basis. I have a friend since pre-school that had a mother degenerate because of MS, I've seen with my own two eyes how awful it is. However comparing that to being extremely obese in your mid 40's I still disagree as not being the same thing. I've already said why and I'll say it again later.

Tina.....I know healthy adults with knee problems too. Did you miss my point about how EVERYONE gets old eventually? I myself have a bad neck from years of wrestling but not once would I ever go back and change what I did. Years of carrying around too much weight will damage your knees the same way playing 13 years of pro football or playing 15 years of catcher in baseball, or too much running....and on and on. I'm not denying that maintaining a high weight won't pose problems, I'm just saying its not exclusive to just weight gainers and 400 pound men and women. Like a wise rat once said "Death comes to us all", and people will deal with it differently.

Katorade....find me a 400 pound man or woman who can't make it to the bathroom because of their knees and then I'll consider the possibility of excess weight and a horrible disease being one and the same. Until then, I still say its 2 different things. It actually brings a tear to my eye to hear the horrrors you go through on a daily basis, but feederism doesn't come anywhere close to that. I was in a feeder/feedee situation 3-4 years ago where my partner went from 180 to 220 and we stopped. She liked being at that size and didn't want to go any higher so I hit the brakes and we went back to being just friends. That's how I know from first hand experience that it can be controlled, without causing extreme risk to someone unwanted. Now for others that want to be 400-600 pounds, take it up with them. I'm not currently in a relationship with someone at that weight so I can't say with firsthand experience, but I can say from what I've seen with my own two eyes...a lot of married couples that are perfectly happy with the lives they lead, knowing full well of the risks. Only a certain percentage of people want to gain to immobility, that's not what all of us that are into feederism are into. 

Traci, you said you are a "relatively healthy middle aged woman". Have you ever been extremely obese at one point? Have you ever had a HAPPY relationship being over 400 pounds? Would your husband wake up next to you every day if you were 400 pounds and smile ear to ear like a lot of people do every morning? You also said the people you see on a daily basis, some of them DIDN'T want to be extremely obese but because of a bad lifestyle or genetics, they happened to be really fat. How the fuck does that have to do with people WILLING to be extremely obsese? Those kinds of people who are unwantedly obese I actually have sympathy for, since it wasn't what they wanted. We seem to be at two opposite extremes here, you showing all the negative aspects of obesity and me showing the positives. Can't we agree that there is no right side and that the positives and negatives go hand in hand? 

Now here's me shooting in another direction. People are saying to me I don't know what it feels like to do this or that, but I say to everyone do "YOU" know how it feels to be 400 pounds and HAPPY? Look around at the paysite models and other men and women over 400 pounds that are leading HAPPY lives. If they felt like they needed to lose weight for better mobility and health, I'd easily understand and support them. However these posts Im looking at make it seem like everyone who aspires to be at a high weight is going to end up immobile or worse. I'm here to say not everyone will be like that. I'll end this with a question for the group......if by saying that feederism and extreme obesity are akin to diseases, are you saying that obesity is a disease itself?


----------



## fffff (Aug 15, 2009)

I think everyone here, myself included, knows that it's none of their business what someone chooses to do with their lives and their bodies. But you can't just turn empathy and concern off like that. And that is what I truly believe all the "haters" are coming from, a place of concern and empathy. 




TraciJo67 said:


> I work with disabled adults. I've worked with several people who are now in long-term care facilities. They aren't old. They're very, very fat, and unable to care for themselves. Some didn't want to go to long-term care facilities. They were declared vulnerable adults and placed in a facility by social services, at court order. I don't know if they were feedees. What I do know is that they managed at much lower weights for a long time, and that something happened along the way -- usually, an injury, that they were slow to recover from. In the duration, they went from a manageable weight to immobility. I don't believe that any of them planned to eat themselves beyond a capacity to care for themselves. I believe that the injury, and the subsequent initial period of immobility while recovering, coupled with an impaired metabolism and an inability to burn those excess calories, led to extreme weight gain. This is far, far, FAR more common than you think it is, Kevin. I'm a social worker. This is MY JOB. Vickie is a nurse. I know that she's probably seen this happen firsthand, herself.




This is so important to emphasize. I am amazed how many times I've read on this board that if someone's weight begins to compromise their health they can always "lose weight" or "stop gaining weight." If that were the case _virtually no one would be fat_. 
Generally speaking, a lot of people are ignorant about what their bodies need and people who intentionally gain weight are no exception. I've talked with a few girls who have told me that if their weight ever began to negatively effect their mobility they would just lose weight. However, anyone who has ever struggled to lose weight can tell you over and over again that it is hard, and the more weight you have to lose it grows exponentially harder. I've had family members die long, agonizing deaths largely due to their weight and every single one of them has planned and tried to lose weight. But the reality is that the more mobility you lose the harder it is to get it back. 


I admit that the few times I've wandered into the paysite forum and seen women who have intentionally gained hundreds of pounds in short amounts of time and it shocks and concerns me and sends whatever small amount of maternal instinct I have through the roof. Then I read all the encouraging comments from men and I just have to wonder if anyone of them are aware of the kind of damage that gains like that can do. I'm not saying that all fat people are unhealthy - but your body wants to remain stable and it just cannot deal with excess weight gain. Some of the feedees I see are one injury away from having serious complications. And it's none of my business. And it bothers me. 



> The vast majority of gainers and encouragers 20 years from now are probably going to have mobility issues when they reach their 40's, but they will look back on their experiences and wouldn't give them up for anything.



Please, I beg you to find one person facing a prolonged death, immobility, and the prospect of being forced into a nursing home who wouldn't give up their years of weight gain for anything. I think nearly everything you post is profoundly ignorant. It's obvious you've never faced a major health problem before, and I can guarantee that when you do, you will be horrified by comments like these.


----------



## KHayes666 (Aug 15, 2009)

fffff said:


> Please, I beg you to find one person facing a prolonged death, immobility, and the prospect of being forced into a nursing home who wouldn't give up their years of weight gain for anything. I think nearly everything you post is profoundly ignorant. It's obvious you've never faced a major health problem before, and I can guarantee that when you do, you will be horrified by comments like these.



1. I've never faced a major health problem? You know I broke my neck once right?

2. I have known someone who died very recently and she told me she was relatively happy toward the end. One of the last convos we had she seemed giggly and upbeat all things considering.

You didn't know either of these things about me, who's the _real_ ignorant one here?


----------



## fffff (Aug 15, 2009)

KHayes666 said:


> 1. I've never faced a major health problem? You know I broke my neck once right?
> 
> 2. I have known someone who died very recently and she told me she was relatively happy toward the end. One of the last convos we had she seemed giggly and upbeat all things considering.
> 
> You didn't know either of these things about me, who's the _real_ ignorant one here?



Oh excuse me, you broke your neck and use sport analogies as comparisons to weight-related mobility issues. You truly are all-knowning, my bad.

And did this person who was "relitively happy" towards the end tell you that leaving their loved ones was worth all the years of gaining, or did they say they were "relitively happy." Because those two things seem dramatically different.


----------



## TraciJo67 (Aug 15, 2009)

KHayes666 said:


> Traci, you said you are a "relatively healthy middle aged woman". Have you ever been extremely obese at one point? Have you ever had a HAPPY relationship being over 400 pounds? Would your husband wake up next to you every day if you were 400 pounds and smile ear to ear like a lot of people do every morning? You also said the people you see on a daily basis, some of them DIDN'T want to be extremely obese but because of a bad lifestyle or genetics, they happened to be really fat. How the fuck does that have to do with people WILLING to be extremely obsese? Those kinds of people who are unwantedly obese I actually have sympathy for, since it wasn't what they wanted. We seem to be at two opposite extremes here, you showing all the negative aspects of obesity and me showing the positives. Can't we agree that there is no right side and that the positives and negatives go hand in hand?



So you think that illness & infirmity happens only to people who don't want to be fat? You think it skips right on by the happy 400 pound man/woman and his/her enthusiastic feeder? People who are WILLING to be extremely obese can (and do) suffer unintentional injuries, become ill with diseases that may have little or nothing to do with the weight but face limited treatment options because the weight complicates or exacerbates the problem. I'm not sure how happy I would be, even waking up next to my adoring husband, if I couldn't get out of bed or care for myself. And the fact that I gained the weight with eyes wide open, and enjoyed the experience immensely, is going to mean ... oh, NOTHING AT ALL to me if I do become ill or immobile as a result of that choice. 

I was a healthy 300 pound woman, throughout my 20's and early 30's. In my mid-30's, I started to feel the effects of my weight. Creaking joints, inability to climb stairs or walk for more than 15-20 minutes at a time, feeling throughout most days that I was in fact walking through quicksand. And as time passed, I realized that I was making adjustments and accomodations for myself that I no longer found tenable. I made a very difficult decision, and I did it because my weight was also holding me back from the one thing in life I very desperately wanted: A child. I don't know for sure that my weight was the cause of my infertility, but it didn't actually matter, because my doctor would not prescribe fertility drugs, and that *was* due to my weight. The weight in itself was neither a positive or a negative. My husband loved me just as I was. Had I been absolutely overjoyed, whistling happy tunes while little cartoon animals danced around me THRILLED with my weight, I still would have been very, very unhappy about the consequences of my weight. 

Surely, you'll understand THAT. Surely.


----------



## KHayes666 (Aug 15, 2009)

fffff said:


> Oh excuse me, you broke your neck and use sport analogies as comparisons to weight-related mobility issues. You truly are all-knowning, my bad.
> 
> And did this person who was "relitively happy" towards the end tell you that leaving their loved ones was worth all the years of gaining, or did they say they were "relitively happy." Because those two things seem dramatically different.



Hey, you made an ignorant statement about me not facing a serious health issues when I actually have, if you don't want a homer hit off you don't serve a fat one down the middle ;-)

I don't feel comfortable talking about my friend's last moments with someone who doesn't care about or know this person. What I said was true though, one of the last times we shared a conversation she smiled a few times and did appear to be content with what was about to happen.


----------



## KHayes666 (Aug 15, 2009)

TraciJo67 said:


> So you think that illness & infirmity happens only to people who don't want to be fat? You think it skips right on by the happy 400 pound man/woman and his/her enthusiastic feeder? People who are WILLING to be extremely obese can (and do) suffer unintentional injuries, become ill with diseases that may have little or nothing to do with the weight but face limited treatment options because the weight complicates or exacerbates the problem. I'm not sure how happy I would be, even waking up next to my adoring husband, if I couldn't get out of bed or care for myself. And the fact that I gained the weight with eyes wide open, and enjoyed the experience immensely, is going to mean ... oh, NOTHING AT ALL to me if I do become ill or immobile as a result of that choice.
> 
> I was a healthy 300 pound woman, throughout my 20's and early 30's. In my mid-30's, I started to feel the effects of my weight. Creaking joints, inability to climb stairs or walk for more than 15-20 minutes at a time, feeling throughout most days that I was in fact walking through quicksand. And as time passed, I realized that I was making adjustments and accomodations for myself that I no longer found tenable. I made a very difficult decision, and I did it because my weight was also holding me back from the one thing in life I very desperately wanted: A child. I don't know for sure that my weight was the cause of my infertility, but it didn't actually matter, because my doctor would not prescribe fertility drugs, and that *was* due to my weight. The weight in itself was neither a positive or a negative. My husband loved me just as I was. Had I been absolutely overjoyed, whistling happy tunes while little cartoon animals danced around me THRILLED with my weight, I still would have been very, very unhappy about the consequences of my weight.
> 
> Surely, you'll understand THAT. Surely.



Of course I understand THAT.

I just hope you understand that NOT EVERYONE goes through the same exact issues the same way. I know women close to or over 400 pounds that have gotten or are currently pregnant, infertility can strike anyone regardless of size.

Going back over my posts, it does appear that I have this "nothing is wrong" attitude and I'll have to apologize for that. Your first point was proof of that. I know of people who have suffered injuries they didn't bounce back from quickly because of their weight, and I also know of people with permanent injuries and diabetes brought on by not taking care of themselves.

My point is, it could happen to ANYONE and not just those into feederism. Diabetes can strike anyone who doesn't take care of themselves or their blood/sugar levels, infertility can happen to any woman at any time. I broke my neck because my partner was careless and inexperienced, not because he was over 350 pounds.

Because you work as a social worker, you see the dark side of extreme obesity in some cases. I respect you for being able to work with that kind of situations, I myself probably couldn't. However, I come from the other side of the spectrum. I go to bbw bashes, paysite forums and communicate with some of my real life friends and see lots and lots of people that are considered extremely obese having a great time and appearing to be happy. They lead happy married lives, some actually have children and for the most part are loving life. This is what I myself have seen and experienced the same way you have seen people dying from extreme obesity. We both have different perspectives that lead to our reasoning, at least I'm trying to understand yours...but keep in mind that health issues may bother some, but not all.

Health problems happen to everyone on earth for a variety of reasons, its not just because someone is extremely obese or wants to be.....yes they're at a greater risk but that's not a guaranteed automatic they'll turn out to be immobile or bitter later in life. Can you understand THAT?


----------



## cheekyjez (Aug 15, 2009)

It could happen to anyone, regardless of weight - but that doesn't mean that it's equally likely. I mean, you COULD get into a car crash sober, but that doesn't mean that you should drive drunk. 

(It's not a perfect analogy because in a car crash you impact people other than yourself, but you get my point.)


----------



## Angel (Aug 15, 2009)

KHayes666 said:


> 1. I've never faced a major health problem? You know I broke my neck once right?
> 
> 2. I have known someone who died very recently and she told me she was relatively happy toward the end. One of the last convos we had she seemed giggly and upbeat all things considering.
> 
> You didn't know either of these things about me, who's the _real_ ignorant one here?




1. Do you understand the differences between a young healthy person who is able to have surgery to correct an injury and a very obese person not having the option for surgery no matter how severe an injury may be? Do you understand that an otherwise curable illness could then be as deadly to that person as a terminal illness?

Do you understand that when pain or symptoms finally begin to appear that sometimes the physical damage has already progressed so far that even losing weight (if possibile) will not correct the situation or cause the pain or symptoms to go away?

Do you understand that even (paraphrasing) *stopping feederism within a relationship once a specific or agreed upon weight has been reached* that there could still be health issues that appear on down the road as a direct result of the overindulging/gaining?



2. Someone can be relatively happy and have a positive outlook even if they know their days on this earth are very limited. Someone can be relatively happy and have a positive outlook yet still have regrets and wish they would have done things differently. Someone can be relatively happy and have a positive outlook but still live every waking moment in pain. Being relatively happy and having a positive outlook and sounding even upbeat just means that someone has made peace with the circumstances in their life or that they were just having a good day that particular day. Just saying that someone can be experiencing physical pain, or even emotional pain on the inside, and yet still appear relatively happy ar claim to be happy. It's all in a person's outlook. Just because they are happy doesn't meant that they wouldn't have changed their past if given the chance.


----------



## KHayes666 (Aug 15, 2009)

Angel said:


> 1. Do you understand the differences between a young healthy person who is able to have surgery to correct an injury and a very obese person not having the option for surgery no matter how severe an injury may be? Do you understand that an otherwise curable illness could then be as deadly to that person as a terminal illness?
> 
> Do you understand that when pain or symptoms finally begin to appear that sometimes the physical damage has already progressed so far that even losing weight (if possibile) will not correct the situation or cause the pain or symptoms to go away?
> 
> ...



1. Oh yes, I'm well aware of the difference in being a teenager bouncing back from injuries and illness, and being a great deal older. I'm not denying that all, in fact I agree with you. My post was just to show FFFF that she made an ignorant statement by saying I've never had a serious health problem when I actually came within inches of death when I was 18.

2. I really don't want to talk about what I experienced with my friends last days right now, please understand.


----------



## Ernie (Aug 15, 2009)

There There Mr.Khayes. We all are friends here.


----------



## Tina (Aug 15, 2009)

TraciJo67 said:


> I was a healthy 300 pound woman, throughout my 20's and early 30's. In my mid-30's, I started to feel the effects of my weight.


Traci, please! Don't you realize you have missed the point about how _EVERYONE gets old eventually_???

Sheesh.


----------



## Angel (Aug 15, 2009)

I've been curious about something and have wanted to ask, but wasn't sure how to bring it up.

This part of TraciJo's post kind of opened the doors:



TraciJo67 said:


> And if you are encouraging that behavior, and those risks become a reality, then you own responsibility as well. You cannot dismiss it as a simple matter of "the people involved WANT to do this", as if that negates your part in it. You cannot excuse it as "everyone gets older, and hey, there are no guarantees in life"





This question is for those identifying as either an encourager or as a feeder.

If the person you have been encouraging or feeding or fattening begins to develop health related or mobility problems, what would you do? Would there be any guilt or remorse on your part? 

Would you be in it for the long run? Would you want to help take care of the gainer or feedee for as long as the problems continue to exist or even longer?


This question is for those identifying as a gainer or feedee.

If you began to develop health related problems or mobility problems, what would you do? Would there be any guilt or remorse?

Also, if you began to develop related health or mobility problems, what part or responsibility would you desire from those who have either encouraged you to gain, fed you, or who have actively participated in helping with your gaining?


----------



## KHayes666 (Aug 15, 2009)

Angel said:


> I've been curious about something and have wanted to ask, but wasn't sure how to bring it up.
> 
> This part of TraciJo's post kind of opened the doors:
> 
> ...



Good question.

I posted on a different thread (or maybe it was this one, can't remember) how I was in a feeder/feedee relationship where my friend gained 40 pounds in the 2 years we had it. Now, she went from 180 to 220 and when she reached 220 she politely told me she was comfortable with the size she was and didn't want to gain anymore weight. I respected her wishes and we haven't had any sort of feeder/feedee aspect since, just straight up friendship.

Now had she continued and had ballooned up to 300 pounds and started complaining that I made her too fat, I would feel bad...but certainly not guilty. The feeder/feedee part was a fetish/sexuality tool we used to have fun at certain times, the real friendship came from going to movies, hanging out and talking. She or anyone can stop me at any time from encouraging by politely telling me that she doesn't want to do it anymore. I'd feel bad, but not guilty

Now, if my friend had blown past 300 pounds and by 2012 was now waddling around at 400 plus, different story. If she was developing serious problems THEN I'd feel guilty. I take responsibility for my actions and if it was from excessive weight that caused a serious illness, I'd really feel bad.

All depends on the situation Angel. I for one am only happy if the person i'm encouraging is happy too, when that changes then I change too.


----------



## Weeze (Aug 16, 2009)

Angel said:


> This question is for those identifying as a gainer or feedee.
> 
> If you began to develop health related problems or mobility problems, what would you do? Would there be any guilt or remorse?
> 
> Also, if you began to develop related health or mobility problems, what part or responsibility would you desire from those who have either encouraged you to gain, fed you, or who have actively participated in helping with your gaining?


 

To be honest, answering these questions seems pointless because everyone paying attention to this thread has already said that what i'm about to say is unlikely to actually happen... BUT...

I'm a feedee/half-ass gainer and if I get much bigger, and I start experiencing problems, I'll cut back. I have PCOS, so I already can't afford to get much bigger. I am monitoring myself. I AM paying attention to how my body feels. I'm a feedee, but i'm also a dancer. I'm teetering around 300 lbs, but I also throw my body around a room when I get stressed out and need a release. I'm not allowing myself to be a lazy bum who sits on her couch eating chips all day. My kink does not, does NOT, say anything about how I live my life. I indulge, but, they're indulgences that I am able to take away if I feel the need. How do I know i'll be able to? Because I've done it. When I need to get back in shape for one reason or another, I know how to do it. I know my body. I know what FEELS right. I feel like this thread is disregarding the feedee and their ability to make their own decisions, but, hell, what do I know?

When I find a feeder/encourager, I'm going to expect whoever it is to also be my PARTNER. I'm going to expect whoever it is to help me with what I would need as a loving PARTNER, NOT just because "they did it"... because I was a willing participant. I knew what I was doing, I knew the risks. My partner will have known all that too, so if I would run into problems, I would just expect them to act, and help as if any partner, feeder/encourager or not, would be expected to do.


----------



## Shosh (Aug 16, 2009)

krismiss said:


> To be honest, answering these questions seems pointless because everyone paying attention to this thread has already said that what i'm about to say is unlikely to actually happen... BUT...
> 
> I'm a feedee/half-ass gainer and if I get much bigger, and I start experiencing problems, I'll cut back. I have PCOS, so I already can't afford to get much bigger. I am monitoring myself. I AM paying attention to how my body feels. I'm a feedee, but i'm also a dancer. I'm teetering around 300 lbs, but I also throw my body around a room when I get stressed out and need a release. I'm not allowing myself to be a lazy bum who sits on her couch eating chips all day. My kink does not, does NOT, say anything about how I live my life. I indulge, but, they're indulgences that I am able to take away if I feel the need. How do I know i'll be able to? Because I've done it. When I need to get back in shape for one reason or another, I know how to do it. I know my body. I know what FEELS right. I feel like this thread is disregarding the feedee and their ability to make their own decisions, but, hell, what do I know?
> 
> When I find a feeder/encourager, I'm going to expect whoever it is to also be my PARTNER. I'm going to expect whoever it is to help me with what I would need as a loving PARTNER, NOT just because "they did it"... because I was a willing participant. I knew what I was doing, I knew the risks. My partner will have known all that too, so if I would run into problems, I would just expect them to act, and help as if any partner, feeder/encourager or not, would be expected to do.



So what are you saying, that your fellow feedees are lazy bums that sit on the couch eating chips all day?
They do not know how to control it if it gets out of control, but you do?


----------



## Carrie (Aug 16, 2009)

KHayes666 said:


> Now, if my friend had blown past 300 pounds and by 2012 was now *waddling around at 400 plus*, different story. If she was developing serious problems THEN I'd feel guilty. I take responsibility for my actions and if it was from excessive weight that caused a serious illness, I'd really feel bad.


Kevin, sometimes - no, frequently - I simply can't hear a single thing you say over the sound of you being a big, resounding jerk. "_Waddling_ around at 400 plus?" Really? Do you really not get that this is potentially offensive to many, many women around here? Holy hell, kid, know your audience, and think for five damn seconds before you hit the submit button. Please.


----------



## HugeFan (Aug 16, 2009)

Carrie said:


> Kevin, sometimes - no, frequently - I simply can't hear a single thing you say over the sound of you being a big, resounding jerk. "_Waddling_ around at 400 plus?" Really? Do you really not get that this is potentially offensive to many, many women around here? Holy hell, kid, know your audience, and think for five damn seconds before you hit the submit button. Please.



Hey Carrie, long time no see....try just to ignore him, or at least not pay him too much mind...he long ago proved himself a twit. A self-centered twit, but a twit all the same.

He does not speak for all the males of the species, by any means.


----------



## Weeze (Aug 16, 2009)

Susannah said:


> So what are you saying, that your fellow feedees are lazy bums that sit on the couch eating chips all day?
> They do not know how to control it if it gets out of control, but you do?



No.
That is not what I said at all. 

I thought you had me on ignore.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Aug 16, 2009)

Angel said:


> This question is for those identifying as a gainer or feedee.
> 
> If you began to develop health related problems or mobility problems, what would you do? Would there be any guilt or remorse?
> 
> Also, if you began to develop related health or mobility problems, what part or responsibility would you desire from those who have either encouraged you to gain, fed you, or who have actively participated in helping with your gaining?



I would do whatever anybody else would do. I would listen to the advice and options presented by my doctor, consult with my family, fill my prescriptions and follow the best course. No there would be no guilt or remorse because I don't feel as if am doing anything wrong. I am doing the best of what I am capable, period. Anybody who says otherwise doesn't know what the hell they are talking about and I don't care what they think. I've been staring down guilt and shame promoters for 40 years and have heard every horror story and seen every freak show you can imagine. In the end I have to find a healthy sane balance that works for ME and refuse to be intimidated. If it's not enough then it's not enough. I will neither be bullied by feeders nor well intended hand wringers.

As of those who feed me we will start with my mother. First I will tell her that thougth her fried chicken is nectar from the gods I will no longer be eating any at holiday gatherings. Not unless she's going to set some aside, remove the skin and lower the salt content. And I won't be eating any more of her delicious macaroni and cheese. (well, maybe just a smidge piece. If you don't think death via mom's macaroni & cheese is worth it you have never tasted it) But my health condition, stellar or poor, is not her fault.

You know it kills me how if I can live for 43 years without any pressing health setbacks I'm considered lucky, but as soon as something bad happens it's all my fault. Nobody has anything to say to me unless there's blame to be handed out and then people are lining up. Even here. Wow.


----------



## Ernie (Aug 16, 2009)

If a gal wants to be with a feeder, go ahead. If a gal doesn't want to be with a feeder, you better damn well respect her wishes! Its all choice!


----------



## Blackjack (Aug 16, 2009)

Susannah said:


> So what are you saying, that your fellow feedees are lazy bums that sit on the couch eating chips all day?
> They do not know how to control it if it gets out of control, but you do?



Congratulations on deliberately misinterpreting what she wrote.


----------



## HeatherBBW (Aug 16, 2009)

How many times do these threads have to go back and forth and over the same shit?

No one ever learns anything from them or wakes up on the other side of the fence. 

I personally feel that I just have to give up trying to explain MY sexuality and MY life choices.. but here I am once again.

1. I am fat, huge if you will. I got this fat on my OWN. I am not a feedee or a gainer. I'm sick of your labels. I'm just into being fat and being as huge as humanly (actually inhumanly) possible. Why? I've no stinking idea, I've been like that for as long as I can remember.

2. Do not think for a moment I don't understand that I may have health problems associated with my choice to be fatter then the human body was intended. I'm not a retard, I get it. But it's up to ME to make my own choices and not for you to judge them. 

3. Don't feel sorry for me because I'm too fat to walk down a short hallway or reach all my bits without the use of aids. It's my body, not yours. I take care of me, you take care of you. I take responsibility for my hygiene and my mobility. If that means buying things/hiring help to keep me comfortable, then I make sure I can afford those things.

4. Don't assume that I am the product of some evil feeder. My partner isn't a feeder or into weight gain.. at all. He amusingly comments that he likes prepackaged fat girls of all sizes when asked if he's a feeder. I actually go outside of my relationship and share this part of my sexuality with other partners. So if anything, I am the master planner here. No one else. 

5. If I were to have children, I would make sure I was able to love and care for them as much as any other parent. Being a bazillion pounds doesn't limit my ability to care and show love to a child. I won't be able to run after them, but I can scoot after them in my scooter and be just as fast. I would also make sure I was in a financial situation to hire a full-time mothers helper to do the physical things that I couldn't do. But don't think for a moment, that I can't be a good parent. 

I can go on and on here. I just touched on a few things that are commonly misunderstood (in my opinion) and things that triggered me from a few of the posts I've read.

That being said. Why can't we have a respectful open forum where people ask questions and people like myself can honestly answer them. So instead of assumptions being made and urban legends being created, you get the facts (which will differ from person to person) directly from us. I think you'll find we would be more willing to speak out (not that I have a problem with it, as you can see) and maybe give you a clearer insight as to why we are who we are. 

I seen that Ashley and a few others tried to put themselves out there, but instead of questions being asked this has just been a back and forth based on how you THINK those of us who engage in such fantasies actually live our lives or how we feel.


----------



## KHayes666 (Aug 16, 2009)

Carrie said:


> Kevin, sometimes - no, frequently - I simply can't hear a single thing you say over the sound of you being a big, resounding jerk. "_Waddling_ around at 400 plus?" Really? Do you really not get that this is potentially offensive to many, many women around here? Holy hell, kid, know your audience, and think for five damn seconds before you hit the submit button. Please.



Since when is waddling around a bad thing? I find it rather attractive. Hell there's a whole thread about it, should check it out.

I find it rather amusing that when I usually posts 4 paragraphs of my perspective everyone focuses on the offensive stuff rather than the actual topic.

I have a massive headache right now because I have gotten 4 hours of sleep in 3 days, in those 3 days I have moved 2 friends from one apartment to another in 90 degree humid weather and I'm stuck at work till 5:30. Right now I really am not in the mood to deal with anymore drama, fighting or trying to explain myself so I'll do everyone a favor and just take off.

Wish I knew how to multiquote because there's more I'd like to say but at this moment....Frank Lee Dongivadam


----------



## Wild Zero (Aug 16, 2009)

The canard of threads like this is the assumption that users with a history of intelligent discussion have the reasoning ability of a toddler when it comes to what gets them off.


----------



## Shosh (Aug 16, 2009)

Heather this thread was not started by anybody who opposes feederism. The matter had been laid to rest, and had been pretty quiet until someone into this fetish opened the topic up for discussion again.


----------



## Angel (Aug 16, 2009)

KHayes666 said:


> Since when is waddling around a bad thing? I find it rather attractive.



I've always associated waddling with the movements a duck makes when walking.

As a child I had to wear corrective shoes and a brace. They forced my ankles apart and forced my feet to turn outwards. (Place your hands in your field of vision and then position the extended fingers in an angel wings position; or like you would if trying to cast shadow of a bird wings. Band camp, anyone? LOL) 

Now, almost 40 years later, after walking in snow my foot prints still look like a webless duck walked through the snow. 


Everyone notices a 500 pound woman walking into a room, or walking anywhere for that matter. My size and height draw enough attention. I still try to sit like a lady and walk like a lady as not to draw any negative attention to myself. I try to walk quietly and be somewhat feminine when doing so. Wipe the images of a brute lumberjack from your mind. 


Sometimes when you're the fattest kid you get made fun of. One of the favorites among tormentors is, "you're so fat you waddle like a duck". Just the word waddling can bring back the negative memories. The waddling movements of a duck don't really appear to be feminine either. 


Waddling may be a term of endearment to you. Usually terms of endearment are best saved for more intimate or private settings. 


Although this is a fat positive site or fat acceptance site, most of us would still like to be viewed as "normal" women (normal being a relative term); and even here not always reminded of how different our walking or ambulatory movments may be. 


Just my thoughs.


----------



## Angel (Aug 16, 2009)

Wild Zero said:


> The canard of threads like this is the assumption that users with a history of intelligent discussion have the reasoning ability of a toddler when it comes to what gets them off.




Dissecting that complicated sentence. 

Was your train of thought more aptly what gets *others* off rather than what gets *them* off ?


----------



## LoveBHMS (Aug 16, 2009)

Humans are sexual beings. The pursuit of sexual gratification is a strong drive, a very strong one.

There are those with amputation fetishes, not for others but for themselves. There was a whole documentary on people who actually sought out doctors willing to remove healthy limbs because the fetishists so strongly believed they were meant to have only one arm or leg. For sure any number of accident victims or others who'd lost a limb unwillingly thought they were crazy, but that likely never budged them. The satisfaction and sense of well being that would come from having an arm removed outweighed any negative. 

There are often news items regarding pedophiles where you'll read that they beg for either the death penalty or chemical castration. The smartest and most self aware of them _know_ they're going to do it again. They know it because they understand the drive to satisfy their sexuality is so strong they'll do it despite the legal and moral implications.

It used to be that gays were routinely not hired for high level government jobs because it was feared they could be the subject of blackmail. Why? Because when homosexuality was not as accepted as it is now, it was understood gays and lesbians would seek gratification through other means, whether using prostitutes or illicit affairs or furtive encounters at truck stops. But it was a given that they'd find a way to engage in gay sex for the simple fact that they were gay and needed sexual release as most humans do.

It's called a sex drive, not a sex whim, choice, or hobby.


----------



## Carrie (Aug 16, 2009)

KHayes666 said:


> Since when is waddling around a bad thing? I find it rather attractive. Hell there's a whole thread about it, should check it out.


Waddling isn't inherently a bad thing. But the way you've used it, "waddling around at 400 plus", and yes, the fact that it was you who used it, and in the context of what you've posted here and elsewhere, it felt bad to me. It sounds like you're describing a comical character from a children's book whose movements are accompanied by tuba music, rather than a real person. A caricature. Is there _any_ chance you get that? 


KHayes666 said:


> I find it rather amusing that when I usually posts 4 paragraphs of my perspective everyone focuses on the offensive stuff rather than the actual topic.


Hi! Welcome to exactly my point.


----------



## Weeze (Aug 16, 2009)

Susannah said:


> Heather this thread was not started by anybody who opposes feederism. The matter had been laid to rest, and had been pretty quiet until someone into this fetish opened the topic up for discussion again.



When exactly was it quiet? How was it laid to rest? It wasn't. 
Instead what I think you're calling "laid to rest" is all of us giving up reasoning and either not reading this thread or sitting back, reading and feeling bad about ourselves.
This thread has damaged how some people feel about themselves and their preferences... I feel indirectly ganged up on, and I know that I'm not the only one.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Aug 16, 2009)

I'm curious about something. All of you fat NONfeedees out there, how did you get fat? Why are you fat? Was it deliberate? An accident? Do you have an eating disorder? What are your core beliefs about fat people who are larger than you and how they got that way? Please be honest.


----------



## Tina (Aug 16, 2009)

I've been fat practically since birth. For me it's hereditary. I believe that those of us who were meant to be fat have a genetic switch just waiting to be flipped. My son was skinny -- not just thin, but skinny -- and then he was diagnosed with asthma and put on steroids. From that time on (when I believe his own genetic switch for fatness was flipped) he was chubby and then fat, no matter that he didn't eat differently and was just as active, if not moreso. I also believe I have some sort of eating disorder.

I don't feel any certain way about those who are bigger than I, unless their weight seems to cause them pain and difficulty, and then I can empathize with them. I also empathize with them if they seem to also like their body and do the cute little things that many of us do, which is to put our hands under our stomach fold to keep them warm or rest them on our bellies, etc. There are many things I can empathize with when it comes to those who are larger, smaller and the same size as I -- positive and negative. I have no desire to grow larger, though, as I know that if I get much larger I will likely be pretty much immobile, and I have no desire for that.

What is your purpose in this, Lilly?


----------



## LillyBBBW (Aug 16, 2009)

Tina said:


> I've been fat practically since birth. For me it's hereditary. I believe that those of us who were meant to be fat have a genetic switch just waiting to be flipped. My son was skinny -- not just thin, but skinny -- and then he was diagnosed with asthma and put on steroids. From that time on (when I believe his own genetic switch for fatness was flipped) he was chubby and then fat, no matter that he didn't eat differently and was just as active, if not moreso. I also believe I have some sort of eating disorder.
> 
> I don't feel any certain way about those who are bigger than I, unless their weight seems to cause them pain and difficulty, and then I can empathize with them. I also empathize with them if they seem to also like their body and do the cute little things that many of us do, which is to put our hands under our stomach fold to keep them warm or rest them on our bellies, etc. There are many things I can empathize with when it comes to those who are larger, smaller and the same size as I -- positive and negative. I have no desire to grow larger, though, as I know that if I get much larger I will likely be pretty much immobile, and I have no desire for that.
> 
> What is your purpose in this, Lilly?



Speaking for myself I have a tendency to assume that our experiences as fat women are the same or similar but that sometimes isn't the case. Just looking for a little perspective is all which may or may not mean anything. It's not a judgement call, I just think it's helpful to get a clearer understanding for where each of us are coming from.


----------



## katorade (Aug 16, 2009)

LoveBHMS said:


> Humans are sexual beings. The pursuit of sexual gratification is a strong drive, a very strong one.
> 
> There are those with amputation fetishes, not for others but for themselves. There was a whole documentary on people who actually sought out doctors willing to remove healthy limbs because the fetishists so strongly believed they were meant to have only one arm or leg. For sure any number of accident victims or others who'd lost a limb unwillingly thought they were crazy, but that likely never budged them. The satisfaction and sense of well being that would come from having an arm removed outweighed any negative.
> 
> ...



Now who's being offensive? Be really careful with your choice of comparisons.

Apotemnophilia (and body integrity identity disorder) and Pedophilia are considered neurological and mental DISORDERS, not merely sexual PREFERENCES.


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy (Aug 16, 2009)

LillyBBBW said:


> I'm curious about something. All of you fat NONfeedees out there, how did you get fat? Why are you fat? Was it deliberate? An accident? Do you have an eating disorder? What are your core beliefs about fat people who are larger than you and how they got that way? Please be honest.




I'll bite..

I got fat: from eating more calories than my body needs. Sometimes it's eating too much of something or eating the "wrong type of foods". I should eat more fruits and veggies....


Yes I do have an eating disorder. I am a compulsive over eater and also consider myself a food addict. I have attended OA and talked with a counselor about my eating disorder (among my many other issues). 

After years of self abuse with overeating and dieting....my metabolism has rebelled and I realized that I will always be some level of fat no matter what I do. 

I don't always "take care" of myself as I should....and have been known to mistreat myself in many ways. I have been working hard on my eating disorder these past few years....and feel like I am approaching "recovery" finally. 
Like any other addict, once an addict always an addict....but some make it out okay. I want to be one of those.......

I am fat because: See above and....I suspect that on some level that fat is a safety net for me. I just feel more empowered and safer when my weight is up. I also don't get as cold as easily. 
I won't get into a long discussion of why I feel this way- I have discussed it in other threads before though. 


What are your core beliefs about fat people who are larger than you and how they got that way? Please be honest.

Hmmm.....I think it's a mixed bag really. Some people have just "always been fat". I see them say it here...and I have seen it out in reality myself. Some people truly seem to have been meant to be fat from the beginning. Whether it's heredity, eating habits established in the home, some kind of metabolic thing, lifestyle, etc....I don't really know. Why would I spend too much time thinking about it? I got a bagfull of my own shit to carry around. If someone wants to tell me the"why they are fat" then that's cool with me. If they don't want to talk about it, then that's just as groovy. 

I don't really have a "core belief" about it.....just realize that I could be just as fat as anyone bigger than myself. I tend to think that I am not, though, because part of my eating disorder was compulsive urges to diet a lot. My weight has been a very up and down roller coaster for most of my life. I can lose 80 lbs then gain back 30 quickly. 

I have seen plenty of other people like me out in the world. One day pretty fat and then run into them again later, they are quite thin. Next time they have put on a great deal of weight again. That's me......just how it has been. *shrugs*

As part of my recovery, stepping off the diet roller coaster was very important because my core belief of the dieting was self loathing/hatred of myself not just on the outside but the inside, as well. I have gained quite a bit of weight since I stopped. My mental health/well being are more important than being thin. 

I don't think anything "negative" about people bigger....or smaller...than myself. I like to think we kind of understand each other......no matter what our sizes are....because a fatty out in the world is a fatty, period. 

I have been working on my physical health lately.....and feel like any limitations I put on my food intake now are for the right reasons.....not because I hate myself or someone else thinks I should. This step in my recovery....it's harder than the being fat part for me.....because I have to assess every thing I do now. Whether it's the why of how I ended up at Taco Bell at midnight because someone upset me or if I am not eating dinner because I am simply not hungry or if I am abusing myself again.


I agreed with LOVES opening post in this thread. If two people are happy, then que sra sra. That being said, I will fully admit to not having any real empathy for a person that feeds THEMSELVES up to a size of immobility and then is amazed at how badly their life sucks from it. It's just a no-brainer sort of thing for me......like DUH. :doh: 
I stress the THEMSELVES as in if you let someone do it to you and said to the devil with the consequences, then they accepted their fate beforehand.

If someone tells me that they love weighing XYZ, I won't argue that either. Some people might be happy. I'm not one of them....but I accept that everyone is not me and has their own preferences/desires/outlooks/beliefs. I strive to co-exist. 

I like some things sexually that people might balk at....I just lightly touched upon some of them in one of my erotic stories in the library. One of the first comments was about how certain parts bothered some guy. I chuckled a little to myself because, in my mind's eye, I had kept it "quite vanilla". I want more......oh so much more....than I have ever said in public for an audience to read in seriousness. 
What if I liked being choked during sex? (not saying that I do but let's use this as an example) I know that practice is dangerous....that it could lead to death. Sure, there are "safeguards" to be put into place: experienced, smart, caring partner that knows when to say when, hand signals or signs for enough is enough, time limitations, etc. but I KNOW THERE IS A RISK. 
Pretend that I get choked often and love the hell out of it. Say that I do it with the same guy over and over that knows me and my body well. Also say that one day it's too much and I'm dead. Do you feel sorry for me? 
Hmmmm...some people might feel sorry for me. Some might feel sorry that my sexual desire killed me. Some might feel it's a waste. Some might think I had it coming. Some might think I lost control and went too far. 

What difference does it make? *I* made the decision to do what I do.....and it's my place alone to take the bad with the good. 

What if I one day decided that I didn't want to get choked anymore? Decided it's too dangerous? That I shouldn't be risking my well being for sexual pleasure because my children need me? and my partner got angry/hurt that I wouldn't do it with him anymore? 

It's still MY decision.....and no one else's fault. 

This is from the woman that has had nothing but abusive, controlling relationships. I own my shit. 

Just how I see it.......so I don't judge. I also don't feel sorry for. I also don't tell others what to do or how to live their lives.

Most of my balking at anything to do with feederism/gaining has already been mentioned. Sometimes, it seems so EXPECTED. I want to be ACCEPTED....not EXPECTED to do things I say I'm not into. That being said, that's not everyone's fault that is into feederism. I have talked to plenty of guys from Dims....some are not even feeders but admit to loving seeing someone gain. That's okay....they help me feel better if I gained a lot and they tell me they love how I look. I just want to know that I am still liked for myself if I don't gain anymore....or dare I say...even lost some? That's more of a generalized beef though and not really an issue or judgment of feederism, IMO.


I shall say it again: I'm a simple kind of gal.


----------



## Shosh (Aug 16, 2009)

Excellant post GEF. I will rep you as soon as I can. I identify with much of what you have written. I currently attend OA, because I am a food addict.


----------



## TraciJo67 (Aug 16, 2009)

Green Eyed Fairy said:


> I agreed with LOVES opening post in this thread. If two people are happy, then que sra sra. That being said, I will fully admit to not having any real empathy for a person that feeds THEMSELVES up to a size of immobility and then is amazed at how badly their life sucks from it. It's just a no-brainer sort of thing for me......like DUH. :doh:
> I stress the THEMSELVES as in if you let someone do it to you and said to the devil with the consequences, then they accepted their fate beforehand.



Loved your post, GEF, and agreed with most of it. Just highlighting the area that I'm having trouble accepting, based only on my own experience (which actually is quite similar to yours, based on how you've described your disordered eating and the feast or famine cycles that you put yourself through). 

Speaking for myself only, I knew that going to McDonalds after a stressful day of work, ordering a supervalu meal and eating it on the way home ... just prior to fixing and eating another meal with my husband ... was not the healthiest choice for my body. Somewhere in the back of my mind, I knew that continuing to make these choices could have negative consequences to my health. I knew it in a distant kind of way, the same way that I'm convinced most smokers know that smoking causes cancer but they don't believe that *they* will get cancer coz it always happens to the other guy. I don't see that as any different, really, than if my husband were sitting in bed with me and feeding that gigantic meal to me, complete with cheesecake and a thick milkshake. My body certainly doesn't recognize the difference. I don't like to pick and choose who I can empathize with, based on choices that people make. If I see someone hurting, I don't question how he/she got to such a high weight. I know what it feels like to live with pain in the bottom of my feet, knees, lower & upper back, to feel my joints creak as I tried walking a city block without letting my more able-bodied companions know that I was having a hard time keeping up with them. I've also met so many wonderful women who participate at Dims (not personally, which I regret) and some stories I know, some I do not. What is clear to me, though, is that they are just simply ... amazing women, smart and accomplished and funny and genuinely decent people who happen to be fat or very fat.


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy (Aug 16, 2009)

TraciJo67 said:


> Loved your post, GEF, and agreed with most of it. Just highlighting the area that I'm having trouble accepting, based only on my own experience (which actually is quite similar to yours, based on how you've described your disordered eating and the feast or famine cycles that you put yourself through).
> 
> Speaking for myself only, I knew that going to McDonalds after a stressful day of work, ordering a supervalu meal and eating it on the way home ... just prior to fixing and eating another meal with my husband ... was not the healthiest choice for my body. Somewhere in the back of my mind, I knew that continuing to make these choices could have negative consequences to my health. I knew it in a distant kind of way, the same way that I'm convinced most smokers know that smoking causes cancer but they don't believe that *they* will get cancer coz it always happens to the other guy. I don't see that as any different, really, than if my husband were sitting in bed with me and feeding that gigantic meal to me, complete with cheesecake and a thick milkshake. My body certainly doesn't recognize the difference. I don't like to pick and choose who I can empathize with, based on choices that people make. If I see someone hurting, I don't question how he/she got to such a high weight. I know what it feels like to live with pain in the bottom of my feet, knees, lower & upper back, to feel my joints creak as I tried walking a city block without letting my more able-bodied companions know that I was having a hard time keeping up with them. I've also met so many wonderful women who participate at Dims (not personally, which I regret) and some stories I know, some I do not. What is clear to me, though, is that they are just simply ... amazing women, smart and accomplished and funny and genuinely decent people who happen to be fat or very fat.




You make a very good point......but....do those women WANT people to feel sorry for them? I don't see a lack of empathy as a judgment but more of an acceptance of another person's will. 

I don't want anyone to feel sorry for me....it's not always a good thing really....nor does it help me. I just want to be accepted for however I am/choose to be. 

I don't know......I feel like not feeling sorry for another person's choices is giving them what they want and respecting them as another human being.

What if someone asked me for my help? Would I give it? Sure.....but would I want to go and "fix" them and make them "change" into someone they don't want to be? No....who really wants to be changed or fixed or felt sorry for? People make those kinds of decisions on their own....there is nothing really for the rest of us to do other than offer kindness, understanding, help in whatever ways we are comfortable helping. 
If someone is not happy where they are at, they will change it themselves. If they need help, then they should ask for it. I see doing it any other way as forcing my own will/desires onto them.


However, this whole input assumes that someone NEEDS to change....not everyone feels like they do. Some people are happy exactly how they are....and resent "interference"...no matter how well meaning it is.


Part of my eating disorder is pure and simple stubborness. I don't like the world telling me what I should weigh. I don't like my parents telling me what I should weigh. I don't like coming here and being told I don't weigh enough. Have I sometimes hurt myself with my stubborn mule ways? Sure....but they're MY ways, my decisions about my own life. I can understand that stubborn desire when I see it in other people.


----------



## Fascinita (Aug 16, 2009)

LoveBHMS said:


> There are often news items regarding pedophiles where you'll read that they beg for either the death penalty or chemical castration. The smartest and most self aware of them _know_ they're going to do it again. They know it because they understand the drive to satisfy their sexuality is so strong they'll do it despite the legal and moral implications.



I'll just point out--in a bratty sort of way (because everybody's doing it and it's the latest rage)--that you got upset with me for mentioning serial killers to take apart the argument on hardwired sexuality. Now you're using the pedophile example to defend your position.


----------



## TraciJo67 (Aug 16, 2009)

Green Eyed Fairy said:


> You make a very good point......but....do those women WANT people to feel sorry for them? I don't see a lack of empathy as a judgment but more of an acceptance of another person's will.
> 
> I don't want anyone to feel sorry for me....it's not always a good thing really....nor does it help me. I just want to be accepted for however I am/choose to be.
> 
> ...



GEF, I don't equate empathy with pity. To me, empathy is just an acknowledgement of a shared experience. No judgment or call to "fix" another human being.

Aside from that, as usual, I agree with you


----------



## Fuzzy Necromancer (Aug 16, 2009)

Green Eyed Fairy said:


> I shall say it again: I'm a simple kind of gal.


There's no such thing. I think the nuance and complexity of your post proves that last line a falsehood.


----------



## KHayes666 (Aug 16, 2009)

Carrie said:


> It sounds like you're describing a comical character from a children's book whose movements are accompanied by tuba music, rather than a real person..



Even though I get your point and am sorry for how I came across......that's still funny.

Tuba music is always funny.


----------



## Ernie (Aug 16, 2009)

HeatherBBW said:


> How many times do these threads have to go back and forth and over the same shit?
> 
> No one ever learns anything from them or wakes up on the other side of the fence.
> 
> ...



Damn, straight on and very frank. I like that!


----------



## Tooz (Aug 17, 2009)

I hate tuba music for that exact reason, actually.


----------



## mergirl (Aug 17, 2009)

LillyBBBW said:


> Honestly there is nothing really that a feedee is doing that is more intensive than what the average person does. Feedees are not endowed with magical powers that enable them to eat more than the average person. While what an average person does might be spur of the moment compulsion, a feedees indulgences are controlled and premeditated but don't go much beyond the scope of their natural abilities. The irony of feederism for me is that since I decided to embrace this part of myself and became one I've stopped gaining. I swear on a stack of bibles it's true. I weigh six pounds less than I did a year ago in fact. I've been teetering at the same weight for three years straight, something I've never experienced before in my life. Possibly it's just a coincidence but fascinating none the less. Also I notice other feedees for all their braggadocio don't generally gain quickly either unless they are supplementing with shakes. There is only so long I can do that though before the mere thought of a shake makes me barf, can't say for anyone else. There are no studies on this obviously but I am theorizing that nobody is gaining anything that they would not have gained anyway if they were not in to this kink. Not unless they were supplementing. As soon as the supplementation stops the excess weight comes off.


I find that really interesting. It sort of lays to rest the idea that people can just feed themselves or others to infinity. It does seem that people have a sort of 'mean' weight, unless, like you say they really force their gain. Maby you lost weight once you decided to embrace your fantasy was because then your body relaxed and realised you were going to feed it anyway so decided it didn't need as much fat storage. Kinna ironic story there though being a feedee and all! 



cheekyjez said:


> One way of dealing with that is community policing - on the occassions when someone does something horrific - say a feeder pushes his/her partner into gaining to immobility and then leaves them because they can't be bothered to take care of them, it's crucial to let other gainers know so that they can avoid the bad feeder.


Does this actually happen? I have never heard of anyone saying "oh he/ she is a bad feeder, you better watch them". The only time i have heard this was on the documentary "Fat girls and feeders"  AAAaaparently the 'feeder' was a high up member of naafa and left someone imobile. The funny thing was the woman was over 500lbs before she met him and i was kinna thinking to myself "Well he didn't really need to be much of a feeder really.. he could have fed the woman a pea and pretty much she would still have been really fat" If i'm honest what i thought was that this woman is looking for someone to blame now that her either eating or fantasy or ego has gotten out of control. Psychologically people go to any extent sometimes to avoid self blame. Like.. hmm i think Lilly says later ..sometimes relationships just end because people fall out of love or whatever. How do we know as a community the reasons someone left someone else?.



LillyBBBW said:


> "Wonkipuss Ewok" !!


I vote this is the new name of feedeeism. 



katorade said:


> This. A million times over, this. Wish I could rep you, but I can't. Marry me instead?


Seconded. I thought TJ's post was amazing..reppped her too. 



KHayes666 said:


> Now, if my friend had blown past 300 pounds and by 2012 was now waddling around at 400 plus, different story. If she was developing serious problems THEN I'd feel guilty. I take responsibility for my actions and if it was from excessive weight that caused a serious illness, I'd really feel bad.
> 
> All depends on the situation Angel. I for one am only happy if the person i'm encouraging is happy too, when that changes then I change too.


I was wondering what you ment by take responsibility? Also, if you saw that a partner was getting fat to the point that her health/mobility/happieness was compromised and she wasn't doing anything about it, would you insist that she did? Try to make her lose weight or at least to stop gaining?



HeatherBBW said:


> How many times do these threads have to go back and forth and over the same shit?
> 
> No one ever learns anything from them or wakes up on the other side of the fence.
> 
> I personally feel that I just have to give up trying to explain MY sexuality and MY life choices.. but here I am once again.


I disagree. I came to this forum with my only knowledge of feeders comming from kinna creepy guys from dims chat about 8 years ago and from some shitty one sided documentary, which painted feeders pretty much as evil manipulators of stupid desperate and vulnerable woman. Reading posts like this has informed me that this is very far from the truth. To be honest, i knew from watching, that the documentary MUST have been one sided, but unfortuanately it was the only side presented. I know a couple of people i have introduced to dimensions who also had simmilar views of feeders to the ones portrayed in that rediculous documentary and because people have explained their sexuality their views have been changed. Don't underestimate the power of teaching people.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Aug 17, 2009)

mergirl said:


> Does this actually happen? I have never heard of anyone saying "oh he/ she is a bad feeder, you better watch them". The only time i have heard this was on the documentary "Fat girls and feeders"  AAAaaparently the 'feeder' was a high up member of naafa and left someone imobile. The funny thing was the woman was over 500lbs before she met him and i was kinna thinking to myself "Well he didn't really need to be much of a feeder really.. he could have fed the woman a pea and pretty much she would still have been really fat" If i'm honest what i thought was that this woman is looking for someone to blame now that her either eating or fantasy or ego has gotten out of control. Psychologically people go to any extent sometimes to avoid self blame. Like.. hmm i think Lilly says later ..sometimes relationships just end because people fall out of love or whatever. How do we know as a community the reasons someone left someone else?.



I am actually haunted by a story very similar to this. As a disclaimer let me just say that I am always very skittish about meeting people. When people say something bad about a person I've met for the first time there are dueling parts of me where one wants to flee for my life and the other wants to take it worth a grain of salt. I tend to err on the side of caution which maybe once or twice has been my downfall, maybe even more often than that. 

But anyway, I was dancing with a guy at a dance. We were having a good time. We separated for a moment and a good friend came to me and told me about how he was talking to a friend of hers without mentioning names. She knew he was a feeder and was game to play but come the big day and she just didn't feel like it. I don't know, she was full, stomach issue, whatever. She decided to let him pick her up and take her out anyway and when the guy found out she wasn't going to play he got really upset. He excused himself from the room like he was going to be right back but abandoned her and just left her in the hotel room. And she was somewhat mobility impaired so she needed to call someone to help her. I was horrified when I heard that story.

Of course when he returned to my table I couldn't say, "Hey, my friend Gladys over there just told me bla bla bla," because that's betraying a confidence. He seemed nice enough but I'm sure that lady left at the hotel thought so too. Me and that guy's little communion petered out of course but yeah, word does get around. My separation story was small potatoes though. In the bigger pictures about guys leaving a woman immobile I'm betting that a lot of the time they separate for the same reason any other couple separates. Friends and loved ones will tell a story according to the way they feel about it even though the issues may be much more complex. I've witnessed that first hand. But I still like the idea of a Batman sign to warn of bad feeders.


----------



## LoveBHMS (Aug 17, 2009)

Lilly, I'm going to spin this line of thinking off a bit. As I've said throughout, feeding is a sexual matter, a variant on human sexuality for some.

Feeding, gaining, stuffing, or fantasizing about those things are part, or even the whole of some people's sexuality. When some seek sexual gratification, those things must be an element.

Let's take that story and make it about a heterosexual male who is seeking to get laid. He wants to get off by having intercourse with a female. He arranges a date, and when he calls to confirm the time, the woman says she's on her period. As his only aim was to have vanilla sexual intercourse for the purpose of sexual gratification, he no longer wishes to see her. He's not interested in her as a person, does not wish to spend time with her, is not interested in engaging in shared hobbies or enjoying a movie or tennis game together. He just wanted the sex. He stands her up, since he now can't fuck her. She is left sad, alone, embarassed, and self esteem hurt.

To me, the above described man is the same as the man you encountered. I don't think it's worse because feederism was involved.


----------



## mergirl (Aug 17, 2009)

LillyBBBW said:


> But I still like the idea of a Batman sign to warn of bad feeders.


If we are going to make this happen, i suggest a belly with wings!


----------



## TraciJo67 (Aug 17, 2009)

LoveBHMS said:


> Lilly, I'm going to spin this line of thinking off a bit. As I've said throughout, feeding is a sexual matter, a variant on human sexuality for some.
> 
> Feeding, gaining, stuffing, or fantasizing about those things are part, or even the whole of some people's sexuality. When some seek sexual gratification, those things must be an element.
> 
> ...



??!?!?!?!?! 

This reads like you're trying to justify an action that was altogether unjustifiable. Despicable, even. It is obvious, painfully so, that the guy you've described is every bit as cretin-ish as the jerk who left what he apparently viewed as an object whose only particular value was to satisfy his own lust. Obvious to the point, actually, where I'm left scratching my head and wondering just what it is that you're justifying.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Aug 17, 2009)

LoveBHMS said:


> Lilly, I'm going to spin this line of thinking off a bit. As I've said throughout, feeding is a sexual matter, a variant on human sexuality for some.
> 
> Feeding, gaining, stuffing, or fantasizing about those things are part, or even the whole of some people's sexuality. When some seek sexual gratification, those things must be an element.
> 
> ...



Yes but he _left her_ there. I mean, I can understand all of that. He may have been angry, disappointed, frightened - I don't know and I don't care. He abandoned a physically compromised woman miles away from her home knowng she had no means to leave. Fess up and say you've changed your mind. It really is okay to change your mind. She did. Since the premise had changed why not just chew her out and say, "You shoulda told me!" or, "I'm sorry madame but you mistook my intent." But to just leave her there? I had a hard time rolling that over in my mind.


----------



## TraciJo67 (Aug 17, 2009)

LillyBBBW said:


> Yes but he _left her_ there. I mean, I can understand all of that. He may have been angry, disappointed, frightened - I don't know and I don't care. He abandoned a phycially compromised woman miles away from her home knowng she had no means to leave. Fess up and say you've changed your mind. It really is okay to change your mind. She did. Since the premise had changed why not just chew her out and say, "You shoulda told me!" or, "I'm sorry madame but you mistook my intent." But to just leave her there? I had a hard time rolling that over in my mind.



Damn it, Lilly, he had a sexual need and she couldn't or wouldn't fill it. Case closed


----------



## LillyBBBW (Aug 17, 2009)

mergirl said:


> If we are going to make this happen, i suggest a belly with wings!



With the red circle slash through it. Or a turkey leg with crossed bones underneath.


----------



## mergirl (Aug 17, 2009)

LoveBHMS said:


> Lilly, I'm going to spin this line of thinking off a bit. As I've said throughout, feeding is a sexual matter, a variant on human sexuality for some.
> 
> Feeding, gaining, stuffing, or fantasizing about those things are part, or even the whole of some people's sexuality. When some seek sexual gratification, those things must be an element.
> 
> ...


Cause someone with thier period (even if they are crampy) can get up n out and go to their friends and have a cry and drink some gin. In Lilly's story the woman had mobility issues, so was really actually abandoned in more than just one way. 
You would think though, that the fact that feeders on here are always saying how rare feedees /people willing to participate in feeding role play are you would think he would have contained his evilness, took her home and met up had a wank and a cry and just went out with her again when she felt better.


----------



## mergirl (Aug 17, 2009)

LillyBBBW said:


> With the red circle slash through it. Or a turkey leg with crossed bones underneath.


ooh yeah.. the turkey leg one is good. Its like foody piratey! I'm also thinking a man twirling a moustache with a carton of cream in one hand and a gun in the other.


----------



## LoveBHMS (Aug 17, 2009)

No no no.

What i am saying is....either way, there was a man whose only agenda was sexual gratification. A selfish and dishonest person seeking gratification through feeding...is he different from a selfish and dishonest person seeking gratification through sexual intercourse.


----------



## mergirl (Aug 17, 2009)

LoveBHMS said:


> No no no.
> 
> What i am saying is....either way, there was a man whose only agenda was sexual gratification. A selfish and dishonest person seeking gratification through feeding...is he different from a selfish and dishonest person seeking gratification through sexual intercourse.


Ahh ok.. i get you. An arsehole is an arsehole no mattter what his persuit is.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Aug 17, 2009)

mergirl said:


> Cause someone with thier period (even if they are crampy) can get up n out and go to their friends and have a cry and drink some gin. In Lilly's story the woman had mobility issues, so was really actually abandoned in more than just one way.
> You would think though, that the fact that feeders on here are always saying how rare feedees /people willing to participate in feeding role play are you would think he would have contained his evilness, took her home and met up had a wank and a cry and just went out with her again when she felt better.



Yes. I mean, his attitude just said to me that this was a guy who has unrealistic expectations when it comes to such things. Okay so the night was a dud. If the woman was an ok chick to begin with then why not just open the a bottle of sparkling cider and turn on the Sci Fi channel? Leave the Dorito bag open on the counter for just in case. In any event it spelled 'Loser' even if his intentions toward me were sincere. What he did just wasn't nice.


----------



## mergirl (Aug 17, 2009)

mergirl said:


> Ahh ok.. i get you. An arsehole is an arsehole no mattter what his persuit is.


erm or 'hers'. *trying not to be sexist here*. 
Hmm.. which is a point.
Before i reached a bit of a better understanding of feeders/feedees and i had actually talked to a few decent ones who were not..well arseholes.. i always though of feeders as males. Infact when women said they were feeders i kinna thought "Aww..how mothering, trying to make your bf all chubby..thats quite cute" ..Then when i thought of guys i imagined someone with a feeding tube in one hand and a hacksaw in the other.... well not really..but somehow the idea of a female feeder seems/seemed less threatening somehow. Now i know the truth i realise you are all equally evil!!!! 
I wonder why that is though??


----------



## LillyBBBW (Aug 17, 2009)

mergirl said:


> ooh yeah.. the turkey leg one is good. Its like foody piratey! I'm also thinking a man twirling a moustache with a carton of cream in one hand and a gun in the other.



OK, that one actually made me laugh out loud and now I have to go pee. Good description of the food pirate!


----------



## mergirl (Aug 17, 2009)

LillyBBBW said:


> why not just open a bottle of sparkling cider and turn on the Sci Fi channel? .



See, who in their right MIND would turn that down!!!!! THAT, is a date!!!


----------



## LillyBBBW (Aug 17, 2009)

mergirl said:


> erm or 'hers'. *trying not to be sexist here*.
> Hmm.. which is a point.
> Before i reached a bit of a better understanding of feeders/feedees and i had actually talked to a few decent ones who were not..well arseholes.. i always though of feeders as males. Infact when women said they were feeders i kinna thought "Aww..how mothering, trying to make your bf all chubby..thats quite cute" ..Then when i thought of guys i imagined someone with a feeding tube in one hand and a hacksaw in the other.... well not really..but somehow the idea of a female feeder seems/seemed less threatening somehow. Now i know the truth i realise you are all equally evil!!!!
> I wonder why that is though??



I think it gets back to that same subject that always has the female feedees hopping up and down around here. Somehow the stories you hear, similar to the one I posted, is always of a female being vulnerable and defenseless. People don't generally think in those terms when the gender roles are reversed though certainly anything is possible. That would be my guess. Again, these people are usually fcuked up, period. The fact that feederism is their kink is immaterial so in that I agree with LovesBHMS.


----------



## LoveBHMS (Aug 17, 2009)

LillyBBBW said:


> Yes. I mean, his attitude just said to me that this was a guy who has unrealistic expectations when it comes to such things. Okay so the night was a dud. If the woman was an ok chick to begin with then why not just open the a bottle of sparkling cider and turn on the Sci Fi channel? Leave the Dorito bag open on the counter for just in case. In any event it spelled 'Loser' even if his intentions toward me were sincere. What he did just wasn't nice.



See that is what I mean about sex. His intentions were not to find a friend or date or girlfriend, but just a partner to fulfill his needs. Same as a man who found the woman with her period; he didn't turn on the tv or offer to share sparkling cider because he had no interest in her beyond sex.

I won't even pass judgement and say asshole. Just say "wanted feeding and if no feeding took place, leave" is the same as "wanted intercourse and if that can't take place, leave."


----------



## TraciJo67 (Aug 17, 2009)

LoveBHMS said:


> No no no.
> 
> What i am saying is....either way, there was a man whose only agenda was sexual gratification. A selfish and dishonest person seeking gratification through feeding...is he different from a selfish and dishonest person seeking gratification through sexual intercourse.



No. But I think that is patently obvious.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Aug 17, 2009)

LoveBHMS said:


> See that is what I mean about sex. His intentions were not to find a friend or date or girlfriend, but just a partner to fulfill his needs. Same as a man who found the woman with her period; he didn't turn on the tv or offer to share sparkling cider because he had no interest in her beyond sex.
> 
> I won't even pass judgement and say asshole. Just say "wanted feeding and if no feeding took place, leave" is the same as "wanted intercourse and if that can't take place, leave."



The element of her lack of mobility adds a bit of a feindish quality to it though. This clod had to have known. He lied and said he would be right back. I'm the type who tries to see if maybe there could be a logical explanation even if far fetched. I've since seen that this guy has a personal add in a place or two and it really goes out of the way to declare that he is a feeder. He's pretty up front and unapologetic about it and says he's looking for someone who is in to it. Maybe he and she met through one of those adds. I'm aware of the amount of scammers online who say they're a woman but turn out to be a man. Or the woman claims to be a feedee and talks a good game but is in it for monetary reasons or some other such thing. There is much paranoia among the jet setters in this community who are always fearful that what they are being told is too good to be true and they're being lead on. Maybe he felt he was being trifled with. Be that as it may, there is just no excuse for leaving that woman at the hotel like that. Take her home for goodness' sake. I agree with everything you say basically except in the case of this guy.


----------



## bdog (Aug 17, 2009)

LillyBBBW said:


> The element of her lack of mobility adds a bit of a feindish quality to it though. This clod had to have known. He lied and said he would be right back. I'm the type who tries to see if maybe there could be a logical explanation even if far fetched. I've since seen that this guy has a personal add in a place or two and it really goes out of the way to declare that he is a feeder. He's pretty up front and unapologetic about it and says he's looking for someone who is in to it. Maybe he and she met through one of those adds. I'm aware of the amount of scammers online who say they're a woman but turn out to be a man. Or the woman claims to be a feedee and talks a good game but is in it for monetary reasons or some other such thing. There is much paranoia among the jet setters in this community who are always fearful that what they are being told is too good to be true and they're being lead on. Maybe he felt he was being trifled with. Be that as it may, there is just no excuse for leaving that woman at the hotel like that. Take her home for goodness' sake. I agree with everything you say basically except in the case of this guy.



There are things in life we can control.. and things we can't control. The guy was horrible. But what's the point in talking about him? There's horrible people in the world. I can't change that. 

It sounds like she has mobility issues based on her own volition. If I knew her personally I'd say, "I'm sorry that happened to you. If you don't want that to happen to you again then I suggest you lose weight or not date strangers." That puts her in control without telling her how to live her life.


----------



## TraciJo67 (Aug 17, 2009)

bdog said:


> There are things in life we can control.. and things we can't control. The guy was horrible. But what's the point in talking about him? There's horrible people in the world. I can't change that.
> 
> It sounds like she has mobility issues based on her own volition. If I knew her personally I'd say, "I'm sorry that happened to you. If you don't want that to happen to you again then I suggest you lose weight or not date strangers." That puts her in control without telling her how to live her life.



Don't want to put words into Lilly's capable mouth, but I think she was sharing as an example of the word-of-mouth that gets around at events. An early warning system, in other words, of the kind of people to stay away from. Not condemnation of an "evil feeder".


----------



## mergirl (Aug 17, 2009)

bdog said:


> There are things in life we can control.. and things we can't control. The guy was horrible. But what's the point in talking about him? There's horrible people in the world. I can't change that.
> 
> It sounds like she has mobility issues based on her own volition. If I knew her personally I'd say, "I'm sorry that happened to you. If you don't want that to happen to you again then I suggest you lose weight or not date strangers." That puts her in control without telling her how to live her life.


speachless. This is unusual. wtf? Ahh i see.. you edited out the bit about having a heart attack and diabetis being more pressing than not being able to call for help..... i see.. Oh its back again? ...
ok..on with the show


----------



## StarWitness (Aug 17, 2009)

bdog said:


> If I knew her personally I'd say, "I'm sorry that happened to you. If you don't want that to happen to you again then I suggest you lose weight or not date strangers." That puts her in control without telling her how to live her life.



How is telling someone to modify their eating habits, exercise habits, and sexuality not telling them how to live their life?


----------



## StarWitness (Aug 17, 2009)

Forget it.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Aug 17, 2009)

bdog said:


> There are things in life we can control.. and things we can't control. The guy was horrible. But what's the point in talking about him? There's horrible people in the world. I can't change that.
> 
> It sounds like she has mobility issues based on her own volition. If I knew her personally I'd say, "I'm sorry that happened to you. If you don't want that to happen to you again then I suggest you lose weight or not date strangers." That puts her in control without telling her how to live her life.



bdog, weight loss does not assure that this won't happen again and dating her uncle would be unethical. I don't know why you feel compelled to come out flailing over this story. This isn't about you.

ETA: Or shit maybe it IS about you. Nice sunglasses.


----------



## mergirl (Aug 17, 2009)

hmm.. now, before i break rules i didnt know existed again. can you discuss with someone something they wrote then edited?


----------



## TraciJo67 (Aug 17, 2009)

mergirl said:


> hmm.. now, before i break rules i didnt know existed again. can you discuss with someone something they wrote then edited?



NO!! And, no 

I got a warning for quoting someone who was in the processing of rewriting what she'd written AS I was quoting the intial post. I didn't even realize that she'd edited the post. Wasn't an infraction, just a warning, but a very "sternly worded" one sent to my PM.


----------



## mergirl (Aug 17, 2009)

TraciJo67 said:


> NO!! And, no
> 
> I got a warning for quoting someone who was in the processing of rewriting what she'd written AS I was quoting the intial post. I didn't even realize that she'd edited the post. Wasn't an infraction, just a warning, but a very "sternly worded" one sent to my PM.


damn. What i was going to say was SOOO good too! 
hmm..on the plus side.. how long do you have to edit something????...
you see where i'm going with this?? 
muwahahahaha.
Whats to stop people saying how they really feel for 10 mins.. then deleting it to something about cake?
You cant tell me THATS against the rules too???


----------



## bdog (Aug 17, 2009)

LillyBBBW said:


> bdog, weight loss does not assure that this won't happen again and dating her uncle would be unethical. I don't know why you feel compelled to come out flailing over this story. This isn't about you.
> 
> ETA: Or shit maybe it IS about you. Nice sunglasses.





StarWitness said:


> How is telling someone to modify their eating habits, exercise habits, and sexuality not telling them how to live their life?





mergirl said:


> speachless. This is unusual. wtf? Ahh i see.. you edited out the bit about having a heart attack and diabetis being more pressing than not being able to call for help..... i see.. Oh its back again? ...
> ok..on with the show



i'm done with this thread. cya.


----------



## katorade (Aug 17, 2009)

TraciJo67 said:


> No. But I think that is patently obvious.



Exactly. I don't know why she keeps bringing it up when that's not what anyone is arguing.


----------



## Tina (Aug 17, 2009)

Tooz said:


> I hate tuba music for that exact reason, actually.


Ugh. Me, too. It's well before your time, but there was this cartoon - was it a Disney cartoon? Called Tubby the Tuba. I was called that often enough. The tuba has become the official fat person's 'walking music.' Bleh.


mergirl said:


> *Does this actually happen? I have never heard of anyone saying "oh he/ she is a bad feeder, you better watch them".*


People know because word gets around, and not just gossip. There are some well-known stories of this happening within the community, but it wouldn't do to discuss names and such. Let's just say that it happens, it's known about, but it's not frequent.


LoveBHMS said:


> To me, the above described man is the same as the man you encountered. I don't think it's worse because feederism was involved.


It's worse because the woman had mobility problems, but in fact, no one came out and said it was worse, just that the guy was a jerk. It truly was very cowardly of him and in some ways, even though the way it went down sucked, he did her a favor by not wasting one more minute of her time.


bdog said:


> There are things in life we can control.. and things we can't control. The guy was horrible. But what's the point in talking about him?


See the quote I bolded above? Lilly's post was in response to it, so *that* was the point.


TraciJo67 said:


> I got a warning for quoting someone who was in the processing of rewriting what she'd written AS I was quoting the intial post. I didn't even realize that she'd edited the post. Wasn't an infraction, just a warning, but a very "sternly worded" one sent to my PM.


You did absolutely nothing wrong. That is all.


----------



## KHayes666 (Aug 17, 2009)

Tina said:


> Ugh. Me, too. It's well before your time, but there was this cartoon - was it a Disney cartoon? Called Tubby the Tuba. I was called that often enough. The tuba has become the official fat person's 'walking music.' Bleh



Welll excuuuuuuuuuuuuuse me if I actually found Tubby the Tuba funny as a child (especially the Oom Pah song). Same way I enjoyed Pigs is Pigs, Ghostbusters, Looney Toons, Wizard of Oz, Scooby Doo and other cartoons when I was younger.

There's also a scene in one of my old Best of the Football Follies with tuba music in it and its also quite funny.

Hell, when Gabriel blows his final horn I shall be playing the tuba


----------



## katorade (Aug 17, 2009)

KHayes666 said:


> Welll excuuuuuuuuuuuuuse me if I actually found Tubby the Tuba funny as a child (especially the Oom Pah song). Same way I enjoyed Pigs is Pigs, Ghostbusters, Looney Toons, Wizard of Oz, Scooby Doo and other cartoons when I was younger.
> 
> There's also a scene in one of my old Best of the Football Follies with tuba music in it and its also quite funny.
> 
> Hell, when Gabriel blows his final horn I shall be playing the tuba



Yeah, some people found it funny. Some people also find making fun of fat people hilarious. You don't f***ing get it because nobody has ever made a correlation between you and a bumbling, slow, second-string instrument that isn't "allowed" to be pretty or do anything serious besides going "oompah" over and over.


----------



## Rowan (Aug 17, 2009)

katorade said:


> Now who's being offensive? Be really careful with your choice of comparisons.
> 
> Apotemnophilia (and body integrity identity disorder) and Pedophilia are considered neurological and mental DISORDERS, not merely sexual PREFERENCES.



I second this. When i saw it mentioned that those who wanted limbs removed was a sexual fetish...i was like whooooah...i think not.


----------



## StarWitness (Aug 17, 2009)

Rowan said:


> I second this. When i saw it mentioned that those who wanted limbs removed was a sexual fetish...i was like whooooah...i think not.



That's true, but there are people who amputate their limbs because they sincerely feel the need to-- usually at great risk to their health, considering that you're probably not going to find a doctor willing to remove a healthy limb. I will readily admit that I am perceiving both BIID-identified people and feedees from the perspective of an outsider, but if someone is deeply committed to changing his/her body in a manner that will make him/her feel fulfilled, and accepts the potential consequences-- in that sense I think the comparison is an apt one.


----------



## katorade (Aug 17, 2009)

StarWitness said:


> That's true, but there are people who amputate their limbs because they sincerely feel the need to-- usually at great risk to their health, considering that you're probably not going to find a doctor willing to remove a healthy limb. I will readily admit that I am perceiving both BIID-identified people and feedees from the perspective of an outsider, but if someone is deeply committed to changing his/her body in a manner that will make him/her feel fulfilled, and accepts the potential consequences-- in that sense I think the comparison is an apt one.



My biggest problem is that feederism CAN be a very innocent sexual fetish when practiced, not just in fantasy. When BIID and pedophilia are actually acted out, they are or have the potential to be very dangerous for either the person with the fetish or others involved. Over-stuffing yourself once a month is mild as feeding goes. Cutting off the tip of your pinky is mild as BIID goes. Over-stuffing, though, is NOT equivalent to cutting off your pinky.

I'm also sure that people who simply FANTASIZE about feeding their partner an entire cake do not appreciate being lumped into the same group with people that just FANTASIZE about being jerked off by a five year old.

The world of sexual fetishes is very, very broad, from the seemingly harmless and fairly accepted in mainstream society (foot fetish, bondage, narratophilia-talking dirty) to the very bizarre things that don't even make sense to most or gross people out (dendrophilia-the *tree* people, coprophilia - the poo people, paraphilic infantilism -adult babies), to the downright dangerous and criminal (biastophilia -getting off on raping people, necrophilia, pedophilia). Furthermore, there are differing degrees as to which people might practice each one. 

You simply cannot compare all of them to each other, and it's best to not even try.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Aug 17, 2009)

mergirl said:


> damn. What i was going to say was SOOO good too!
> hmm..on the plus side.. how long do you have to edit something????...
> you see where i'm going with this??
> muwahahahaha.
> ...



I've done it before.  (Shh, don't tell the Mods) It's a waste of time because nobody who mattered saw it. And nobody reads the emails unless, like you, someone mentions that a post was edited. I then ran to my email and saw the original. His response was so presto strango because a) I never indicated that the woman was fat and b) I never said what kind of mobility issue she had. His retorts were way out of line and completely irrelevant toward the topic. Uncalled for.


----------



## KHayes666 (Aug 17, 2009)

katorade said:


> Yeah, some people found it funny. Some people also find making fun of fat people hilarious. You don't f***ing get it because nobody has ever made a correlation between you and a bumbling, slow, second-string instrument that isn't "allowed" to be pretty or do anything serious besides going "oompah" over and over.



so you didn't find Buddy Hackett's tuba performance in The Music Man thrilling? awwwwww


----------



## LillyBBBW (Aug 17, 2009)

KHayes666 said:


> so you didn't find Buddy Hackett's tuba performance in The Music Man thrilling? awwwwww



I really love the tuba solo Fred Flintstone gets when he's angry and storming though the house. I also liked the tuba solo Peter Brady got on "The Brady Bunch" when he kissed that girl and saw fireworks. The tuba references you're making however are used to make fun of fat people, something that for a lot of us is very painful. Laugh if you like but don't dangle it here in everyone's faces as a joke. It's not funny.


----------



## katorade (Aug 17, 2009)

KHayes666 said:


> so you didn't find Buddy Hackett's tuba performance in The Music Man thrilling? awwwwww



About as thrilling as your sense of humor. You're the same kind of guy that thinks he has carte blanche to tell racist jokes because he's dating a black girl. 

Just because you find attraction in the things about fat women typically thought to be a laughing matter doesn't mean it WON'T be offensive to us just because it comes out of _your_ mouth.


----------



## KHayes666 (Aug 17, 2009)

LillyBBBW said:


> I really love the tuba solo Fred Flintstone gets when he's angry and storming though the house. I also liked the tuba solo Peter got when he kissed that girl and saw fireworks. *The tuba references you're making however are used to make fun of fat people*, something that for a lot of us is very painful. Laugh if you like but don't dangle it here in everyone's faces as a joke. It's not funny.



How do you figure?

Tubby the Tuba is about a musical cartoon, it just happens to be named Tubby. Its the adults and children of the era who turned into a fat hating joke....not me.

There's tuba music when Eddie Munster walks down the stairs in the opening of The Munsters, Eddie is about as skinny as it gets.

There's tuba music in the NFL Films I watch, more than half the time its when someone fumbles a football....again, nothing to do with fat people.

Maybe because I wasn't picked on as a child but when I see or hear tuba music, I never picture fat people being made fun of.

Sorry everyone else feels that tuba music equals fat hating, I'll drop it.


----------



## KHayes666 (Aug 17, 2009)

katorade said:


> About as thrilling as your sense of humor. You're the same kind of guy that thinks he has carte blanche to tell racist jokes because he's dating a black girl.
> 
> Just because you find attraction in the things about fat women typically thought to be a laughing matter doesn't mean it WON'T be offensive to us just because it comes out of _your_ mouth.



I consider that a personal attack, I'd love to retaliate but two wrongs don't make a right. 

and FYI....I know people who tell racist jokes about their own race, so that reference is totally off base.


----------



## katorade (Aug 17, 2009)

KHayes666 said:


> I consider that a personal attack, I'd love to retaliate but two wrongs don't make a right.
> 
> and FYI....I know people who tell racist jokes about their own race, so that reference is totally off base.




 Yes, because you're suuuuch a victim. Rather than seeing it as an attack, maybe you could see it as criticism of your behavior. Behavior that has been pointed out numerous times on this board.

And FWIW, making a joke about your OWN culture or race is completely different. Not even _close_.


----------



## mossystate (Aug 17, 2009)

* places a brick wall in the thread ...and some aspirin *


----------



## StarWitness (Aug 17, 2009)

katorade said:


> My biggest problem is that feederism CAN be a very innocent sexual fetish when practiced, not just in fantasy. When BIID and pedophilia are actually acted out, they are or have the potential to be very dangerous for either the person with the fetish or others involved. Over-stuffing yourself once a month is mild as feeding goes. Cutting off the tip of your pinky is mild as BIID goes. Over-stuffing, though, is NOT equivalent to cutting off your pinky.
> 
> I'm also sure that people who simply FANTASIZE about feeding their partner an entire cake do not appreciate being lumped into the same group with people that just FANTASIZE about being jerked off by a five year old.
> 
> ...



Rereading my post, I failed to effectively communicate what sounded like a good idea in my mind. I'd like to give it another shot; bear with me.

I should have said "gainer" instead of "feedee;" that was a n00b mistake. And I agree, I don't think all fetishes can be compared-- I certainly wouldn't liken feed[er]ism/WG to pedophilia, if for no other reason than one is (hopefully) carried out by consenting adults and the other pretty much can't be, by definition (unless there's some nuance to pedophilia that I'm not aware of). 

Where I perceive a potential similarity between WG and BIID is in a person's desire to change his or her body from its "natural" state to fit with what they feel they should look like/have/not have-- to whatever degree that desire might manifest. For some people it might be a fetish, and for others it might be a deeply ingrained part of their identity.

Like I said before, my perspective on both WG and BIID is that of an outsider; I don't mean any offense, and I accept that I could very well be off the mark with my idea. I just felt the need to take another whack at it.


----------



## Smushygirl (Aug 17, 2009)

LillyBBBW said:


> *I really love the tuba solo Fred Flintstone gets when he's angry and storming though the house. I also liked the tuba solo Peter Brady got on "The Brady Bunch" when he kissed that girl and saw fireworks.* The tuba references you're making however are used to make fun of fat people, something that for a lot of us is very painful. Laugh if you like but don't dangle it here in everyone's faces as a joke. It's not funny.



Those are two of my favorite tuba moments too!!! In defense of the tuba, I submit this: http://tinyurl.com/q2457n


----------



## MattB (Aug 17, 2009)

KHayes666 said:


> so you didn't find Buddy Hackett's tuba performance in The Music Man thrilling? awwwwww





LillyBBBW said:


> I really love the tuba solo Fred Flintstone gets when he's angry and storming though the house. I also liked the tuba solo Peter Brady got on "The Brady Bunch" when he kissed that girl and saw fireworks. The tuba references you're making however are used to make fun of fat people, something that for a lot of us is very painful. Laugh if you like but don't dangle it here in everyone's faces as a joke. It's not funny.





KHayes666 said:


> How do you figure?
> 
> Tubby the Tuba is about a musical cartoon, it just happens to be named Tubby. Its the adults and children of the era who turned into a fat hating joke....not me.
> 
> ...





Smushygirl said:


> Those are two of my favorite tuba moments too!!! In defense of the tuba, I submit this: http://tinyurl.com/q2457n



I can't believe I read through 20 pages of this to end up at a debate over the tuba...I think this calls for a tuba- good or bad? poll. In all seriousness I understand that some may be hurt by the connotations of tuba music, but I'm with KHayes on this one. I just don't make the connection between the two. I LIKE tubas!

As for the original point to this thread, if anyone is still reading this, I also think that it should come down to what goes on between two consenting adults is no one else's business. 

We now return you to your regularly scheduled Dims thread fight...


----------



## Tina (Aug 18, 2009)

Can I just say how little I care about the opinions of two thin males when it comes to my own experience growing up as a fat girl and being marginalized by almost everyone I knew, where every single fat-related saying, actor, scenario, tv show, movie, etc, was used as a battering ram? So you two are obviously unable to relate? How nice for you. 


KHayes666 said:


> Its the adults and children of the era who turned into a fat hating joke....not me...
> 
> Maybe because I wasn't picked on as a child but when I see or hear tuba music, I never picture fat people being made fun of.


It takes a certain kind of maturity to make that first point of yours, Kevin.

Thank you for your feedback on the issue; I'll be sure it's filed in the appropriate shredder. Has it ever occurred to you that you don't picture it because you didn't live it? And please, consider that a rhetorical question.


MattB said:


> I LIKE tubas!


Couldn't be more thrilled for you.

Again, are those of us who had the non-thin experience supposed to give a shit? Way to invalidate, you two!


----------



## Shosh (Aug 18, 2009)

Tina said:


> Can I just say how little I care about the opinions of two thin males when it comes to my own experience growing up as a fat girl and being marginalized by almost everyone I knew, where every single fat-related saying, actor, scenario, tv show, movie, etc, was used as a battering ram? So you two are obviously unable to relate? How nice for you.
> 
> It takes a certain kind of maturity to make that first point of yours, Kevin.
> 
> ...



Bravo Tina on all points. I get tired of some who have never been maligned and marginalized or downright abused because of their weight, spouting off about it.
Kevin no offense but you just do not know when to leave it alone.


----------



## mergirl (Aug 18, 2009)

I wanted to say that whether something is considered a fetish or mental disorder is normally historical, social and geographical. Until reletively recently homosexuality was considered a mental disorder but now is classed as a sexuality. Socially and morally we would like to think of pedophiles as having a mental disorder when in fact they just have a sexual preference that is very harmful and that the majority of us finds abhorant. Though, persoanlly i would say something becomes a mental 'disorder' when it afffects your quality of life, the jury is still out on the definition within the psychiatric community.
Also, the limb thaang. Up until recently a hospital in Falkirk, Scotland (Infact my friend was a Doctor there-though she is not a leg chopper) used to amputate limbs of people that had that form of dysmorphia. People would come from all over the world. Eventually the hospital was given too much bad press and had to stop. The thing is some people have died from sticking the leg that they find so alien to them under a passing train; the strange limb seems to repellent to them, i guess sort of like having a dead arm sewn on to you. There are cases where people are turned on by the thought of having no limbs. I am sure the one woman in a documentary i watched found this to be sexual, she claimed she just hated her legs so she wanted them both chopped off above the knees. In her case the psychiatrist told her she couldn't have the op.
hmmm If anyone is interested in this you should read the 'book group' book of the month *shameless advertising* Cause you will love it!!


----------



## LoveBHMS (Aug 18, 2009)

My point about the amputation was, some people feel so strongly that their body should be a certain way, they will go to great lengths to have that and the urge is overwhelmingly strong. A transgendered person may undergo years of therapy and hormone treatment and surgery just to change outward appearance to match the "feeling" of being male or female.

I can understand the comparison with somebody who is so certain his/her body should be fat, that they "feel" so much like a fat person that they pursue weight gain in order to adjust their body to what they think they essentially _are._

I brought up pedophilia and the idea of pedophiles seeking the death penalty or chemical castration to to show how strong a sex drive can be. Whether it's a mental disorder or sexuality, the point is still pedophiles molest children to obtain sexual gratification and the drive to achieve that is so strong, pedophiles know they can't stop doing it.


----------



## exile in thighville (Aug 18, 2009)

katorade said:


> About as thrilling as your sense of humor. You're the same kind of guy that thinks he has carte blanche to tell racist jokes because he's dating a black girl.



the correct answer to this is that it's always okay to tell racist jokes



LoveBHMS said:


> My point about the amputation was, some people feel so strongly that their body should be a certain way, they will go to great lengths to have that and the urge is overwhelmingly strong. A transgendered person may undergo years of therapy and hormone treatment and surgery just to change outward appearance to match the "feeling" of being male or female.
> 
> I can understand the comparison with somebody who is so certain his/her body should be fat, that they "feel" so much like a fat person that they pursue weight gain in order to adjust their body to what they think they essentially _are._
> 
> I brought up pedophilia and the idea of pedophiles seeking the death penalty or chemical castration to to show how strong a sex drive can be. Whether it's a mental disorder or sexuality, the point is still pedophiles molest children to obtain sexual gratification and the drive to achieve that is so strong, pedophiles know they can't stop doing it.



yes.


----------



## MattB (Aug 18, 2009)

Tina said:


> Can I just say how little I care about the opinions of two thin males when it comes to my own experience growing up as a fat girl and being marginalized by almost everyone I knew, where every single fat-related saying, actor, scenario, tv show, movie, etc, was used as a battering ram? So you two are obviously unable to relate? How nice for you.
> 
> It takes a certain kind of maturity to make that first point of yours, Kevin.
> 
> ...



I apologize. It just seemed like a disproportionate response, but I get it now. No disrespect meant, and I certainly didn't intend to agitate like I did.



Susannah said:


> Bravo Tina on all points. I get tired of some who have never been maligned and marginalized or downright abused because of their weight, spouting off about it.
> Kevin no offense but you just do not know when to leave it alone.



I'm assuming I'm included in this too since I reopened it. Sorry. Won't happen again.


----------



## Tooz (Aug 18, 2009)

exile in thighville said:


> the correct answer to this is that it's always okay to tell racist jokes



If by "always," you mean "never," then yes.


----------



## mango (Aug 18, 2009)

*They bought their tickets....


They knew what they were getting into....


I say LET 'EM CRASH!!


*


----------



## Tina (Aug 18, 2009)

Thank you, Matt. It's not always easy to apologize and I do appreciate it. :bow:


----------



## Shosh (Aug 18, 2009)

Tina said:


> Thank you, Matt. It's not always easy to apologize and I do appreciate it. :bow:



I appreciate it too. Thanks for your PM Matt.


----------



## lovesgaininggirls (Aug 19, 2009)

People rant about feederism because they've bought into the feeder stereotype. I think most of us know what that's about, cruelly manipulating an impressionable human being into gaining sufficient weight to cause them to become totally immobile and thereby totally dependent and then abandoning them to their cruel fate.

If THAT is what one thinks being a feeder is all about, then ranting against it is OK. Nobody can favor what can only be described as an act of human mutilation. But I think that particular description applies to a tiny percentage of those who might be regarded as feeders.

I think most of us who might even consider describing ourselves as feeders would reject that stereotype. I don't know that I would describe myself as a feeder. Using the psycho-babble terminology, I would guess I'm something closer to an enabler. I like to encourage thin women who are even considering gaining weight to do so. I think that is the path away from self-involvement and taking a step toward personal independence, breaking away from the social stereotype of physical beauty, i.e. thin. But would I push some vulnerable person to gain weight to the point of immobility, only to walk out on them when they could no longer take care of themselves? Absolutely not!

My point is that before one engages in a rant about feeders and feederism, one must first consided what exactly they mean by the term. Being turned on by encouraging and watching someone transform their bodies from abject thinness to lush curviness hardly fits the stereotype. However, I do think that getting turned on sensually at such a transformation is a fetish, a healthy or at least harmless fetish, but a fetish nonetheless.


----------



## sweet&fat (Aug 19, 2009)

I've always been wary of terms such as "encourager" because when I've heard it, it's always meant someone badgering the fuck out of me to gain lots of weight without him taking any ownership of that desire. Constant pestering about how great I would look heavier, and if I protested, the astonished response "I'm not a FEEDER, you know!"


----------



## LoveBHMS (Aug 19, 2009)

We've gone round and round a lot with semantics and such. I honestly don't think they matter unless you are having a sexual encounter with somebody in which case clearly you each need to know what the other wants and expects.

Because "Feeder" can have negative conotations (manipulative male preying on vulnerable female and leaving her immobile) it's reasonable for somebody to stay away from that term, even though s/he may be sexually aroused at participating in a partner's weight gain.

It's kind of like saying "Oh sure I believe in equal pay for equal work and you should not discriminate based on gender, but i'm not a *feminist".*


----------



## sweet&fat (Aug 19, 2009)

I understand what you're saying, but both feminism and feederism could benefit if people dared use the "F word" more freely. 



LoveBHMS said:


> We've gone round and round a lot with semantics and such. I honestly don't think they matter unless you are having a sexual encounter with somebody in which case clearly you each need to know what the other wants and expects.
> 
> Because "Feeder" can have negative conotations (manipulative male preying on vulnerable female and leaving her immobile) it's reasonable for somebody to stay away from that term, even though s/he may be sexually aroused at participating in a partner's weight gain.
> 
> It's kind of like saying "Oh sure I believe in equal pay for equal work and you should not discriminate based on gender, but i'm not a *feminist".*


----------



## Fuzzy Necromancer (Aug 19, 2009)

LoveBHMS said:


> We've gone round and round a lot with semantics and such. I honestly don't think they matter unless you are having a sexual encounter with somebody in which case clearly you each need to know what the other wants and expects.
> 
> Because "Feeder" can have negative conotations (manipulative male preying on vulnerable female and leaving her immobile) it's reasonable for somebody to stay away from that term, even though s/he may be sexually aroused at participating in a partner's weight gain.
> [/B]



I disagree. The word "feeder" has no intrinsic negative connotations. The negative connotation comes from general reaction to the fetish described, and so using a different word wouldn't change anything.


----------



## exile in thighville (Jan 8, 2010)

sweet&fat said:


> I've always been wary of terms such as "encourager" because when I've heard it, it's always meant someone badgering the fuck out of me to gain lots of weight without him taking any ownership of that desire. Constant pestering about how great I would look heavier, and if I protested, the astonished response "I'm not a FEEDER, you know!"



ha, i missed this post. rep for you. "encourager" is the most weakdick copout shit since "foodee" was coined to mean "people who enjoy food ... a lot"


----------



## superodalisque (Jan 11, 2010)

i don't have a problem at all with feeders at all since i'm a grown woman and i know how to say no to things that make me personally uncomfortable. i'm also perfectly aware that its just a harmless fantasy to a lot of people. so i really have no issues with it. i also don't have a problem because i don't remain silent if i feel anyone is putting out somethng i think can be damaging to a BBW. i'm not assuming that feederism is. but i do know there are a few people involved in it who have an unhealthy mindset and when i see it i'm going to call it. no matter what someone's interest is they should never be allowed to mentally or physically abuse another person intentionally or unintentionally. but i think its very hard for anyone to really know when they are crossing some kind of a line when honest discussion is curtailed and pretense is maintained.

i feel that the main reason there is tension on dims is because for a long time the attempt was made to silence people with clear heads about feederism. that included people who had interest in it and those who didn't. so much so that now there is a backlash. i remember when it was acceptable here to talk about bringing people to the point of death as though it were no big deal and people went right along with it in silence. the few who didn't were ridiculed as if that were unreasonable. i remember when it was acceptable for people to pressure you incessantly about gaining weight openly in the forums and in PM. so i think that period of time made a lot of people feel hostile toward feeders. so at times the pendulum swings to far in the opposite direction. i think that if things had been more reasonable during that period of time you wouldn't have the same negative feelings about it. but since some irresponsible people were given free reign the others who were often silent even though they knew better are left to pay the price.

people don't have all the feelings they have toward feederism for no reason. its time to acknowledge that and stop discounting people's experiences. the more thats done the more people will feel safe in acknowledging that just maybe the feelings of feeders and feedees are valid as well. the opinions people have don't come from nowhere. they aren't just plucked out of the air. they aren't just made up by fertile imaginations. i think its sometimes hard to understand if you are interested in that and your not the one without the interest that other people are trying to pressure or manipulate. sure other feeders or feedees are going to tell you that they never do that. but how would you really know thats the truth if you aren't the one in the attempted relationship etc... maybe you need to ask people that aren't interested in the fetish that they've approached. why do you really think people who come into contact with people with that interest here and don't share it are so opposed? is it because they all had good respectful experiences and they are just crazy? there are some real experiences behind it. and until people stop pretending that there weren't/ aren't at least a few nuts out there a lot of BBWs won't ever truly trust anyone who says they are a feeder. 

all of the handsoff stuff just won't fly. people who are the focus of the interest are going to say what they feel positively or negatively and openly and they shouldn't shut up. the people who are the focus have the right to say whether they like it or not and whether they approve of it or not. and i doubt they'll ever be made to shut up about it again like they have been in the past. sure its fair to ask for sane discussion and exploration. but,if you want the fantasy of an immaculate feeder from people who are not interested and have had at least a few experiences that differ from what it should have been then it might be a better idea to go to the paysite board and pay someone to prop you up. but i don't think its fair to ask RL people with RL experiences to just play along to make you feel better about yourself. 

if you haven't done anything wrong yourself stop relating to those who do and take control of your own life. stop asking people to approve of something that you and your partner do in private that you both already approve of and that satisfies you. why do you need all of this outside support of your intimate life and experiences, especially from people who don't share the same interests? if you keep waiting on that you'll always be angry and upset about something thats there for your happiness. one thing i've learned is that if you wait for people who don't particularly care for you or what you do to like it and support it that will be a long wait. in the meantime your wasting your time on them when you should be enjoying it and getting the support and understanding of people who fully get it. who are you really trying to convince? other people or yourself? if i blog about being fat somewhere where people don't always support me i expect opposition. thats life.


----------



## LoveBHMS (Jan 11, 2010)

> all of the handsoff stuff just won't fly. people who are the focus of the interest are going to say what they feel positively or negatively and openly and they shouldn't shut up. the people who are the focus have the right to say whether they like it or not and whether they approve of it or not. and i doubt they'll ever be made to shut up about it again like they have been in the past. sure its fair to ask for sane discussion and exploration. but,if you want the fantasy of an immaculate feeder from people who are not interested and have had at least a few experiences that differ from what it should have been then it might be a better idea to go to the paysite board and pay someone to prop you up. but i don't think its fair to ask RL people with RL experiences to just play along to make you feel better about yourself.



I'm a real life person with real life experience.

The idea that everyone who comes here to make fun of feederism and laugh at us and tell us how awful we are have had real life negative run-ins with this is just not realistic. Yes some people have had negative experiences with partners who were manipulative or dishonest or uncaring, but realistically so have many women and men of all sizes. To lay some negative experiences at our feet and say "This is why everyone had the right to talk down to you" is nonsense. If you read thatgirl08's excellent thread titled "Can we have a real discussion about feederism" you'd see any number of positive experiences that include recognition of limits and worrying about health.

You're also failing to distinguish between feederism and erotic weight gain. There are also some people who gain weight on their own because it brings them sexual enjoyment, and those who have partners but who would gain weight without them.

The simple truth of it is that I'd say a very very small percentage of active members here are self ascribed fetishists. There are probably on any given day some small number of lurkers and some small number of posters who join and post five or six times and disappear. If the Dims population includes a huge number of open fetishists who actively harass women, obviously they should be banned. Considering this is the internet, it's fairly easy to ignore or ban anyone who mistreats you. I've had would be male gainers approach me and if I'm not interested, I let them know. I've also known women on here who get approached by men in whom they have no interest and they make that clear. Any time somebody makes a post that includes any reference to an unwilling partner or asks for advice on how to make a partner gain weight, that person is inevitably slapped down by several of us.

So honestly? Having a protected forum had become necessary to keep those of us who want to talk about it from being harassed and attacked and used as comedic material. If you believe any pendulum has swung and the non fetish crowd is getting the short end of the stick, we're reading two different sites.


----------



## superodalisque (Jan 11, 2010)

LoveBHMS said:


> I'm a real life person with real life experience.
> 
> The idea that everyone who comes here to make fun of feederism and laugh at us and tell us how awful we are have had real life negative run-ins with this is just not realistic. Yes some people have had negative experiences with partners who were manipulative or dishonest or uncaring, but realistically so have many women and men of all sizes. To lay some negative experiences at our feet and say "This is why everyone had the right to talk down to you" is nonsense. If you read thatgirl08's excellent thread titled "Can we have a real discussion about feederism" you'd see any number of positive experiences that include recognition of limits and worrying about health.
> 
> ...



the only perspective i can speak from is my own as someone who isn't a feeder or a feedee or into gaining. all i'm saying is as a person not interested i come across people on dims regularly who'd like to pressure me into it as though i don't know my own mind as far as what attracts me. they definitely would if they could no matter how that affected my happiness or health since they often say they would take care of me in my expected ill health. it would be the same as me trying to pressure you not to be into feeding or into something else that really didn't attract you that could possibly be detrimental and telling you i;d take care of you if when it hurt you.

i agree that people don't have to be as nasty and as dismissive as they are by making insensitive jokes. i don't think thats right either. but i also wouldn't assume people were feeling like doing all of that just to be a thorn in your side. often that kind of ridicule comes out of some pain and some hurt or even just some iritation you don't even know about. how often have you noted the ridicule of BBWs even in the open? haven't you ever seen the comments from feeders about how someone needs to gain weight or be fed? that comment having been made whether the person knows what the others preference is or not often taking for granted the right to make a lot of subjective comments right out in the open as though they are gospel for everyone?

the bad jokes might not be fair to you but it might be fair to somebody, and you have to realize that. until you do truly hear people and validate thier position and concerns they aren't going to do that for you either. i'd say the same to them. no one is listening. everyone is talking. nobody is being heard. its going to stay that way until people can find their way to really respecting other people and thier experiences known or unknown. i bet all of those people who make the jokes have been at least the object of someone trying to press them to participate in feeder fantasy whether they really wanted to or not. thats very common here on dims. i'm not even sure you actually understand how attracted some feeders are to the idea of getting someone to again who doesn't really want to. those are the ones who enjoy the idea of tears when he numbers on the scales go up. so a lot of feedees who want to participate never get to experience how people attracted to that operate. in some ways they will never really understand what other BBWs are talking about. that in and of itself can make people resentful. 
until you can really claim that fact no one opposed is going to try and listen to how you feel either.

until people can be made to feel that thier lives and thier identity are more important than just someone else's sexual gratification they are not going to be very open to anything either. right now a few people are not allowing them to feel that. they just dont feel safe in a situation where it can seem that their preference or even maybe thier very existence may take a total backseat to someone else's sex drive. thats a scary thought and scared people are mean people. i think that if most feeders could openly admit that there are a few who don't behave well and prefer calling out those people rather than saying things that tend to sound like a denial a lot of BBWs/BHMs would feel a lot more comfortable and a lot less likely to think that feeders are often out of control when it comes to thier sexual preference as it relates to a fat person's health and emotional well being and in cahoots with each other no matter what. as for slapdown, i recieved a lot of slapdowns just for saying a "few" feeders were misbehaving. but i've had to defend myself when it comes to guys telling me how much better i'd be if i had 50 more pounds on me. i had plenty of that before people had any idea of who i was on the forums. there were no slapdowns in my defense forthcoming.


----------



## LoveBHMS (Jan 11, 2010)

So basically everyone who practices this in a sane, normal, and healthy way needs to ascede to being held up to ridicule and deal with jokes because _maybe_ whosever making the joke had a bad experience with feederism? Sorry but that should never be allowed. The EWG board rules clearly state that it's for positive talk only; that is how it was set up by the mods and Webmaster. Are you saying you want to remove that so people can feel even more free than they do to break the rules?

How would you feel if people who like being fat were told "Hey, some people have had *really negative experiences* and those should be validated within the realm of Size Acceptance, so let's let them come in and talk about what being SS was like for them." I'm willing to guess that would never ever ever fly with this board. 

I'm willing to guess that most people have been approached in some way either online or in real life by somebody who wanted sexual gratification. That can have happened with any number of outcomes ranging from mutually positive to criminal.

This just comes right back to the everpresent "Who is Dims Really For" discussion. I say there is room for everyone so long as we respect each other and play by the rules.


----------



## superodalisque (Jan 11, 2010)

LoveBHMS said:


> So basically everyone who practices this in a sane, normal, and healthy way needs to ascede to being held up to ridicule and deal with jokes because _maybe_ whosever making the joke had a bad experience with feederism? Sorry but that should never be allowed. The EWG board rules clearly state that it's for positive talk only; that is how it was set up by the mods and Webmaster. Are you saying you want to remove that so people can feel even more free than they do to break the rules?
> 
> How would you feel if people who like being fat were told "Hey, some people have had *really negative experiences* and those should be validated within the realm of Size Acceptance, so let's let them come in and talk about what being SS was like for them." I'm willing to guess that would never ever ever fly with this board.
> 
> ...



then feeders/feedees should do what other people do. report the bad posts just like people report bad posts elsewhere. people are going to misbehave. feeders misbehave, non feeders misbehave. 

i agree about the people aproaching you sexually online thing. the difference being that when you've said no a multitude of times to someone and they still insist and you have to take extraordinary measures just to be able to function online and you come upon that happening often with one particular group of people it will affect your attitude. its only natural. i agree people often go too far with the antifeeder thing. a lot of stuff i've read is really unfair and over the top. so report them and have done with it. or start a feeder/feedee private forum and talk about whatever you like however you like uninterrupted. but what you need to understand is there are a few feeders who aren't all that interested in talking to people who agree with them. they actually like to shock and harrass people who aren't into the same and derive a lot of pleasure from that. they like coming off as the crazy freaky mean feeder. those folks would probably not be very interested in your forum anyway since thats not what they are here for. i'm glad that isn't most of you but i just wanted you to know thats what some of us out here are dealing with.


----------



## katorade (Jan 11, 2010)

superodalisque said:


> then feeders/feedees should do what other people do. report the bad posts just like people report bad posts elsewhere. people are going to misbehave. feeders misbehave, non feeders misbehave.
> 
> i agree about the people aproaching you sexually online thing. the difference being that when you've said no a multitude of times to someone and they still insist and you have to take extraordinary measures just to be able to function online and you come upon that happening often with one particular group of people it will affect your attitude. its only natural. i agree people often go too far with the antifeeder thing. a lot of stuff i've read is really unfair and over the top. so report them and have done with it. or start a feeder/feedee private forum and talk about whatever you like however you like uninterrupted. but what you need to understand is there are a few feeders who aren't all that interested in talking to people who agree with them. they actually like to shock and harrass people who aren't into the same and derive a lot of pleasure from that. they like coming off as the crazy freaky mean feeder. those folks would probably not be very interested in your forum anyway since thats not what they are here for. i'm glad that isn't most of you but i just wanted you to know thats what some of us out here are dealing with.



Fee, don't forget that a lot of the times those people are getting addressed and being on the receiving end of anger, it's just THEM, not the whole of feeder society. Just because the bad behavior of one person gets a finger wagged at doesn't mean that finger is pointed at every single feeder, and it gets taken as that A LOT. I've seen many arguments that start on here start as someone displaying anger or disappointment at ONE person, then somehow the discussion dissolves into a fight about how people are always attacking feeders as a whole.


----------



## LoveBHMS (Jan 11, 2010)

For that matter Supero, since you say there are many women on here who've had negative experiences with feederism or feeders, why NOT start that thread on the Weight Board which is not protected and let everyone whose had those experiences talk about them. If as you claim, the dialogue and mutual understanding would benefit Dims, why not do it? I can promise you right now i won't report one single post in that thread, and won't participate beyond reading it.


----------



## superodalisque (Jan 11, 2010)

katorade said:


> Fee, don't forget that a lot of the times those people are getting addressed and being on the receiving end of anger, it's just THEM, not the whole of feeder society. Just because the bad behavior of one person gets a finger wagged at doesn't mean that finger is pointed at every single feeder, and it gets taken as that A LOT. I've seen many arguments that start on here start as someone displaying anger or disappointment at ONE person, then somehow the discussion dissolves into a fight about how people are always attacking feeders as a whole.



yeah thats why i was careful to say a few. i usually say that when i critique it but no one ever seems to see my qualifiers and i get people jumping down my throat over it. unfortunately those few do dirty the waters for most of the feeders here who are great folk on the whole. 

but then again i have seen some unneccesarily nasty generalizations etc... to say that never happens would not be true. it does happen sometimes. so people on both ends of it have a point. maybe everyone just needs to be more careful of each other in the future. and it would help a lot if people actually read ne another's posts more seriously instead of jumping to conclusions about whast being said. i know i've been guilty of that myself.


----------



## katorade (Jan 11, 2010)

superodalisque said:


> *yeah thats why i was careful to say a few. i usually say that when i critique it but no one ever seems to see my qualifiers and i get people jumping down my throat over it. * unfortunately those few do dirty the waters for most of the feeders here who are great folk on the whole.
> 
> but then again i have seen some unneccesarily nasty generalizations etc... to say that never happens would not be true. it does happen sometimes. so people on both ends of it have a point. maybe everyone just needs to be more careful of each other in the future. and it would help a lot if people actually read ne another's posts more seriously instead of jumping to conclusions about whast being said. i know i've been guilty of that myself.




Yep, you're not alone in that, which is why I just wanted to reiterate that it happens. I do know the generalizations happen, but I'd say they're about even in how often it happens, which is why I said "a lot" and not all.

I also don't think that another thread about negativity is going to help matters.


----------



## superodalisque (Jan 11, 2010)

LoveBHMS said:


> For that matter Supero, since you say there are many women on here who've had negative experiences with feederism or feeders, why NOT start that thread on the Weight Board which is not protected and let everyone whose had those experiences talk about them. If as you claim, the dialogue and mutual understanding would benefit Dims, why not do it? I can promise you right now i won't report one single post in that thread, and won't participate beyond reading it.



i'm personally feeling that all of these different boards with different rules are a bother. i have to go here to state one opinion, post there to state another. its really getting silly especially when it benefits us all to talk together and understand each other. but i think most people here just want to say what they want to say unapposed which is unrealistic. i was supportive of the different boards in the beginning but they only seem to make people behave more childishly instead of learning how to share the same space and to agree to disagree like adults. i really can't understand why adults can't manage to talk about things without them degenerating and why people actually feel the need to have someone to run to because someone posted something they don't like. it doesn't have to be all that upsetting. its a shame we can't manage ourselves a bit better. its really pitiful sometimes how people here who have the same goal overall can't even manage basic civility even if they disagree. its really way too much drama for no real reason.


----------



## D_A_Bunny (Jan 11, 2010)

superodalisque said:


> i'm personally feeling that all of these different boards with different rules are a bother. i have to go here to state one opinion, post there to state another. its really getting silly especially when it benefits us all to talk together and understand each other. but i think most people here just want to say what they want to say unapposed which is unrealistic. i was supportive of the different boards in the beginning but they only seem to make people behave more childishly instead of learning how to share the same space and to agree to disagree like adults. i really can't understand why adults can't manage to talk about things without them degenerating and why people actually feel the need to have someone to run to because someone posted something they don't like. it doesn't have to be all that upsetting. * its a shame we can't manage ourselves a bit better. its really pitiful sometimes how people here who have the same goal overall can't even manage basic civility even if they disagree. its really way too much drama for no real reason.*




.

I had to quote this and bold this section to make sure that it is seen. This is such a valid point.




.


----------



## LoveBHMS (Jan 11, 2010)

superodalisque said:


> i'm personally feeling that all of these different boards with different rules are a bother. i have to go here to state one opinion, post there to state another. its really getting silly especially when it benefits us all to talk together and understand each other. but i think most people here just want to say what they want to say unapposed which is unrealistic. i was supportive of the different boards in the beginning but they only seem to make people behave more childishly instead of learning how to share the same space and to agree to disagree like adults. i really can't understand why adults can't manage to talk about things without them degenerating and why people actually feel the need to have someone to run to because someone posted something they don't like. it doesn't have to be all that upsetting. its a shame we can't manage ourselves a bit better. its really pitiful sometimes how people here who have the same goal overall can't even manage basic civility even if they disagree. its really way too much drama for no real reason.



Yes it's sad, but this system is what it is because people couldn't manage basic civility. Even with the system some people insist on finding a way around it because after all they are right, everyone else is wrong, and they are entitled to break the rules simply because they want to or because they deem themselves worthy of doing so.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Jan 12, 2010)

superodalisque said:


> i'm personally feeling that all of these different boards with different rules are a bother. i have to go here to state one opinion, post there to state another. its really getting silly especially when it benefits us all to talk together and understand each other. *but i think most people here just want to say what they want to say unapposed which is unrealistic. * i was supportive of the different boards in the beginning but they only seem to make people behave more childishly instead of learning how to share the same space and to agree to disagree like adults. i really can't understand why adults can't manage to talk about things without them degenerating and why people actually feel the need to have someone to run to because someone posted something they don't like. it doesn't have to be all that upsetting. its a shame we can't manage ourselves a bit better. its really pitiful sometimes how people here who have the same goal overall can't even manage basic civility even if they disagree. its really way too much drama for no real reason.



You do realize that it is ok for people to be selective about who they wish to speak with don't you? There are times when a person prefers to speak directly with people who share their beliefs or feelings, and that _IS_ ok. I think is is unfair to try to demonize people who would like to have a private conversation amongst their peers without constant commentary from people who insist on adding observations that are only related in a roundabout way. If I want to talk about natural afro haircare and I dont want admirers interjecting every three sentences with observations, questions, opinions and pictures of afro toons -- that is actually reasonable and acceptable by just about all world standards. I don't see what's wrong with starting a thread with a clearly stated purpose and asking for those boundaries to be respected. There is a time and a place for everything of course and nothing stopping anyone from opening new topics where the boundaries are much more open. The nuances seem to be lost on many people though which is why some threads have to be policed, separated and labled. There are times when my experiences with an issue that I'm only familiar with from an outside perspective aren't relevent and that's ok. There is nothing wrong with someone looking at me and saying, "Excuse me but do you mind?" if those perameters aren't understood. This hysteria about how people are being silenced is what seems immature and over the top to me. I've been kicked out of a thread or two. I don't take it personally. There's plenty of room here to start new ideas. I don't *have* to be present in every conversation.


----------



## LoveBHMS (Jan 12, 2010)

Santaclear said:


> Such bickering does not serve the intended purpose of this thread.



No, actually it does. 

You're one of the posters with absolutely no stated interest in this topic (feederism, which was the original point of the thread) who never stops intruding in these discussions and trying to either derail them or hold them up to ridicule. Then when I tried to explain why some boards have to be protected, you tossed out a personal insult. The truth is, had I just reported in it would have been deleted because it's an clear and obvious personal attack, but I left it there to show an example of why some discussions need protection. So unless you fall into Superodelisque's category of SSBBW or BBW who've been stalked or harassed by feeders either online or IRL, why would you even need to be here?


----------



## LoveBHMS (Jan 12, 2010)

Santaclear said:


> That's for me to decide, not you, ever.



Oh yes, the ever popular "I can go wherever I want" retort.

Sure you can, just don't see you ever doing it with anything positive or productive in mind. And while you can go whever you want, others can also question your presence and your behaviour.


----------



## Fascinita (Jan 12, 2010)

LillyBBBW said:


> I don't see what's wrong with starting a thread with a clearly stated purpose and asking for those boundaries to be respected. There is a time and a place for everything of course and *nothing stopping anyone *from opening new topics where the boundaries are much more open. The nuances seem to be lost on many people though which is why some threads have to be policed, separated and labled.



I know it may seem that way to you, as someone who's perhaps identified with one group and distanced yourself from another (this is pure speculation as to reasons for your logic, and I apologize if I'm painting you with too broad a brush here), but the reality is that some identities do enjoy a lot more freedom of play and of expression at Dimensions than others. There are many examples of threads having been nixed that represented one group, when comparable threads existed representing other groups. This happens time and again. So, in fact, the policing you mention in threads that are supposedly under attack serves to curtail expression from groups whose expression is already systematically curtailed. As well, the policing you mention works to deface the last-ditch expression of protest from groups whose expression is already censored and defaced. This is complicated by the fact that, under these circumstances, it may be necessary to extend a level of protection to certain groups, since power and agency have not been universally distributed at Dimensions. When a thread on the BBW board is closed because it's too sexist, while a similarly "sexist" thread stands on the FA board, doesn't it seem to you that it's appropriate to protest the state of things? Where would it be appropriate to stage such a protest? "Policing" takes on a whole new level of meaning when the one place that's envisioned as a space for freedom of expression for BBW, free from intrusions from non-BBW, turns out to be not-so-freedomy after all. Under such a system, it's clear that certain groups have accomplished an iron-clad guarantee against criticism, while another group has had it made clearer than ever that its interests are not to be taken seriously. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

So, yes, there is something stopping "anyone" who is not publicly identified with the favored group from starting and maintaining discussions with open boundaries. I'll also mention that hybridity tends to get quashed under the dichotomizing juggernaut of "in"ism/favoritism, thanks to the wrongheaded and widespread idea that criticism is not OK and to the "if you're not 100% with me you must be 100% against me and I must kill you" trope. This often leaves people who don't identify exclusively with one group or another in the dust, entrails spilling, and kills right opportunities for vibrant community and dialogue--not to mention _spontaneous_ fun.


----------



## LoveBHMS (Jan 12, 2010)

> When a thread on the BBW board is closed because it's too sexist, while a similarly "sexist" thread stands on the FA board, doesn't it seem to you that it's appropriate to protest the state of things? Where would it be appropriate to stage such a protest?



If you want to protest, why protest to the other posters here? I'm dead serious. I've seen this topic come up and time and again, and got a bunch of super angry PMs over it, and yet it was 100% the decision of a moderator to close a thread on the BBW board, and i believe the reason for its closing was explained as being consistent with the rules under which the board was organized. The only ones who close threads are moderators, and my understanding is their rules and direction come from Conrad. So it's really hard to understand why this anger winds up getting directed at those who had nothing at all to do with it.

It's like the whole argument about not being able to talk about weight loss. If people are angry about that, why is that anger directed at some of us? Nobody here made the rules, and I've seen posts from at least two self ascribed fetishists, myself being one of them, that support a change in that rule. Yet time and again this ban on weight loss talk is indicative of unfairness towards one faction while another one has unfettered free speech.

I've also seen plenty of threads on the BBW forum started, including by you, that say in the OP, "This is for BBW and SSBBW only". Now that's fine, even though the rules say anyone can participate so long as their posts are on topic and polite, but everyone respects it when somebody decides their thread is only for certain viewpoints. Yet the same people who demand their privacy and their rights to hang a "Keep Out" sign on the door seem to have a need to go everywhere on this board and post things that often seem to have zero purpose apart from reminding everyone that you can post wherever you want.


----------



## Fascinita (Jan 12, 2010)

LoveBHMS said:


> If you want to protest, why protest to the other posters here? I'm dead serious. I've seen this topic come up and time and again, and got a bunch of super angry PMs over it, and yet it was 100% the decision of a moderator to close a thread on the BBW board, and i believe the reason for its closing was explained as being consistent with the rules under which the board was organized. The only ones who close threads are moderators, and my understanding is their rules and direction come from Conrad. So it's really hard to understand why this anger winds up getting directed at those who had nothing at all to do with it.
> 
> It's like the whole argument about not being able to talk about weight loss. If people are angry about that, why is that anger directed at some of us? Nobody here made the rules, and I've seen posts from at least two self ascribed fetishists, myself being one of them, that support a change in that rule. Yet time and again this ban on weight loss talk is indicative of unfairness towards one faction while another one has unfettered free speech.
> 
> I've also seen plenty of threads on the BBW forum started, including by you, that say in the OP, "This is for BBW and SSBBW only". Now that's fine, even though the rules say anyone can participate so long as their posts are on topic and polite, but everyone respects it when somebody decides their thread is only for certain viewpoints. Yet the same people who demand their privacy and their rights to hang a "Keep Out" sign on the door seem to have a need to go everywhere on this board and post things that often seem to have zero purpose apart from reminding everyone that you can post wherever you want.



I don't want to be rude, but while I'm interested in dialogue, I'm no longer interested in talking to you about this topic. My post was to LillyBBW, and though it's on a public board and you're free to respond, realistically speaking you'll probably find a more receptive partner in dialogue in other posters. Thanks.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Jan 12, 2010)

Fascinita said:


> I know it may seem that way to you, as someone who's perhaps identified with one group and distanced yourself from another (this is pure speculation as to reasons for your logic, and I apologize if I'm painting you with too broad a brush here), but the reality is that some identities do enjoy a lot more freedom of play and of expression at Dimensions than others. There are many examples of threads having been nixed that represented one group, when comparable threads existed representing other groups. This happens time and again. So, in fact, the policing you mention in threads that are supposedly under attack serves to curtail expression from groups whose expression is already systematically curtailed. As well, the policing you mention works to deface the last-ditch expression of protest from groups whose expression is already censored and defaced.
> 
> So, yes, there is something stopping "anyone" who is not publicly identified with the favored group from starting and maintaining discussions with open boundaries. I'll also mention that hybridity tends to get quashed under the juggernaut of "in"ism/favoritism, thanks to the wrongheaded and widespread idea that criticism is not OK and to the "if you're not 100% with me you must be 100% against me and I must kill you" trope. This often leaves people who don't identify exclusively with one group or another in the dust, entrails splayed, and kills right opportunities at vibrant community and dialogue--not to mention _spontaneous_ fun.



Fascinita, thanks for posting this. This raises an interesting issue. My habit is to generally avoid threads with titles that give me the heebee geebees. I'm mildly less inclined towards drama here than I used to be. In some other unrelated location on the boards though, I've on occasion heard of certain threads elsewhere turning into a brawl and eventually being closed or materials deleted altogether. People are often quoted from these threads in signatures and their words used as slogans by whole groups of people. These takedowns often occur in the very threads that I saw the title too and thought, "Ugh, not today." By the time I've looked the thread has been closed or just simply isn't there. So I admit to the possibility that I am not in possession of all the information. I don't know anything about a movement or a marginalized group though I've heard it curiously implied at times here. If there is a priveledged class with supreme powers here, sadly I've not been issued any certificates. I do however admit to reporting posts though that I thought were inappropriate and the Mods were swift to investigate. If this somehow makes me complicit then there you have it. I'm partially responsible for whatever ill feelings one might have from being scolded over it. All I can do is assure you that I acted alone with varying results. I'm not a part of any conspiracy or ill will towards anyone in particular. I was simply raisng a question as to whether certain posts were appropriate in their placement. If it contributed to a hostile environment I apologize.

As for other threads, I can't really comment on them because I've not seen or participated in them. All that appears before my eyes is an interesting conversation begins and then a hijack occurs. People talk about an imbalance and it seems imaginary. I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer, I admit, but I *can't* be the only one who is thinking this way.


----------



## Fascinita (Jan 12, 2010)

LillyBBBW said:


> Fascinita, thanks for posting this. This raises an interesting issue. My habit is to generally avoid threads with titles that give me the heebee geebees. I'm mildly less inclined towards drama here than I used to be. In some other unrelated location on the boards though, I've on occasion heard of certain threads elsewhere turning into a brawl and eventually being closed or materials deleted altogether. People are often quoted from these threads in signatures and their words used as slogans by whole groups of people. These takedowns often occur in the very threads that I saw the title too and thought, "Ugh, not today." By the time I've looked the thread has been closed or just simply isn't there. So I admit to the possibility that I am not in possession of all the information. I don't know anything about a movement or a marginalized group though I've heard it curiously implied at times here. If there is a priveledged class with supreme powers here, sadly I've not been issued any certificates. I do however admit to reporting posts though that I thought were inappropriate and the Mods were swift to investigate. If this somehow makes me complicit then there you have it. I'm partially responsible for whatever ill feelings one might have from being scolded over it. All I can do is assure you that I acted alone with varying results. I'm not a part of any conspiracy or ill will towards anyone in particular. I was simply raisng a question as to whether certain posts were appropriate in their placement. If it contributed to a hostile environment I apologize.
> 
> As for other threads, I can't really comment on them because I've not seen or participated in them. All that appears before my eyes is an interesting conversation begins and then a hijack occurs. People talk about an imbalance and it seems imaginary. I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer, I admit, but I *can't* be the only one who is thinking this way.



Thanks for responding. I have more to say than that, but I have to run now. I appreciate your taking time to consider my post. I'll try to post a better response this evening.


----------



## superodalisque (Jan 12, 2010)

Fascinita said:


> I know it may seem that way to you, as someone who's perhaps identified with one group and distanced yourself from another (this is pure speculation as to reasons for your logic, and I apologize if I'm painting you with too broad a brush here), but the reality is that some identities do enjoy a lot more freedom of play and of expression at Dimensions than others. There are many examples of threads having been nixed that represented one group, when comparable threads existed representing other groups. This happens time and again. So, in fact, the policing you mention in threads that are supposedly under attack serves to curtail expression from groups whose expression is already systematically curtailed. As well, the policing you mention works to deface the last-ditch expression of protest from groups whose expression is already censored and defaced. This is complicated by the fact that, under these circumstances, it may be necessary to extend a level of protection to certain groups, since power and agency have not been universally distributed at Dimensions. When a thread on the BBW board is closed because it's too sexist, while a similarly "sexist" thread stands on the FA board, doesn't it seem to you that it's appropriate to protest the state of things? Where would it be appropriate to stage such a protest? "Policing" takes on a whole new level of meaning when the one place that's envisioned as a space for freedom of expression for BBW, free from intrusions from non-BBW, turns out to be not-so-freedomy after all. Under such a system, it's clear that certain groups have accomplished an iron-clad guarantee against criticism, while another group has had it made clearer than ever that its interests are not to be taken seriously. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
> 
> So, yes, there is something stopping "anyone" who is not publicly identified with the favored group from starting and maintaining discussions with open boundaries. I'll also mention that hybridity tends to get quashed under the dichotomizing juggernaut of "in"ism/favoritism, thanks to the wrongheaded and widespread idea that criticism is not OK and to the "if you're not 100% with me you must be 100% against me and I must kill you" trope. This often leaves people who don't identify exclusively with one group or another in the dust, entrails spilling, and kills right opportunities for vibrant community and dialogue--not to mention _spontaneous_ fun.



i agree with this quite a bit. excellent post! for me personally i don't expect to agree with or have other people agree with me all of the time. in fact i'd be downright disappointed if they did. that would be boring. i think a lot of people are beginning to find a lot of the narrowly defined forums a bit boring and a little less intellectually challenging for that very reason. there is nothing that makes you re-evaluate any of your own previously held beliefs. for the most part its a lot of people just nodding heads in agreement. thats fine and thats needed too to a point too. but too much of it is stagnating in my opinion. all it does is help people to remain firmly entrenched in thier own narrow self serving ways of thinking. people need to peek out of thier own cave at least ocassionally. i enjoy knowing the opinions of others and why they feel the way they do. it helps me to shape what i think in a much more realistic way as my own opinions are not set in stone. i like to think they change for the better when i get clearer, more illuminating and less insular exposure to how other people think.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Jan 12, 2010)

superodalisque said:


> i agree with this quite a bit. excellent post! for me personally i don't expect to agree with or have other people agree with me all of the time. in fact i'd be downright disappointed if they did. that would be boring. i think a lot of people are beginning to find a lot of the narrowly defined forums a bit boring and a little less intellectually challenging for that very reason. there is nothing that makes you re-evaluate any of your own previously held beliefs. for the most part its a lot of people just nodding heads in agreement. thats fine and thats needed too to a point too. but too much of it is stagnating in my opinion. all it does is help people to remain firmly entrenched in thier own narrow self serving ways of thinking. people need to peek out of thier own cave at least ocassionally. i enjoy knowing the opinions of others and why they feel the way they do. it helps me to shape what i think in a much more realistic way as my own opinions are not set in stone. i like to think they change for the better when i get clearer, more illuminating and less insular exposure to how other people think.



Supero I agree with you but there are those who feel they've outgrown the need for these constant debates over debated items that have been debated before the debate that occured previously. Rarely does anyone enter anything new the second or third time that wasn't heard before. People who stand firm in their beliefs won't change their minds even if the information is presented a different way each time. After a while people get weary tired of the drama and would just like to see their topic to completion unobstructed before it gets shouted down. If it's only three posts long, that's OK. Speaking only for myself I'm at a place now where I'm tired of having to put up my dukes to hear other thoughts expressed without the same opposition being expressed immediately. It doesn't necessarily mean I agree with them either, I'm just simply curious to hear it without people being frightened away. There are also times when I just want to sit down with a cup of tea and have a discussion with people who may get what I'm trying to say. Everything needn't be steeped in controversy. For some of us this constant redirecting everytime a topic is tarted gets old. Or maybe it's me that's getting old, I don't know. I just think that a stalemate isn't altogether an admission of defeat always. You're not going to change anyone's mind this time around by restating your ideas again in a new thread started in a more private forum. It's okay to just agree to disagree. This isn't only directed at you (the collective you, whoever that is). I think we can all stand to take a step or two back and allow things to unfold for a bit before jumping in offended.


----------



## superodalisque (Jan 12, 2010)

LillyBBBW said:


> Supero I agree with you but there are those who feel they've outgrown the need for these constant debates over debated items that have been debated before the debate that occured previously. Rarely does anyone enter anything new the second or third time that wasn't heard before. People who stand firm in their beliefs won't change their minds even if the information is presented a different way each time. After a while people get weary tired of the drama and would just like to see their topic to completion unobstructed before it gets shouted down. If it's only three posts long, that's OK. Speaking only for myself I'm at a place now where I'm tired of having to put up my dukes to hear other thoughts expressed without the same opposition being expressed immediately. It doesn't necessarily mean I agree with them either, I'm just simply curious to hear it without people being frightened away. There are also times when I just want to sit down with a cup of tea and have a discussion with people who may get what I'm trying to say. Everything needn't be steeped in controversy. For some of us this constant redirecting everytime a topic is tarted gets old. Or maybe it's me that's getting old, I don't know. I just think that a stalemate isn't altogether an admission of defeat always. You're not going to change anyone's mind this time around by restating your ideas again in a new thread started in a more private forum. It's okay to just agree to disagree. This isn't only directed at you (the collective you, whoever that is). I think we can all stand to take a step or two back and allow things to unfold for a bit before jumping in offended.



i think its possible for people to disagree without having controversy and drama.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Jan 13, 2010)

superodalisque said:


> i think its possible for people to disagree without having controversy and drama.



*takes a deep breath*

Unfortunately there is no evidence to support this belief. I have strong opinions about weight loss surgery. Once or twice I've shared those opinions or tried to offer another side to an ongoing discussion. These attempts have repeatedly become a disaster. I spent days and days going round and round having to defend myself in such discussion. It drew a lot of focus, a lot of energy to the point where the entire focus was on me and my opinion. It obscured everything else to the point where I was sorry I ever spoke up. People got really upset, people threatened to leave Dimensions, people kicked me off of their Facebook accounts over that crap -- I wasn't even mean about it. It was horrible. Sometimes you just have to be the bigger person. I'm perfectly healthy as of this moment. I don't have to face any issues that involve weight loss surgery, I'm not affected by it in the personal way that many people here are. It's clear that there are many sensitive emotions and experiences entwined with this that aren't a part of my daily reality so I've voluntarily decided to keep my opinions to myself. I've said what I had to say, I've been heard, there isn't anything I have to say that no one has already heard and taken in to account so I won't insult anyone's intelligence by harping on it again. This seems like a no brainer to me. I'm observing that this is a sensitive issue even though we all know that weight loss surgery cheerleading is not allowed at Dimensions. I could bleat on about my contempt for the proceedure here to my hearts content and there wouldn't be a darn thing anyone could do about it. I'm automatically in the right here, no matter what I do. I'm not saying this to smugly dangle it out in front of people. We all know it's true and I know that this is a sore and legitimate point of contention. What I'm saying is that in observance of all of this, many of us have voluntarily opted to leave well enough alone. Hardly any of us go high kicking down there in the WLS forum. It's never a fun time. 

I think what is most troubling for many of us is that we've volunteered to leave it alone and keep our comments to ourselves because we like and respect the people who are affected by this issue. We've recognized the sentitivity involved and care enough about the individuals effected that we've chosen to steer clear of pontificating on it. I've even gone so far as to speak out strongly against other's who've done so. This is not meant to be sanctimonious, the real reason is probably more rooted in wanting to avoid drama but honestly? I don't like seeing the kind of pain these discussions inflict on people. But to get the same kind of observances we have to report, infract, erect new forums, create rediculously excessive new rules, etc. It's to no avail though because people simply don't know when enough is enough. We can create new threads with new titles that are more specific and yet the same people barge in once again with the same old saw knowing full well how uptight many people can be about this issues. Here we are trying to be tactful with restraint and it seems nobody gives a shit about us in the same way. It's all about making sure that you're heard over and over in every thread in every corner here. Those of us here who want to hate on weight loss have a clear and unfair advantage here discussion wise and we know it. I'm not opposed to having a discussion as to the disparity between what is allowed here and what isn't and I KNOW this is a sore issue, but this still doesn't stop actions from being personally hurtful. It's even more so when we ask for diplomacy only to get dismissed as fearful hysterics who want to silence the truth. Oh, well excuse us.  

Off the top of my head I can think of three people who were permanently banned from this board because they continued to contribute inflammatory opinions that were distressing to people and disruptive of the boards. Opinions aren't really right or wrong, they're simply opinions. These folks were banned for no other reason though. When asked to stop they either couldn't recognize when enough was enough or they simply didn't give a shit. Somewhere amid the muddle of legitimate grievance -- and I *do* feel that there is a legitimate something there -- there has to be a recognition of that thin line where it's time to give a shit.


----------



## LoveBHMS (Jan 13, 2010)

Lilly makes a good point here.

I've seen a ton of posts that demand a loosening of rules and moderating and reporting with the argument that it's supposed to be a discussion. The thing is, as pointed out above, not all discussions need to involve everyone. If Lilly is talking about African hair care, I have nothing to contribute. A discussion between feeders is just that, a discussion about feederism and other viewpoints are not always welcome or valuable. In the same way, a talk about WLS does not have to include the fact that somebody is opposed to it, it might just be about issues surrounding the surgery or post op care.

When it comes to sexuality, there are many areas where there is nothing to discuss. If somebody has a fetish, they just have it. Despite some people's stated belief that hardwiring is "bullshit", the truth is for most of us, it's something that has been in evidence for years and this has been stated time and again. 

To say it needs to be held up for discussion is like saying it's ok to go to the LGBT Board and discuss the "ex-gay" movement, or talk about therapy for Gender Identity Disorder so that transgenders can be 'cured'. Those things would not be welcome, and neither are "discussions" about whether or not it's ok or acceptable to have this sexuality. The idea that we have to open it up for discussion or that such a discussion is in any way productive is just not right.

Beyond that, i don't see most of the intrusions on the fetish talk to be anything beyond a reminder that "I can post anyplace I want on Dims", it's about a turf war and about trying to insist on what Dims is *really* about and who it's *really* for. 

It somewhat reminds me of the old Chris Rock bit about saying the N-word. He jokes about how his white friends complain that he can say it and they can't, and he asks why they'd want to? Like your life is perfect _except_ for the fact you can't say that one word? I see WB trolling a lot like that, it never seems to be about wanting to be part of a discussion since it's usually either ridicule or rebuking people for being aroused by the wrong things.


----------



## xysoseriousx (Jul 2, 2010)

I am for feederism, because if you are with a bbw/bhm it is one of the sexiest things you do. You feel more attracted when they get bigger, so feeding makes you feel more with them.


----------

