# Effect of FA mindset on relationships & SA



## thatgirl08 (Apr 8, 2011)

As a BBW, does it matter to you whether your FA partner considers his FAism a preference, fetish, orientation, etc.? Do you prefer one of these mindsets (for lack of a better term) over another? Does it have an impact on your relationship? 

Also, this isn't BBW specific necessarily but how do you think this impacts SA? Do you think what people consider FAism to be has an impact on how its viewed in SA? Or maybe how its viewed to people not involved in SA?

Just for reference, here are some stats from a poll conducted on this site:

fetish 12	16.44%
preference 50	68.49%
'alt.' lifestyle 0	0%
other 11	15.07%

Based on this, it appears that a majority of FAs consider their FAism to be a preference. I know its hardly a scientific study but what do you think is the impact of this versus FAs who consider it to be a fetish, lifestyle, orientation, etc.? I'm curious on opinions relating to personal situations (such as relationships) and also in a more general way, especially in regards to SA.


----------



## penguin (Apr 8, 2011)

I really don't want to be my partner's fetish. I want my partner to love me as I am, and find me sexy and desirable, whatever my body shape and size. Being their fetish means my personality and intellect aren't needed or wanted, just my fat.

I do see liking your partner to be fat as a preference, like preferring big boobs/small boobs/blonde hair/gymnasts/models/whatever. It's what attracts you to them, but it's their personality that keeps you there...just like any other relationship.


----------



## Tania (Apr 8, 2011)

I think the terms people use are a lot less important than how the interest plays out in real life. Obviously, I'm not going to be comfortable with someone who constantly describes his fascination with my body as a fetish interest, but then again, I'm not going to be comfortable with someone who constantly treats me like a bag of fat yet insists that his interest is "just a preference," either. At least the former is honest and self-aware. 

Nobody can entirely agree on universal definitions for the various labels we use, and even if we could there's the reality that people hide behind euphemism to make them feel better about themselves. Plus, there's the fact that some people have no fucking clue what it is that motivates them, which kind of invalidates the purpose of trying to hammer out the labels in the first place. 

As for the other issue, I think physical preferences and personal relationships are kind of outside of the purview of size acceptance as a straight civil rights movement. To me, SA should be about (reasonably) equal access and basic human respect in the public world for people of all sizes, whereas particular sexual interests, specific personal relationships, and individual choices/philosophies regarding weight gain or loss are going to fall under the civil liberties banner.


----------



## 1love_emily (Apr 9, 2011)

I don't think we should discredit how 11% of the pollers thought that what they liked was described as "other". I think that a lot of FAs believe that they don't have a fetish, they don't have a discrediting preference, and they definitely aren't an alternative lifestyle. 

It's not a preference if you are just naturally attracted to someone. I think of preferences as choosing one specifically over another because of one attribute. Instead, FAs are just naturally attracted to those of us with added poundage. 

A fetish is being obsessed with just the physicality of the preference and not caring about who is under all of that fat. 

I think "other" is probably what I would want my FA to feel about his FA-ness... it's not something he can chose like a preference and it's not an obsession like a fetish.


----------



## thatgirl08 (Apr 9, 2011)

1love_emily said:


> I don't think we should discredit how 11% of the pollers thought that what they liked was described as "other". I think that a lot of FAs believe that they don't have a fetish, they don't have a discrediting preference, and they definitely aren't an alternative lifestyle.
> 
> It's not a preference if you are just naturally attracted to someone. I think of preferences as choosing one specifically over another because of one attribute. Instead, FAs are just naturally attracted to those of us with added poundage.
> 
> ...



Hm. I don't think I'm getting what you're trying to say. Do people have preferences for things they don't naturally find attractive? If I have a preference for dark haired men isn't it because I'm naturally attracted to them? I think "natural attraction" and preference are one in the same, unless you're using the phrase differently from how I'm understanding it. Also, there's no way to say for sure what those 11 FAs had in mind when they chose other. There have been other polls which included orientation as an option so maybe some of those eleven were thinking that? No way to say for sure. Also, I wasn't trying to discredit any of them, just asking for thoughts based on the results of the poll.


----------



## 1love_emily (Apr 9, 2011)

thatgirl08 said:


> Hm. I don't think I'm getting what you're trying to say. Do people have preferences for things they don't naturally find attractive? If I have a preference for dark haired men isn't it because I'm naturally attracted to them? I think "natural attraction" and preference are one in the same, unless you're using the phrase differently from how I'm understanding it. Also, there's no way to say for sure what those 11 FAs had in mind when they chose other. There have been other polls which included orientation as an option so maybe some of those eleven were thinking that? No way to say for sure. Also, I wasn't trying to discredit any of them, just asking for thoughts based on the results of the poll.



Merriam-Webster says that preference is "the power or opportunity to choose". I interpret preference as the same thing... someone prefers to read romance novels, but this time they have the opportunity to pick a science fiction. Preference, to me, means that they can be attracted to anyone, but choose to love BBW. A natural attraction, to me, means that they are drawn to it without any other options and that it is the only thing they are attracted to. I have a _natural attraction_ to tall men, but given the opportunity, I would date any kind of man if they had personality because personality is a _preference_.


----------



## Tania (Apr 9, 2011)

thatgirl08 said:


> Do people have preferences for things they don't naturally find attractive?



Regarding sexual interest, yes and no. Some people are turned on by stuff that on some level repulses them. You can find gratification in ideas that are not entirely pleasant to you.


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy (Apr 9, 2011)

1. If a man I am with ever tells me he regards his attraction to me a fetish, then I will tell him I regard him as an ex. Too much for me babe......:blink:


2. Preference? I am cool with that....the guy I am with now made it clear that he prefers bigger women....just as I made it clear that I am a bigger woman. Easy enough.

3. Orientation? I'm trying to discern how that is different from a preference. Just CANNOT be with a smaller woman? That's fine with me.....just can't deal with men that seek to control me, my health or my wishes for my own self. 
Men that say I am too fat for them....are okay with me. Let's not waste anyone's time, eh? But what if he chose to date me and THEN disclosed this information? Told me to lose x amount of weight or makes a huge issue out of weight gain and says he cannot "love" me anymore. 
Wow, that's not a very healthy "love" IMO.....and I know this from personal experience. I have no desire to be with that kind of man. 
What about his reverse- one that insists upon my weighing more than x amount, says I should gain weight so he can find me attractive or if I make a decision to lose weight then he is leaving.....I would tell him to get to stepping, too.

Same thing- six of one, half dozen of another. 

Back to that preference thing.......there ARE men in the world who can find me attractive at varying weights. They are not mythical creatures. Their true preference is ME....not my weight or lack of it.


----------



## thatgirl08 (Apr 9, 2011)

1love_emily said:


> A natural attraction, to me, means that they are drawn to it without any other options and that it is the only thing they are attracted to. I have a _natural attraction_ to tall men, but given the opportunity, I would date any kind of man if they had personality because personality is a _preference_.



I still don't get it. If natural attraction = no other options, then how are you able to choose to date any kind of man regardless of height if tallness is a natural attraction for you?


----------



## 1love_emily (Apr 10, 2011)

Green Eyed Fairy said:


> Their true preference is ME....not my weight or lack of it.



I love this! What a perfect statement


----------



## 1love_emily (Apr 10, 2011)

thatgirl08 said:


> I still don't get it. If natural attraction = no other options, then how are you able to choose to date any kind of man regardless of height if tallness is a natural attraction for you?



When I think of a man having a preference towards larger women it means "Well, I could date the skinny girl or the fat girl. While both present pros and cons, I am more sexually attracted to the bigger girl because of x y and z yet if that doesn't work out, I could always got for skinny girl because of a b and c". Whereas the "other" option would be "I couldn't even think of dating a skinny girl because I just am not attracted to her. I only want the curvy girl because of x y and z. Even if skinny girl has a b and c, I only want x y and z"


----------



## thatgirl08 (Apr 10, 2011)

1love_emily said:


> When I think of a man having a preference towards larger women it means "Well, I could date the skinny girl or the fat girl. While both present pros and cons, I am more sexually attracted to the bigger girl because of x y and z yet if that doesn't work out, I could always got for skinny girl because of a b and c". Whereas the "other" option would be "I couldn't even think of dating a skinny girl because I just am not attracted to her. I only want the curvy girl because of x y and z. Even if skinny girl has a b and c, I only want x y and z"



Thank you for the clarification! So, ultimately you'd prefer (or possibly only be interested in dating) someone who is NOT bisizual but instead only is attracted to & dates fat women?


----------



## thatgirl08 (Apr 10, 2011)

Tania said:


> As for the other issue, I think physical preferences and personal relationships are kind of outside of the purview of size acceptance as a straight civil rights movement. To me, SA should be about (reasonably) equal access and basic human respect in the public world for people of all sizes, whereas particular sexual interests, specific personal relationships, and individual choices/philosophies regarding weight gain or loss are going to fall under the civil liberties banner.



I agree, but do you ever feel like the sexual interest part of it gets a lot more attention? And that sometimes FAism, or even feederism, are attached to the SA movement by those not involved? 

It just seems like unfortunately a lot of the fat exposure I've seen on TV, in the news, etc. seems to be directed more at fat in relation to sexuality.. such as Zsa Zsa, BigCutie Jae, collaredprincess, etc. appearing on shows like Tyra. Do you think this exposure harms SA?




Tania said:


> Regarding sexual interest, yes and no. Some people are turned on by stuff that on some level repulses them. You can find gratification in ideas that are not entirely pleasant to you.



I actually agree with you.. the generalization just made it simpler to make my point.


----------



## Tania (Apr 11, 2011)

thatgirl08 said:


> I agree, but do you ever feel like the sexual interest part of it gets a lot more attention? And that sometimes FAism, or even feederism, are attached to the SA movement by those not involved? ...Do you think this exposure harms SA?



1. Not really! If you ask the average person what's wrong with fat people, they're not going to say "RECKLESS GAINERS!" Their responses will probably run the gamut from "depressingly unhealthy" to "lazy" and "a flight annoyance." Overall, I see much, much, much, much more media attention given to the deathfat demon and the debate over health reality than anything else. Secondarily, I see coverage of the rise of "real bodies" and plus fashion. I think I've only caught two fat sexuality references in the media without the assistance of Dims or some other fat interest resource: A joke about Donna on Stephen Colbert and an episode of Bones that referenced feederism. Being hooked into a fat-interest network means we're exposed to a lot more fat sex media and discussion than the average person. 

2. I think FAism and feederism seek to attach *themselves* to the SA movement in a variety of ways and for a number of reasons (Dims is a case in point), but that's probably causing more confusion among would-be members of the SA community than it is among the general public... 

3. Do I think that it's harmful to conflate size acceptance and size sexuality? Yes and no. On one hand, it's great to have sympathetic allies in a movement with many parallel values. On the other hand, I think that it IS harmful when people who have a secondary-to-nonexistent interest in public access and basic human respect for fat people attempt to coopt the agenda, thereby confusing the base (and sometimes the public, perhaps) and creating unresolvable internal policy rifts over philosophies that can and should coexist just fine in separate movements. I think that fat admirers can have active roles in the size acceptance movement, but that role is contingent on their ability to leave their FA caps at home while they're fighting for reasonable access and equal respect for people of all sizes. 

At the end of the day, most people don't know that FAism or feederism exist, and if they do, they probably don't spend much time thinking about it. They're much more likely to recognize airline seating and health insurance costs as size activism battlegrounds than Donna's visit to the Tyra show. Journalists, editors, producers, and average Americans view those subjects as relevant to everyday life, whereas the odd extreme kinkster here and there remains, after the initial frenzy subsides, a tabloid curiosity.


----------



## thatgirl08 (Apr 12, 2011)

Tania said:


> 1. Not really! If you ask the average person what's wrong with fat people, they're not going to say "RECKLESS GAINERS!" Their responses will probably run the gamut from "depressingly unhealthy" to "lazy" and "a flight annoyance." Overall, I see much, much, much, much more media attention given to the deathfat demon and the debate over health reality than anything else. Secondarily, I see coverage of the rise of "real bodies" and plus fashion. I think I've only caught two fat sexuality references in the media without the assistance of Dims or some other fat interest resource: A joke about Donna on Stephen Colbert and an episode of Bones that referenced feederism. Being hooked into a fat-interest network means we're exposed to a lot more fat sex media and discussion than the average person.
> 
> 2. I think FAism and feederism seek to attach *themselves* to the SA movement in a variety of ways and for a number of reasons (Dims is a case in point), but that's probably causing more confusion among would-be members of the SA community than it is among the general public...
> 
> ...



All fantastic points and I'm sure you're right. I think I tend to get blinders when it comes to these issues because I see most fat related stuff from the standpoint of someone who has been immersed in this online community for a long time rather than the way the average person sees it.


----------



## Tania (Apr 12, 2011)

You are totally right to question it. Vigilance is important!


----------



## LoveBHMS (Apr 12, 2011)

I openly self ascribe as a fetishist and consider my being an FA/feeder to be a fetish.

That being said, I always feel like it should be obvious that the fetish can't be the be all and end all. If it could, the personal ads on Fantasy Feeder wouldn't be more than one word (feeder or feedee) and nobody would be single.

If you're into *something* you have two choices, start with the *something* and work from there, or start with the "whole person" and hope they somehow fit into your personal turn-ons. It would be just as frustrating to be in the position of saying "Right person but doesn't excite me" as saying "Fat but wrong religion/gender/lifestyle".


----------



## Blockierer (Apr 17, 2011)

For me as an FA it includes all of them: 50% fetish, 10% preference, 10% orientation, 20% lifestyle, 10% etc.

Fetish cause skinny chicks don't do it for me, just useless.
Preference cause I prefer SSBBW more than BBW.  And I love the company of fat people.
Orientation cause I don't fantasy about sex with skinnies.
Lifestyle cause I'm married to a SSBBW and I cherish friendships online and in reality with FAs and (SS)BBW.
Etc cause there are a lot more aspects of FAism.


----------



## mossystate (Apr 17, 2011)

As a bbw...

I don't know. I sure seem to see plenty of non fa's posts axed ( and more ) in the fa forum when a thread starts out similar to this one..." as a fa ". I know there was a bigger conversation here, but in light of certain situations, it seems pretty unfair.


----------



## thatgirl08 (Apr 17, 2011)

mossystate said:


> As a bbw...
> 
> I don't know. I sure seem to see plenty of non fa's posts axed ( and more ) in the fa forum when a thread starts out similar to this one..." as a fa ". I know there was a bigger conversation here, but in light of certain situations, it seems pretty unfair.



Yeah.. its interesting.


----------



## EvilPrincess (Apr 18, 2011)

This thread is closed temporarily as we sort through and edit posts. Your cooperation is appreciated.


----------

