# is wrong to be a f/a and a feeder



## svenmad1967 (Mar 29, 2007)

Hey People
this is my first post in a long time so please bear with me. I was just wondering if it is wrong to be a f/a and a feeder too. as of late i have been thinking about women getting really big and fat and i was wondering if i am crazy or is this normal for a f/a?? I would like to meet a ssbbw 400 and up would be great and if she wants to get bigger i would like to help her out. As of late i been having SSBBW dreams where i meet this raven-haired big breasted like Amberosia and big huge thighs,belly and butt like Cindy G and she takes me to her place and she says to me you want to get lost in my body and i lie on the bed and she gets on top of me and does that and i press my hand on her tummy and its gets lost in her body and her tummy so if this wrong tell me i and i will not talk about it again. if you are interested in talking to me my yahoo id is Svenm2112 and i am on myspace.com/svenm2112 so i hope to hear from you soon
Sven


----------



## BothGunsBlazing (Mar 29, 2007)

,,,,,,,,,

These are for you. 

:bow:


----------



## Mikey (Mar 29, 2007)

svenmad1967 said:


> Hey People
> this is my first post in a long time so please bear with me. I was just wondering if it is wrong to be a f/a and a feeder too. as of late i have been thinking about women getting really big and fat and i was wondering if i am crazy or is this normal for a f/a?? I would like to meet a ssbbw 400 and up would be great and if she wants to get bigger i would like to help her out. As of late i been having SSBBW dreams where i meet this raven-haired big breasted like Amberosia and big huge thighs,belly and butt like Cindy G and she takes me to her place and she says to me you want to get lost in my body and i lie on the bed and she gets on top of me and does that and i press my hand on her tummy and its gets lost in her body and her tummy so if this wrong tell me i and i will not talk about it again. if you are interested in talking to me my yahoo id is Svenm2112 and i am on myspace.com/svenm2112 so i hope to hear from you soon
> Sven




Yes it is wrong! Let me help you with this...send all the women who write to over to me and I will take care of everything!


----------



## SamanthaNY (Mar 29, 2007)

BothGunsBlazing said:


> ,,,,,,,,,
> 
> These are for you.
> 
> :bow:



*snort* 

Fabulous.


----------



## liz (di-va) (Mar 29, 2007)

BothGunsBlazing said:


> ,,,,,,,,,
> These are for you.



hee! crackin me up


----------



## Seth Warren (Mar 29, 2007)

It is wrong and you are going to burn in HAY-EL!

...or so I've been told.


----------



## AnnMarie (Mar 29, 2007)

All FAs are not Feeders.

All Feeders are not FAs.

Some FAs are Feeders. Some Feeders are FAs.


The end.


----------



## RedVelvet (Mar 29, 2007)

BothGunsBlazing said:


> ,,,,,,,,,
> 
> These are for you.
> 
> :bow:




I cannot STOP laughing....I just cant stop.


----------



## Emma (Mar 29, 2007)

AnnMarie said:


> All Feeders are not FAs.



Can you elaborate on this please?


----------



## BothGunsBlazing (Mar 29, 2007)

CurvyEm said:


> Can you elaborate on this please?



I obviously cannot speak for AnnMarie, but I'll toss in a few thoughts of my own.

Some men who consider themselves feeders have malicious intent when it comes to it. It's not really about the woman getting fatter and sexier. It's more about them having a sense of superiority over that woman. Helping her gain weight for the sole purpose of keeping her on a short leash. Making her more "undesirable" if you will. 

These men are not FAs. They're into it for a power trip and some one to rule over on an emotional and physical level. I wish none of this was true, but unfortunately it is.


----------



## TheSadeianLinguist (Mar 29, 2007)

I think ultimately it boils down to whether the feeder has a sense of reality and cares for the person. I don't think ANYONE worth their weight in salt would want to see their significant other be unable to function in everyday life.

I realized in a relationship once if a person is willing to help me destroy myself, they're not worth being with. Feeders and feedees can be healthy, happy, normal people, but if someone intends to take their fantasy into reality of causing actual harm and isolation of a person, yes, they're fucked in the head.

I always greatly admired Bruce of the boards for just that reason - he actually respected the women he was feeding and cared for them as people.


----------



## AnnMarie (Mar 29, 2007)

CurvyEm said:


> Can you elaborate on this please?



Why I'd LOVE to!!! Thanks for asking. 

For instance, there are men out there who have interest in gaining females, but their range of interest is the woman in question going from 120 to 145lbs. This is not an FA. 

There are guys who've posted about stuffing and gaining on various sites around who are quite clear that they don't want her to get FAT, that's disgusting. But the expanding/balloon belly (the pregnancy effect that tightens some pants 'round here) is a big goal. 

Hope that helps make more sense.


----------



## BothGunsBlazing (Mar 29, 2007)

^^ .. er.. yeah, that too ..


----------



## Ned Sonntag (Mar 29, 2007)

...I don' wanna be right.


----------



## Emma (Mar 29, 2007)

lol Thank you, I was a little confused there for a moment.


----------



## Fuzzy (Mar 29, 2007)

AnnMarie said:


> All FAs are not Feeders.
> 
> All Feeders are not FAs.
> 
> ...



There's got to be a Sesame Street tune to go with this...


----------



## NancyGirl74 (Mar 29, 2007)

Fuzzy said:


> There's got to be a Sesame Street tune to go with this...



This thread was brought to you by the letters F and A! And the number 400!  

*sorry...couldn't resist*


----------



## roundbird (Mar 30, 2007)

AnneMarie must have done well on her SAT's
Some others, not so well.


----------



## GeorgeNL (Mar 30, 2007)

Is it wrong to love someone, is it wrong to feel sexually attracted to someone? If it would be a young kid, I would say please keep your hands to yourself. But in case of an adult, and certainly a BBW, hug her! love her! caress her, worship her! Make her your queen! 
It makes both of you happy, how can that ever be wrong?

Now I haven't got much knowledge about feeders, I'm no feeder myself. But I can very well imagine you could have a great time, spoiling each other with a delicious meal, or sweets. 

However, I think you know very well when it's wrong. When there is no love, but only sexual satisfaction. When a woman has to change herself, only for your sexual satisfaction.


----------



## Jon Blaze (Mar 30, 2007)

I don't think so. Some people are one or the other, but there are many hybrids. It's all subjective.


----------



## Daknee (Mar 30, 2007)

BothGunsBlazing said:


> I obviously cannot speak for AnnMarie, but I'll toss in a few thoughts of my own.
> 
> Some men who consider themselves feeders have malicious intent when it comes to it. It's not really about the woman getting fatter and sexier. It's more about them having a sense of superiority over that woman. Helping her gain weight for the sole purpose of keeping her on a short leash. Making her more "undesirable" if you will.
> 
> These men are not FAs. They're into it for a power trip and some one to rule over on an emotional and physical level. I wish none of this was true, but unfortunately it is.



I think the same might be said for some women. Some like to fatten there boyfriends/spouses in order to have control over keeping them off the market so to speak. Hence a control issue as well.


----------



## thepiscn (Mar 30, 2007)

Being attracted to someone who is large is not immediately wrong or unethical. This goes with any shape or size. It is not immediately wrong or unethical to be attracted to women with large breasts, who are athletic, who have red hair. However, I believe there is a time when it can become unethical. Pushing a woman to look a certain way would be unethical. Telling her she needs to have bigger/smaller breasts otherwise your love will not be kept. Telling her she needs bigger/smaller breasts despite the health problems it may pose to her (she would have to have surgery). Now, say you are an FA or a Feeder. The point where it is unethical is where even though you may like your significant other bigger or being gaining weight despite the health consequences. Say she/he is 300lbs and has health issues that will go away with weight loss. If your love is just conditional on their size then yes, you are wrong. You do not care about them, you just care about their size. Then you are being unethical as an FA or Feeder. This can be applied to many other things that people are attracted to as well.

So, to make it short. Inherently no it is not wrong or unethical. However, one can definitely be abusive and be unethical as an FA or a Feeder in their desire for someone to be fat.


----------



## ClashCityRocker (Apr 3, 2007)

BothGunsBlazing said:


> ,,,,,,,,,
> 
> These are for you.
> 
> :bow:



smiley face


----------



## LongTimeFA (Apr 3, 2007)

BothGunsBlazing said:


> ,,,,,,,,,
> 
> These are for you.
> 
> :bow:



OK... I am feeling very stupid and dense. Everyone thinks this is hilarious but I don't get it.


----------



## William (Apr 3, 2007)

Hi 

I do not think that it is fair to compare this type of Woman with the level of Feederism we are talking about here. There is a world of difference. 

William 




Daknee said:


> I think the same might be said for some women. Some like to fatten there boyfriends/spouses in order to have control over keeping them off the market so to speak. Hence a control issue as well.


----------



## Daknee (Apr 3, 2007)

William said:


> Hi
> 
> I do not think that it is fair to compare this type of Woman with the level of Feederism we are talking about here. There is a world of difference.
> 
> William



William, there is not enough information either way here. It would be wrong to compare the two types blantantly. I was mearly stating there are some women like that, after someone pointed out there are some men who do it for control reasons.


----------



## AnnMarie (Apr 3, 2007)

LongTimeFA said:


> OK... I am feeling very stupid and dense. Everyone thinks this is hilarious but I don't get it.



I believe he felt the original poster was out of commas (since he didn't use any), so he wanted to give him a bunch to throw around.... might help us all take a breath.


----------



## James (Apr 3, 2007)

thepiscn said:


> ....
> So, to make it short. Inherently no it is not wrong or unethical. However, one can definitely be abusive and be unethical *as an FA *or a Feeder in their desire for someone to be fat.



I totally agree... 

Right and wrong is of course, a largely subjective concept and as with anything in a relationship, if both parties are totally into something then thats their business and no-one elses.

That said, when negative comments are made about weight gain or loss, that kind of thing can breed an insecurity. Especially if those comments allude to someone either being required to stay fat/thin or change their weight to remain attractive. 

In my opinion, the only relationships that are really worth bothering with are those where both parties accept and love eachother for who they are... just the way they are... where the core of it all is actually nothing to do with the weights, measurements or any kinds of "conditions" of that sort...

I've never been totally clear on what the definition of FA is... but to me, its not about making your preference for a fat girl into an issue where a gf feels pressured to maintain or increase a level of fatness (in order for her to feel desired) than is comfortable for her... or fatter than is compatible with the kinds of things that she would want from her life (children, mobility, travel, comfort). As I say, such a pressure doesnt necessarily just come from a feeder-type, I think it can come from an FA just as easily if numeric conditions start being put on love...

lol... but each to their own of course... I'm just breezing from my perspective on things...


----------



## Moyseku (Apr 4, 2007)

all feeders are also Fas, so perfectly a Fa can be a Feeder also, just look at me, i am both and i am proud of it


----------



## Blackjack (Apr 4, 2007)

Moyseku said:


> all feeders are also Fas, so perfectly a Fa can be a Feeder also, just look at me, i am both and i am proud of it



Tip: Read the whole thread before posting. It's been noted here, with a good argument to back it up, that not all feeders are FA's.


----------



## weetabix (Apr 11, 2007)

AnnMarie said:


> All FAs are not Feeders.
> 
> All Feeders are not FAs.
> 
> ...



No sorry thats nonsense

Not all FAs are Feeders
Not all Feeders are FAs

--------------------
You will find that some aspect of feeding is just to have a fatter BBW. Other aspects are to indulge the Feedees desires, hopefully these are desires to become fatter and not just a desire to eat or just a desire to please the Feeder.

Ideally a Feedee is looking for a Feeder to make them fatter and the Feeder is looking for a Feedee to feed and fatten to the same extent. Getting the balance right is not easy. It could be a big problem if one person wants to keep going and the other thinks the ideal size has been reached.

A true FA would know when to stop. A true Feeder would never stop if the Feedee keeps gaining.

Regards,
Weetabix


----------



## weetabix (Apr 11, 2007)

thepiscn said:


> So, to make it short. Inherently no it is not wrong or unethical. However, one can definitely be abusive and be unethical as an FA or a Feeder in their desire for someone to be fat.



But don't let that stop you if she is willing.:eat2:


----------



## Waxwing (Apr 11, 2007)

weetabix said:


> But don't let that stop you if she is willing.:eat2:



well, um, i ...

:blink:


----------



## SamanthaNY (Apr 11, 2007)

thepiscn said:


> So, to make it short. Inherently no it is not wrong or unethical. However, one can definitely be abusive and be unethical as an FA or a Feeder in their desire for someone to be fat.





weetabix said:


> But don't let that stop you if she is willing.:eat2:


I'm sorry this has to actually be said, but... even when/if someone _accepts _abusive and unethical treatment, *IT'S STILL WRONG*.

So absolutely, let that stop you. 

And I hope that it does.


----------



## Waxwing (Apr 11, 2007)

SamanthaNY said:


> I'm sorry this has to actually be said, but... even when/if someone _accepts _abusive and unethical treatment, *IT'S STILL WRONG*.
> 
> So absolutely, let that stop you.
> 
> And I hope that it does.


 
I actually wasn't sure if weetabix was being sarcastic or no, hence my lack of coherence. If not, then goddamn, man, listen to SamanthaNY. Someone can be incapable of saying no even when they're in danger, but it doesn't make it any less wrong for you to abuse them. 

Again, I realllllly hope you were kidding.


----------



## MisticalMisty (Apr 11, 2007)

weetabix said:


> No sorry thats nonsense
> 
> Not all FAs are Feeders
> Not all Feeders are FAs
> ...


Uhh..that's what she said


----------



## MisticalMisty (Apr 11, 2007)

SamanthaNY said:


> I'm sorry this has to actually be said, but... even when/if someone _accepts _abusive and unethical treatment, *IT'S STILL WRONG*.
> 
> So absolutely, let that stop you.
> 
> And I hope that it does.



I'm confused...are you saying that all feeder/feedee relationships are abusive and unethical? I re-read the thread thinking that would clarify things..and it doesn't..could you shed some light please


----------



## AnnMarie (Apr 11, 2007)

MisticalMisty said:


> Uhh..that's what she said



Thank you, apparently my placing the "not" in another place was totally unacceptable and made me a buffoon.


----------



## Blackjack (Apr 11, 2007)

MisticalMisty said:


> I'm confused...are you saying that all feeder/feedee relationships are abusive and unethical? I re-read the thread thinking that would clarify things..and it doesn't..could you shed some light please



Not all feeding relationships. thepicsn said that sometimes these relationships can become abusive or unethical... weetabix said that one shouldn't let this stop them.


----------



## Blackjack (Apr 11, 2007)

AnnMarie said:


> Thank you, apparently my placing the "not" in another place was totally unacceptable and made me a buffoon.



pwnt by logix


----------



## Waxwing (Apr 11, 2007)

MisticalMisty said:


> I'm confused...are you saying that all feeder/feedee relationships are abusive and unethical? I re-read the thread thinking that would clarify things..and it doesn't..could you shed some light please



The point was made that certain feeder/feedee relationships can be abusive (if the feedee's health and happiness aren't considered), and weetabix said that if the woman is willing, go for it anyway. Samantha was bringin' some reason to the party and saying hell no abuse is abuse even if the person is too damaged emotionally to fight it. 

Edited to add: Deputy Fife beat me to it.


----------



## MisticalMisty (Apr 11, 2007)

Waxwing said:


> The point was made that certain feeder/feedee relationships can be abusive (if the feedee's health and happiness isn't considered), and weetabix said (perhaps kidding) that if the woman is willing, go for it anyway.
> 
> Edited to add: Deputy Fife beat me to it.



Thanks BJ and Waxwing...I knew I was missing something!


----------



## Wagimawr (Apr 11, 2007)

Waxwing said:


> Samantha was bringin' some reason to the party and saying hell no abuse is abuse even if the person is too damaged emotionally to fight it.


The logic would then follow that anybody that says they enjoy being hit/called names/objectified/spat upon/dehumanized or any other behavior that somebody, somewhere could classify as abuse can't freely enjoy said behavior without some sort of emotional trauma to provoke it.

Right?


----------



## Waxwing (Apr 11, 2007)

Wagimawr said:


> The logic would then follow that anybody that says they enjoy being hit/called names/objectified/spat upon/dehumanized or any other behavior that somebody, somewhere could classify as abuse can't freely enjoy said behavior without some sort of emotional trauma to provoke it.
> 
> Right?


 
No, because I think that the original argument indicated that the recipient wouldn't enjoy it but wouldn't have the fortitude to fight it. 

It is fairly common to enjoy being abused/spat upon/insulted etc, and if both parties are agreeable, and if the recipient of those actions is _actively seeking it out_, then more power to them. 

My impression was that we were talking about a situation in which the feedee doesn't necessarily want to participate, and doesn't enjoy it, but because of a lack of sense of self, or a fear of being alone, they go along with it to appease the dominant partner. 

Mutually desired abuse? Right on. 

I see how my statement could have made it seem that I believe otherwise, but let it _never_ be said that Waxwing doesn't understand the kinky sex.


----------



## SamanthaNY (Apr 11, 2007)

MisticalMisty said:


> I'm confused...are you saying that all feeder/feedee relationships are abusive and unethical? I re-read the thread thinking that would clarify things..and it doesn't..could you shed some light please





Waxwing said:


> The point was made that certain feeder/feedee relationships can be abusive (if the feedee's health and happiness aren't considered), and weetabix said that if the woman is willing, go for it anyway. Samantha was bringin' some reason to the party and saying hell no abuse is abuse even if the person is too damaged emotionally to fight it.
> 
> Edited to add: Deputy Fife beat me to it.



Yes - Waxwing has it right. That was my intention. 

I have no problem with consensual feederism (okay, I'm not a fan either, but if you're a reasonably healthy adult, do what you will with another reasonable, healthy adult). And certainly, in no way do I condemn or label all feeder/ee relationships as unethical or abusive. Weet may not have meant his post the way I read it, but it seemed like it _could be read_ as such an alarming concept to me (that others might also perceive), so I had to say what I did about it.


----------



## Fuzzy Necromancer (Apr 11, 2007)

Waxwing said:


> No, because I think that the original argument indicated that the recipient wouldn't enjoy it but wouldn't have the fortitude to fight it.
> 
> It is fairly common to enjoy being abused/spat upon/insulted etc, and if both parties are agreeable, and if the recipient of those actions is _actively seeking it out_, then more power to them.
> 
> ...




I don't understand how a feeder-feedee relationship would be in any way more conducive to abuse than another one.


----------



## Waxwing (Apr 11, 2007)

Fuzzy Necromancer said:


> I don't understand how a feeder-feedee relationship would be in any way more conducive to abuse than another one.


 
Nobody ever said that it was, nor was it even vaguely implied in my post. 

Every relationship, fringe or otherwise, has the potential to be abusive, but by no means was I saying that they necessarily are. The hypothetical situation of a feeder/feedee relationship becoming abusive _in the event that_ the feedee is complying simply to make the feeder happy, was brought up. Explored. That's all. No value judgment. 

Humans are easy to manipulate, and if you put two of them together, and then toss in some emotions, things can either be really lovely or damned hurtful. Everyone CAN be abusive in a romantic entanglement. Thankfully most of us aren't.


----------



## Totmacher (Apr 12, 2007)

Forgive me for jumping in here, but I think I might have latched on to the idea and want to confirm. In essence, a feedee/er relationship _is_ more conducive to abuse, because the instant the feedee's not into it 100% then (s)he's being injured to make someone else happy and thus it's abuse? Kinda like how if you don't wanna have sex but your partner does so you go through the motions you've technically just been raped.


----------



## Waxwing (Apr 12, 2007)

Totmacher said:


> Forgive me for jumping in here, but I think I might have latched on to the idea and want to confirm. In essence, a feedee/er relationship _is_ more conducive to abuse, because the instant the feedee's not into it 100% then (s)he's being injured to make someone else happy and thus it's abuse? Kinda like how if you don't wanna have sex but your partner does so you go through the motions you've technically just been raped.


 
It's late and I've posted way too much today (can't stop! addicted! ), so forgive me if I stop making sense. 

I see your point, but then you're not really saying that it's only a feeder/feedee relationship which carries more potential for abuse, but any relationship which asks for manipulation of the body? Would S&M relationships be another example? I think that I see what you mean, but I don't know that it's really different than any other romantic or sexual interaction. 

I can imagine that some feeders and feedees 'round here are going to take umbrage at the use of "injured" to describe what happens to a feedee. 

Wait. Are you saying that if you do go through the motions when you don't have sex you've technically been raped?


----------



## Totmacher (Apr 13, 2007)

Waxwing said:


> It's late and I've posted way too much today (can't stop! addicted! ), so forgive me if I stop making sense.


s'all good.


Waxwing said:


> I see your point, but then you're not really saying that it's only a feeder/feedee relationship which carries more potential for abuse, but any relationship which asks for manipulation of the body? Would S&M relationships be another example? I think that I see what you mean, but I don't know that it's really different than any other romantic or sexual interaction.


 Well, I was sorta being facetious, but, yeah any relationship which has a physical component has the same potential for becoming abusive. I use the word, "injured" mostly to express my dissapproval of the prevalent paranoia over weight-related health issues. 


Waxwing said:


> I can imagine that some feeders and feedees 'round here are going to take umbrage at the use of "injured" to describe what happens to a feedee.


 Well, that's ... good. I was looking for a little attention  . I could say that I was assuming that the feedee wouldn't loose interest while feeding was still a safe prospect, but really, it's for lack of a better word to describe unwanted physical changes.


Waxwing said:


> Wait. Are you saying that if you do go through the motions when you don't have sex you've technically been raped?


 I'm paraphrasing health class all those years ago. I suppose there needs to be an element of duress, but if you're neurotic enough that wouldn't be hard to come by.


----------



## weetabix (Apr 14, 2007)

Waxwing said:


> I actually wasn't sure if weetabix was being sarcastic or no, hence my lack of coherence. If not, then goddamn, man, listen to SamanthaNY. Someone can be incapable of saying no even when they're in danger, but it doesn't make it any less wrong for you to abuse them.
> 
> Again, I realllllly hope you were kidding.



This is where you have to look after each other. You have to be adult about this. That means not treating the other person like a child who has to be told what is acceptable. If all parties are agreed then why should you need to refer to something outside of this. Obviously if it affects others, but if not then you would have to bring God into this.

If you hold back on something there has to be a better reason than "IT'S STILL WRONG". Thats not a reason. It's wrong to force against a persons will if they are an adult. If they are a child you do tell them no, but if they are adult and you both want to do it then wrong is only if it causes damage outside of the relationship.

"WRONG" is not simply because someone who it's none of their business does not like it. If something is "WRONG" you are going to have to come up with a logical argument rather than assume that simply because something is bad for a persons health it must be wrong.

So no I was not joking, I was assuming the people involved are adults who are willing. As this is an adult board I think that's a fair assumption. However it seems that there are some non-feeder lurkers who just don't get it. They seem to think that a serious Feedee is probably a bit soft in the head and needs treating like a child and that a Feeder is probably an abusive person and anything they do which the Feedee asks for is probably abuse.

We have had this argument here many times and it very difficult to get through to touchie feelie well meaning people who just don't get it. This is NOT the Foodie board, this is the Weight Board!

So if she is a willing adult and so are you and no one else gets hurt, go for it!

Regards,
Weetabix.


----------



## weetabix (Apr 14, 2007)

BothGunsBlazing said:


> I obviously cannot speak for AnnMarie, but I'll toss in a few thoughts of my own.
> 
> Some men who consider themselves feeders have malicious intent when it comes to it. It's not really about the woman getting fatter and sexier. It's more about them having a sense of superiority over that woman. Helping her gain weight for the sole purpose of keeping her on a short leash. Making her more "undesirable" if you will.
> 
> These men are not FAs. They're into it for a power trip and some one to rule over on an emotional and physical level. I wish none of this was true, but unfortunately it is.



I used to chat to a Feeder like that. His game was to get them to become really fat, then hammer them down emotionally by saying he was embarrassed by their obesity, then he would persuade them to get WLS. Then he would leave them and move on to the next. I think he did like them fat but the Feedees did not enjoy the experience from what I can tell from chatting to them. Certainly WLS goes against what I believe in but I think the absolute point is that it surely goes against what the Feeder/Feedee relationship should have been about. In order to get her to have WLS he had to make her feel bad about herself. He did this two two people I knew online, maybe more.

I don't consider this a relationship between two willing adults, this is abusive where he had to bring her down rather than make her feel good. What she did was through her unhappiness that he created. That's no more willing than what someone does under torture. His was rather smarter mental torture.

It annoys me that there are people here who think that all Feeding relationships must be like this simply because they can't understand that Feedees actually want to get fat just because they love being fat etc.

Regards,
Weetabix.


----------



## Blackjack (Apr 14, 2007)

weetabix said:


> So if she is a willing adult and so are you and no one else gets hurt, go for it!



Here's the problem- people getting hurt to begin with. 

Now I've got some interest in feeding and all that. I'd love to experiment someday. But this, it ain't like mild S&M where the marks can be hidden until they heal. This is a body alteration that's always visible, and one that doesn't go away with time unless effort is involved.

It's NOT okay to hurt someone you love like that, even if they are willing. If it's unethical, if it's abusive, then it doesn't matter if it turns either party on.

I don't give a damn if some guy's wife likes getting beat, or raped, or even fattened to an unhealthy extent. It's still abusive, and it's still wrong. Take your pseudo-philosophical bullshit and shove it.


----------



## Wagimawr (Apr 14, 2007)

What about the rights of those that enjoy being abused?


----------



## Blackjack (Apr 14, 2007)

Wagimawr said:


> What about the rights of those that enjoy being abused?



For them, there's Britney Spears CDs.


----------



## Jack Skellington (Apr 15, 2007)

Wagimawr said:


> What about the rights of those that enjoy being abused?



Wanting to abuse or being abused is not a right or an alternate lifestyle. It's a sickness. Abusing yourself is a sickness. Abusing someone else is a sickness and a crime.


----------



## Jack Skellington (Apr 15, 2007)

Blackjack said:


> I don't give a damn if some guy's wife likes getting beat, or raped, or even fattened to an unhealthy extent. It's still abusive, and it's still wrong.



It wouldn't let me rep you again.


----------



## Waxwing (Apr 15, 2007)

Wagimawr said:


> What about the rights of those that enjoy being abused?


 
This is when the whole thing gets sticky. 

Part of me wants to say that abuse is abuse no matter how you cut it, but I've known many people who have chosen engaged in S&M, and I'd be hard pressed to say that it's wrong. I don't dig it, and if someone wants to spit in my face they're going to get a well-placed knee to the chin, but what other people agree to do is their business and not mine. 

I certainly don't think that abuse is innate in a feeder relationship, NOR do I think that it is more likely than in any other type of sexual interaction. I may not personally understand the desire to engage in it, but I'm not about to say that it's abusive or sick. IF, on the other hand, someone is engaging in something that is harmful to them (mentally, physically, spiritually) for the SOLE PURPOSE of pleasing their sexual partner, that's a problem. 

If both parties dig? Then it's not up to me to say what's right. Does the desire to be harmed, in any way, stem from past trauma? Yeah, sure, probably, but everyone's past informs present actions and decisions. That's just the way life is. Yours may be kinkier than mine, but I have no desire to judge. 

I'm not going to touch the rape analogy right now. 

And Weetabix -- the feeder you spoke of? I'm more than happy to slap a "Sick" label on that mofo. There are people who are clearly getting off on nothing less than the total annihilation of their partner's sense of self. In that case him being a feeder seems secondary to him just being an abusive douche. I certainly don't think that he's representative of the community as a whole.


----------



## Totmacher (Apr 15, 2007)

weetabix said:


> *SNIP*
> So no I was not joking, I was assuming the people involved are adults who are willing. As this is an adult board I think that's a fair assumption. However it seems that there are some non-feeder lurkers who just don't get it. They seem to think that a serious Feedee is probably a bit soft in the head and needs treating like a child and that a Feeder is probably an abusive person and anything they do which the Feedee asks for is probably abuse.
> 
> We have had this argument here many times and it very difficult to get through to touchie feelie well meaning people who just don't get it. This is NOT the Foodie board, this is the Weight Board!
> ...


  That's an amusing assumption ya got there, weet. I agree with ya quite a bit elsewise.




Blackjack said:


> Here's the problem- people getting hurt to begin with.
> 
> Now I've got some interest in feeding and all that. I'd love to experiment someday. But this, it ain't like mild S&M where the marks can be hidden until they heal. This is a body alteration that's always visible, and one that doesn't go away with time unless effort is involved.
> 
> ...



I'm curious about your definition of, "Hurt"... If you're really and truly believe that people don't have the right to permanently alter their bodies for fun then there are are tribes in Africa ( The Masakin come to mind), Young people throughout southeast Asia, and women in hospitals all over the western world I believe should be a little higher on your list of priorities. So, why here, why now? 



Jack Skellington said:


> Wanting to abuse or being abused is not a right or an alternate lifestyle. It's a sickness. Abusing yourself is a sickness. Abusing someone else is a sickness and a crime.



Last I checked it's still legal to be sick. Been reading a bit too much Butler lately?


----------



## Blackjack (Apr 15, 2007)

Totmacher said:


> I'm curious about your definition of, "Hurt"... If you're really and truly believe that people don't have the right to permanently alter their bodies for fun then there are are tribes in Africa ( The Masakin come to mind), Young people throughout southeast Asia, and women in hospitals all over the western world I believe should be a little higher on your list of priorities. So, why here, why now?



Permanent alterations that require effort to heal is basically what I mean by "hurt" here. And I'm not discussing cultures that perform body alteration based on ritual, but rather those alterations that are a result of something sexual- bondage, S&M, or feeding.

And instead of telling me what my priorities "should be", it might be a better idea for you to instead put of some sort of argument against what I said.


----------



## Waxwing (Apr 15, 2007)

So is it always wrong to engage in body-modification in an eroticised setting, if said modifications can be termed "harmful"?
I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with either position, just playing devil's advocate.


----------



## Jack Skellington (Apr 15, 2007)

Totmacher said:


> Last I checked it's still legal to be sick. Been reading a bit too much Butler lately?



Being "sick" is legal. Acting on those sicknesses is not. For example, beating your spouse and child molestation.


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy (Apr 15, 2007)

Wagimawr said:


> What about the rights of those that enjoy being abused?



I'm only going to say one thing about the abuse issues here- I was an abused child and I find myself drawn to abuse- I can easily go overboard and be stepped all over if a man pushes the right buttons. So no, it's not always "okay" and no, it's not always so cut and dry for me to avoid those type of relationships. Why? It's all I have ever known- it's learning something new that is hard.


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy (Apr 15, 2007)

Jack Skellington said:


> Wanting to abuse or being abused is not a right or an alternate lifestyle. It's a sickness. Abusing yourself is a sickness. Abusing someone else is a sickness and a crime.



What he said......... it goes beyond pure sexual enjoyment. It carries on into all other aspects of a relationship.


----------



## Waxwing (Apr 15, 2007)

Green Eyed Fairy said:


> What he said......... it goes beyond pure sexual enjoyment. It carries on into all other aspects of a relationship.


 
I grant you this, and I absolutely agree that what we've suffered as children colors the way we behave as adults. But. (and I realize that I'm drifting into dangerous territory here)... 

Irrespective of the reason for your attraction to potentially abusive behavior (and I refer here to feederism, since that was the original topic, or S&M, or anything of that nature which is consensual but potentially dangerous), it is nonetheless your personal choice to engage in it or not. 

I dislike going into my own personal history but suffice it to say I'm no stranger to childhood abuse. Given that, it's likely true that I am more attracted to dangerous or edgy behavior than would be someone who had lived a trauma-free childhood. It could be that engaging in that behavior is a way for me to reclaim power and choice which I was denied. It could be that when someone enjoys S&M, it is their way of exorcising demons from their past. 

Or they could just get off on a flogging. 

I don't, but I can't say that it's wrong or "sick" of others to do so. When we begin using the word "sick" to describe something consensual, it is a slippery slope. We may think it's wrong, but there are others who think that being gay is wrong, who think that sex before marriage is wrong, who think that being fat is wrong! And then where would we be? 

If both parties are of sound mind and can truly make the decision to be smacked around, fed too much, tied to the bedpost, or whatever their kink, then it's not my place to tell them they shouldn't.


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy (Apr 15, 2007)

^^None of that excuses the abuser though- period. To enjoy the suffering of others to make yourself somehow feel more "powerful" or "better" is a sickness, imo. It's called Sadism by some.

I haven't "judged" anyone for their opinions here- just saying that abuse won't stop as long as there is an attitude of "it's okay if...."

I also fully agree that people are always responsible for their own actions- including myself but that never excuses another from their wrong doings either.


I alway have to call bullshit when I see anyone saying that "it's okay if the other person allows it"
that's like saying childmolesting is okay if the child didn't object.


----------



## Waxwing (Apr 15, 2007)

Green Eyed Fairy said:


> ^^None of that excuses the abuser though- period. To enjoy the suffering of others to make yourself somehow feel more "powerful" or "better" is a sickness, imo. It's called Sadism by some.



You're right, and to some degree I feel that it's sort of a double-standard on my part. I'm not so much disturbed by the person who wants to be abused as the one who does the abusing. That's unfair of me, but there you have it. I couldn't hurt someone even if they asked me to. I'm a terrible Dom. 

But still, if both parties desire it and agree, it's really not up to me to judge their mental health. As much as it is tempting to do so sometimes.

Hm..after thinking for another few minutes about this, I don't know if I am more disturbed by the person who does the abusing. The statement must be "consensual acts are ok". It can't be "consensual acts are okay unless" or "as long as". If I believe that one form of mutually agreed upon sexual expression is okay, then I have to extend it to everything. I may have emotional, visceral negative reactions to something, but i can't let that get in the way.


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy (Apr 15, 2007)

Waxwing said:


> You're right, and to some degree I feel that it's sort of a double-standard on my part. I'm not so much disturbed by the person who wants to be abused as the one who does the abusing. That's unfair of me, but there you have it. I couldn't hurt someone even if they asked me to. I'm a terrible Dom.
> 
> But still, if both parties desire it and agree, it's really not up to me to judge their mental health. As much as it is tempting to do so sometimes.



I agree and never judged their mental health- I judged my own


----------



## Waxwing (Apr 15, 2007)

Green Eyed Fairy said:


> I alway have to call bullshit when I see anyone saying that "it's okay if the other person allows it"
> that's like saying childmolesting is okay if the child didn't object.


 
But that's not what I'm saying. The simple absence of objection doesn't suffice. What's required I think is a vocalized wish for. "I won't say that I mind" is leagues away from "I really want this". 

Also child molestation isn't analogous, at least in my understanding of what we're discussing, because I'm talking about acts between adults, who are capable of making the choice. Children are not capable of making that choice. 

I'm going to assume that you weren't saying "waxwing says child molestation is ok", but there's just an example of how emotional this topic can be. When I read that my face flushed red and I was momentarily really upset at the very idea anyone would think that I would condone that. We talk about the heavy stuff here at Dims.


----------



## Waxwing (Apr 15, 2007)

Green Eyed Fairy said:


> I agree and never judged their mental health- I judged my own



Understood. I was more reminding myself not to judge people. Because sometimes, oooh I want to.


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy (Apr 15, 2007)

Waxwing said:


> But that's not what I'm saying. The simple absence of objection doesn't suffice. What's required I think is a vocalized wish for. "I won't say that I mind" is leagues away from "I really want this".
> 
> Also child molestation isn't analogous, at least in my understanding of what we're discussing, because I'm talking about acts between adults, who are capable of making the choice. Children are not capable of making that choice.
> 
> I'm going to assume that you weren't saying "waxwing says child molestation is ok", but there's just an example of how emotional this topic can be. When I read that my face flushed red and I was momentarily really upset at the very idea anyone would think that I would condone that. We talk about the heavy stuff here at Dims.



My apologies to you- I definitely wasn't trying to say that at all :bow: 

I'm just saying that I don't like to see people with blase attitudes about fucking people over.... it's NOT okay to excuse one's bad behavior by saying "they let me". I see plenty of people in the world I could fuck over- know what? I choose not to..... why? It's wrong. 

I don't think we are in disagreement here- I'm just annoyed by what one guy posted here earlier- and you called him on it 

If saying that "She let me" helps him sleep at night then cool, but I still have my own opinions about him and his attitude


----------



## Waxwing (Apr 15, 2007)

Green Eyed Fairy said:


> My apologies to you- I definitely wasn't trying to say that at all :bow:
> 
> I'm just saying that I don't like to see people with blase attitudes about fucking people over.... it's NOT okay to excuse one's bad behavior by saying "they let me". I see plenty of people in the world I could fuck over- know what? I choose not to..... why? It's wrong.
> 
> I don't think we are in disagreement here- I'm just annoyed by what one guy posted here earlier- and you called him on it



no i think we're on the same page, most definitely. I know you didn't mean that, I just amused myself by getting all momentarily flustered and upset.  

too many people use acquiescence as an excuse for utterly shitty behavior. we need to beat those people up. in a nice way, of course.


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy (Apr 15, 2007)

Waxwing said:


> no i think we're on the same page, most definitely. I know you didn't mean that, I just amused myself by getting all momentarily flustered and upset.
> 
> too many people use acquiescence as an excuse for utterly shitty behavior. we need to beat those people up. in a nice way, of course.




Being the submissive means that *I* definitely would make a good DOM  

*pulls out fairy wand and twirls it like a deadly weapon*


----------



## Waxwing (Apr 15, 2007)

Green Eyed Fairy said:


> Being the submissive means that *I* definitely would make a good DOM
> 
> *pulls out fairy wand and twirls it like a deadly weapon*



*consents to being whacked (gently?) with the fairy wand*


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy (Apr 15, 2007)

Waxwing said:


> *consents to being whacked (gently?) with the fairy wand*




It's okay since you let me


----------



## Blackjack (Apr 15, 2007)

Waxwing said:


> So is it always wrong to engage in body-modification in an eroticised setting, if said modifications can be termed "harmful"?
> I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with either position, just playing devil's advocate.



I'd rarely say that something's "always" wrong- or right, for that matter.

This eroticised modification isn't really wrong in and of itself, I think, up to a certain point. That point can be rather arbitrary depending on the participants, and it's very much in a grey area.

Basically, I believe that in kinks like this that could become dangerous, it can be an extremely fine line between what can be considered very erotic and what is objectively detrimental to one's health. Crossing that line is harmful and abusive.

That's my basic standpoint.


----------



## Totmacher (Apr 19, 2007)

Jack Skellington said:


> Being "sick" is legal. Acting on those sicknesses is not. For example, beating your spouse and child molestation.



True, but in context it would be more on a level with dipsomania, trichtillomania, or comulsive body piercing; and facillitation of such. Actively abusing someone and letting them engage in unhealthy behavior are very different things, unless you're dealing with a minor or someone for whom you're legally responsible.


----------



## Totmacher (Apr 19, 2007)

Blackjack said:


> Permanent alterations that require effort to heal is basically what I mean by "hurt" here. And I'm not discussing cultures that perform body alteration based on ritual, but rather those alterations that are a result of something sexual- bondage, S&M, or feeding.
> 
> And instead of telling me what my priorities "should be", it might be a better idea for you to instead put of some sort of argument against what I said.



So, it's OK as long as nobody is deriving any pleasure from it? Abuse is unethical unless it's supported by tradition? I'm going to try to steer clear of the obvious contradictions that arise form a statement like that. My main issue with your position is that it only applies when dealing with sex, specifically feeding. I'm genuinely curious about that. At face value it seems inconsistent or worse.

What it boils down to is that I read what you said as two statements, "Gaining weight is a painfull debillitating process that no sane person would knowingly engage in," and, "Anyone who would engage in an act that will leave a mark for fun is mentally ill". I think both of these statements are flawed. It's my belief (and I'm going out on a limb here, but I believe the prevailing concensus) that person over the age of majority who is capable of understanding the consequences of his actions is considered competent under the law and should be allowed to do what they please as long as it neither presents a clear and present danger (himself or others), violates the rights of others, nor breaks the common law. More importantly, though, mental health is a complicated thing that needs to be evaluated on an individual basis and not a single act or statement.


----------



## Blackjack (Apr 19, 2007)

Totmacher said:


> What it boils down to is that I read what you said as two statements, "Gaining weight is a painfull debillitating process that no sane person would knowingly engage in," and, "Anyone who would engage in an act that will leave a mark for fun is mentally ill".



This definitely explains why I find feeding to be an erotic thing, right?


----------



## Totmacher (Apr 20, 2007)

Blackjack said:


> This definitely explains why I find feeding to be an erotic thing, right?




No, it doesn't. There are possible explanations ranging from you enjoy wallowing in your own crapulence while fantasizing about abusive scenarios you wouldn't dare engage in to you just used language that was a bit too generic and strong abhoring abusive behavior, but since you're apparently deathly allergic to,mortaly fearful of, or revel in the frustration wrought by avoiding answering questions and/or conversing in a sequiter manner I doubt we'll ever sort that out.


----------



## AnnMarie (Apr 20, 2007)

Go to your neutral corners for a while... it's not about "each other", it's about the topic, so stick to it. Please.


----------

