# Fantasy to concern



## Roy C. (Jun 19, 2008)

I have watched a young lady in my community go from a very active "big girl" to one that is struggling to get around. I first noticed her at an outdoor event, in only lycra shorts and sport bra, her huge bare belly was barely contained in those shorts. As the years went by, she continued to get bigger and bigger, she was making some FA or feeder very happy. Over about 8 years she has come close to doubling her size.

I recently run into her at a bbq, where she she struggled to move around in a wheel chair. She did try to get some food for herself, but it was very difficult for her to lift herself out of the chair to get to where the food was. Her size also made it difficult to reach the table where the food was located, her huge belly is now bigger than the reach of her arms. Someone noticed her having problems, and fixed her plate for her piling it high with food. She stuffed herself back into the wheel chair, and it took two friends to push her to the covered area.

This is my first experience of seeing someone reach the mobility limit, and sad to see.

Just wanted to express my thoughts....


----------



## FAFrankie (Jun 19, 2008)

Not to sound wrong:

I think that is sad, but somebody that fat would be very sexy!


----------



## TraciJo67 (Jun 19, 2008)

:doh::doh::doh::doh::doh:


----------



## CAMellie (Jun 19, 2008)

TraciJo67 said:


> :doh::doh::doh::doh::doh:



Indeed....many :doh: s are needed


----------



## Tooz (Jun 19, 2008)

Roy C. said:


> I have watched a young lady in my community go from a very active "big girl" to one that is struggling to get around. I first noticed her at an outdoor event, in only lycra shorts and sport bra, her huge bare belly was barely contained in those shorts. As the years went by, she continued to get bigger and bigger, she was making some FA or feeder very happy. Over about 8 years she has come close to doubling her size.
> 
> I recently run into her at a bbq, where she she struggled to move around in a wheel chair. She did try to get some food for herself, but it was very difficult for her to lift herself out of the chair to get to where the food was. Her size also made it difficult to reach the table where the food was located, her huge belly is now bigger than the reach of her arms. Someone noticed her having problems, and fixed her plate for her piling it high with food. She stuffed herself back into the wheel chair, and it took two friends to push her to the covered area.
> 
> ...



Is it what she wants?


----------



## Webmaster (Jun 21, 2008)

TraciJo67 said:


> :doh::doh::doh::doh::doh:



He simply expressed a thought in the Fat Sexuality forum. Is a response consisting of nothing but five doh's helpful?


----------



## Ernest Nagel (Jun 21, 2008)

I think any SSA with a conscience has pangs of guilt when we observe the limitations and infirmities almost inherent to extreme size. It's why I personally have issues with feederism, quite frankly. Ultimately however it's not my position to judge what someone chooses to do with their body. It would be arrogant and condescending of me of me to presume someone isn't aware of the risks of tobacco, alcohol, heroin or food. Any addiction is dangerous but people have the right to choose those risks. I certainly won't buy their heroin for them but that doesn't absolve me from showing other compassion. I can be considerate without condoning the damage someone inflicts on themself. I can be respectful and supportive and even love someone who's choices I may disapprove of. 

Acceptance, truly unconditional acceptance of another human being, is challenging, confronting, sometimes painful. It's what we all want though and it's hardly fair to expect from others what we can't or won't provide for them.


----------



## fatchicksrockuk (Jun 21, 2008)

Ernest Nagel said:


> I think any SSA with a conscience has pangs of guilt when we observe the limitations and infirmities almost inherent to extreme size. It's why I personally have issues with feederism, quite frankly. Ultimately however it's not my position to judge what someone chooses to do with their body. It would be arrogant and condescending of me of me to presume someone isn't aware of the risks of tobacco, alcohol, heroin or obesity. Any addiction is dangerous but people have the right to choose those risks. I certainly won't buy their heroin for them but that doesn't absolve me from showing other compassion. I can be considerate without condoning the damage someone inflicts on themself. I can be respectful and supportive and even love someone who's choices I may disapprove of.
> 
> Acceptance, truly unconditional acceptance of another human being, is challenging, confronting, sometimes painful. It's what we all want though and it's hardly fair to expect from others what we can't or won't provide for them.



Just wanted to point something out: tobacco, alcohol and heroin are all drugs. Obesity is not a drug, merely a description of weight. You'd have been better saying food.


----------



## Ernest Nagel (Jun 21, 2008)

fatchicksrockuk said:


> Just wanted to point something out: tobacco, alcohol and heroin are all drugs. Obesity is not a drug, merely a description of weight. You'd have been better saying food.



You're quite right. Edited accordingly. No excuse other than I was in a hurry. And I don't really want to imply all SSBBW have food addictions either. I was really thinking more about the type of situation Roy was describing where someone continues to gain in spite of mounting health/mobility issues. I've witnessed this on several occasions and it seems even the best intended efforts to intercede only exacerbate the situation. 

Whether food becomes a surrogate for approval, anxiety amplifies appetite, whatever, I can't say. I just know criticism and kibitzing never seem to change things for the better. Hoped to maybe save Roy from going down that tunnel or thinking he should have.


----------



## TraciJo67 (Jun 21, 2008)

Webmaster said:


> He simply expressed a thought in the Fat Sexuality forum. Is a response consisting of nothing but five doh's helpful?



What if I'd described a scenario in which I watched a friend or family member suffer from a life-threatening illness, and I witness her falter, shrivel into a hollowed-out husk of what she once was, lose her hair from chemo, develop sores all over the areas of her body targeted by radiation ... 

... and the response I got was, "Wow .... that's sad, but bald heads are *so* sexy!"

Do you think that the respondant would be missing the point, to an extent that it's extremely offensive?


----------



## Wagimawr (Jun 21, 2008)

TraciJo67 said:


> Webmaster said:
> 
> 
> > He simply expressed a thought in the Fat Sexuality forum. Is a response consisting of nothing but five doh's helpful?
> ...


The answer is no, a statement with five doh's isn't helpful in the least.

You haven't changed his mind, you haven't changed the mind of anybody (that I'm aware of) who can blindly look past physical ailments to see the fat that they so adore; all you've done is once again show that yes, you're offended. I don't blame you in the least, I totally understand that you are, but if you're intending to do some good here, I'm not sure that a smiley-laden condemnation will quite do the trick.

It's not helpful, it's not useful, but it doesn't have to be, if that's what you want.


Tooz said:


> Is it what she wants?


It may be, but as evidenced on collared princess/Treasure Bombshell's post over on the paysite board, that's still not enough in some cases; even if somebody has a particular desire, the followup is often "well you're wrong for wanting that, and here's why."


----------



## Tooz (Jun 21, 2008)

Wagimawr said:


> It may be, but as evidenced on collared princess/Treasure Bombshell's post over on the paysite board, that's still not enough in some cases; even if somebody has a particular desire, the followup is often "well you're wrong for wanting that, and here's why."



Yeah, it goes that way a lot, however...

It's her life, her choice, ultimately.


----------



## KHayes666 (Jun 22, 2008)

Wagimawr said:


> The answer is no, a statement with five doh's isn't helpful in the least.
> 
> You haven't changed his mind, you haven't changed the mind of anybody (that I'm aware of) who can blindly look past physical ailments to see the fat that they so adore; all you've done is once again show that yes, you're offended. I don't blame you in the least, I totally understand that you are, but if you're intending to do some good here, I'm not sure that a smiley-laden condemnation will quite do the trick.
> 
> ...



Nah, Treasure's situation is different....she's got a kid to take care of. 

Sounds like the OP's friend is on her own with another man, as much as she appears to be suffering, if there is an F/A involved than this could be what she wants.


----------



## TraciJo67 (Jun 22, 2008)

Wagimawr said:


> You haven't changed his mind, you haven't changed the mind of anybody (that I'm aware of) who can *blindly look past physical ailments to see the fat that they so adore*; all you've done is once again show that yes, you're offended. I don't blame you in the least, I totally understand that you are, but if you're intending to do some good here, I'm not sure that a smiley-laden condemnation will quite do the trick.
> 
> It's not helpful, it's not useful, but it doesn't have to be, if that's what you want.
> 
> It may be, but as evidenced on collared princess/Treasure Bombshell's post over on the paysite board, that's still not enough in some cases; even if somebody has a particular desire, the followup is often "well you're wrong for wanting that, and here's why."



You're right, Wagimar. It's always about the fat adoration with some people. It's never about anything else ... like, showing some respect for basic humanity, fat body aside. Oh, and I never once said (or implied) that *anyone* is wrong for wanting a fat man or woman. There's a world of difference between that being a preference, and that being a fetish (which will often completely override care for the person occupying the fat body). 

I do thank you for the self-righteous lecture, though. *That* did a lot of good. Changed my mind. How could I have ever been so wrong?


----------



## Tooz (Jun 22, 2008)

Dude, what if she wants to be immobile or whatever? Seriously, some people want that.


----------



## Webmaster (Jun 22, 2008)

The point is it is not called for for you to pass value judgement on others. That simply makes you look like a member of the Harper Valley PTA.



TraciJo67 said:


> What if I'd described a scenario in which I watched a friend or family member suffer from a life-threatening illness, and I witness her falter, shrivel into a hollowed-out husk of what she once was, lose her hair from chemo, develop sores all over the areas of her body targeted by radiation ...
> 
> ... and the response I got was, "Wow .... that's sad, but bald heads are *so* sexy!"
> 
> Do you think that the respondant would be missing the point, to an extent that it's extremely offensive?


----------



## KHayes666 (Jun 22, 2008)

Webmaster said:


> The point is it is not called for for you to pass value judgement on others. That simply makes you look like a member of the Harper Valley PTA.



You know....my mother and grandma used to sing that at random intervals all the time growing up and I haven't heard it in a while.....thanks a lot for bringing it back to my attention :doh: lol


----------



## sweet&fat (Jun 22, 2008)

Webmaster said:


> He simply expressed a thought in the Fat Sexuality forum. Is a response consisting of nothing but five doh's helpful?



I think that the five doh's expresses the very real frustration that a good number of people feel in response to such comments. He is free to express how he feels, and TJ should be free to do the same. We don't have to like what each other says, but we do have to recognize and accept the fact that there are dissenting viewpoints.


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy (Jun 22, 2008)

sweet&fat said:


> I think that the five doh's expresses the very real frustration that a good number of people feel in response to such comments. He is free to express how he feels, and TJ should be free to do the same. We don't have to like what each other says, but we do have to recognize and accept the fact that there are dissenting viewpoints.



Good point

The title of the thread was about CONCERN for this woman...and it turned into sex talk again. I think THAT part is what astounds so many...sure being sexual is good...but does EVERYTHING have to be about sex? Even when the OP expressly made the thread about CONCERN for the problems someone is having from weight gain?

He didn't post pics of a wheel chair bound woman and ask "is she sexy?" .... he apparently wants to discuss the DOWN SIDE of weight gain. So why can't we do that in this thread?

Oh, and the Harper Valley PTA wasn't showing concern over Barbara Eden...they hated her for being herself. I think caring about and showing empathy for the struggles of another woman is a far cry from the jealousy of the HV PTA. No one here was expressing jealousy....just amazement at how emotionally detached some people are when it comes to their sexual desires.


----------



## Totmacher (Jun 22, 2008)

Well, there's a health board for talking about concern. This is the sex board. Crossover talk is the bastard child nobody wants so you're going to have to put up with a little from wherever you decide to post it. 

The fact is we don't know this woman and it's not our place to judge her, put feelings in her head, or words in her mouth. We can speculate all we want, but what it boils down to is all we have to go on are a few descriptive words from one guy. What really frustrates _me_ is how people can't look at this without inserting their own feelings.



sweet&fat said:


> I think that the five doh's expresses the very real frustration that a good number of people feel in response to such comments. He is free to express how he feels, and TJ should be free to do the same. We don't have to like what each other says, but we do have to recognize and accept the fact that there are dissenting viewpoints.



Right on, sister! Vive le difference! (apollogies to the french)


----------



## Wagimawr (Jun 22, 2008)

TraciJo67 said:


> You're right, Wagimar. It's always about the fat adoration with some people. It's never about anything else ... like, showing some respect for basic humanity, fat body aside.


Absolutely agreed, and I get that you don't like that - hell, I'm not crazy about it either, but:


Webmaster said:


> The point is it is not called for for you to pass value judgement on others.


The issue then becomes the balance between free expression and censoring undesirable members of a community - I would imagine that there are those who despise the thought of being admired in a situation where they're in discomfort. So when somebody appears that would gladly be turned on by the size while blatantly ignoring the other issues, the smackdown comes.


TraciJo67 said:


> Oh, and I never once said (or implied) that *anyone* is wrong for wanting a fat man or woman. There's a world of difference between that being a preference, and that being a fetish (which will often completely override care for the person occupying the fat body).


I never said (or implied) that you said or implied such a thing, and I haven't seen such comments in this thread; you have nothing to defend here.


TraciJo67 said:


> I do thank you for the self-righteous lecture, though. *That* did a lot of good. Changed my mind. How could I have ever been so wrong?


Point taken; I was busy trying to tell you that you just can't tell some people anything. 


sweet&fat said:


> I think that the five doh's expresses the very real frustration that a good number of people feel in response to such comments. He is free to express how he feels, and TJ should be free to do the same. We don't have to like what each other says, but we do have to recognize and accept the fact that there are dissenting viewpoints.


Yes. Very much so.



Green Eyed Fairy said:


> The title of the thread was about CONCERN for this woman...and it turned into sex talk again. I think THAT part is what astounds so many...sure being sexual is good...but does EVERYTHING have to be about sex? Even when the OP expressly made the thread about CONCERN for the problems someone is having from weight gain?





Totmacher said:


> Well, there's a health board for talking about concern. This is the sex board. Crossover talk is the bastard child nobody wants so you're going to have to put up with a little from wherever you decide to post it.
> 
> He didn't post pics of a wheel chair bound woman and ask "is she sexy?" .... he apparently wants to discuss the DOWN SIDE of weight gain. So why can't we do that in this thread?


So much to reconcile! No, everything doesn't have to be about sex, but in a board that's designed for expression of things people find sexy about fat (including but certainly not limited to the disability aspects of extreme weight or weight gain), it's probably misplaced.

As I tried to put forth, some people just don't give a damn as long as they get off, and no amount of argument is going to convince otherwise - the battle then is over whether to let the "some people" in question speak as they please, or to drive them away so we don't have to deal with the problem anymore.


Totmacher said:


> The fact is we don't know this woman and it's not our place to judge her, put feelings in her head, or words in her mouth.


In fairness, that's not what happened here; what happened here is that someone was judged who spoke up with a controversial opinion.


Totmacher said:


> What really frustrates _me_ is how people can't look at this without inserting their own feelings.


I can already tell you the response you're going to get: "It's a discussion board on the internet, why shouldn't we discuss anything we like?" True, but sometimes it's a matter of picking your battles.

I would say that either way, we could possibly lose somebody based on this thread; either the person who feels that nobody cares that they have concerns ("Well fine, I thought you guys were all about size acceptance, not fat fetishism"), or the person who feels that they can't safely state what they think is attractive because of the inevitable backlash ("If I want to jack it to someone who's so fat they can't move, that's my business!"). Do we want to choose sides in this and only keep people who can balance the arousal with the thinking, or do we want to be all inclusive and try to educate, rather than demean?


----------



## Tooz (Jun 22, 2008)

I think part of the problem is where this has been posted. The weight board was supposed to be a sort of haven for those who like weight gain and what have you-- I think this thread would be better placed in the general discussion.

Whatever happened to "dealing" with criticism in the weight board? Isn't that why we had the split...?


----------



## Wagimawr (Jun 22, 2008)

Well, for one thing, it's really only the Erotic Weight Gain subforum that's being protected from outside criticism (based on the fact that AM's GUIDELINES thread is only there, and not blanketed over the entire Weight Board). Also, it's still being dealt with for the moment, since it hasn't devolved into a "Feeders are horrible people" vs "weight gain is hot no matter the consequences" debate. Yet.


----------



## AnnMarie (Jun 22, 2008)

It is in the general area for just that reason. The EWG subforum is the more strict area... he started this with a pro/con/troubles tone, so the general discussion area of the WB is where it's best served.


----------



## Wagimawr (Jun 22, 2008)

Yeah, what she said.


----------



## FaxMachine1234 (Jun 23, 2008)

This is, of course, the problem of having a forum that can even have both a "Sex Talk" board and a "Health Talk" board on the exact same topic. Being overweight can be attractive to be many people, but it can also be a health risk if no precautions are taken. It probably would have been more helpful for the discussion if the OP knew if the woman in question had any health problems relating to her weight (he didn't indicate so), but his concern for someone who's undergone a huge weight gain resulting in some loss of mobility is I think understandable. At any weight, the body needs at least some level of activity to stay healthy, and he's seen this woman go from that point to a later one that would make that sort of activity quite difficult. It's important to be smart when gaining weight; do we really have shut our brains off here just because this place is considered a haven from the thin-obsessed world?

And I didn't like the Harper Valley PTA thing either; if caring for someone else is being stuck up and rigid, then...well, that's just not true. Being part of the human community means dealing with everybody's "value judgements", good or bad, and it's very foolish to just tune them all out.


----------



## wrestlingguy (Jun 23, 2008)

sweet&fat said:


> I think that the five doh's expresses the very real frustration that a good number of people feel in response to such comments. He is free to express how he feels, and TJ should be free to do the same. We don't have to like what each other says, but we do have to recognize and accept the fact that there are dissenting viewpoints.



I think what Conrad is saying is that the dissenting viewpoint should not assume that by 5 doh's everyone understands the logic behind the contrary view.

With so many new people visiting these forums, that viewpoint (while understood & agreed with by me) does not necessarily represent "the other side" of this issue.

Wry humor aside, there is a contrary view here that should be presented in a format that could at least be argued on its merits, rather than the "good ol' boy - you know what I mean" reaction.


----------



## TraciJo67 (Jun 23, 2008)

Webmaster said:


> The point is it is not called for for you to pass value judgement on others. That simply makes you look like a member of the Harper Valley PTA.



Well, that's how it looks to *you*.

And I'm fine with that.

I know my intent, and I'd venture to say that many other women understood it too.


----------



## Spanky (Jun 23, 2008)

TraciJo67 said:


> Well, that's how it looks to *you*.
> 
> And I'm fine with that.
> 
> I know my intent, and I'd venture to say that many other women understood it too.



<giggle>

I sent a mini-van over to you. It will be delivered tomorrow morning. It has a "I <3 fat soccer-moms" bumper sticker on it. Car seat in the back. Norm in '08 sticker and a "What would Wellstone do?" sticker just to keep 'em guessing. 

PTA: It is your future, m'lady. And yes, they have cookies AND cupcakes. $1 each. Sorry.


----------



## sweet&fat (Jun 23, 2008)

wrestlingguy said:


> I think what Conrad is saying is that the dissenting viewpoint should not assume that by 5 doh's everyone understands the logic behind the contrary view.
> 
> With so many new people visiting these forums, that viewpoint (while understood & agreed with by me) does not necessarily represent "the other side" of this issue.
> 
> Wry humor aside, there is a contrary view here that should be presented in a format that could at least be argued on its merits, rather than the "good ol' boy - you know what I mean" reaction.



I get what you're saying, but is it necessary to edify the world every time you simply want to express frustration? I understood exactly what she meant, and I think it's a very honest, valid, and common reaction to such comments, whether people like that or not. Even if it is not "the other side" for all, it sure is a real side. And how is Conrad calling TJ a member of the Harper Valley PTA any better or less judgmental?


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy (Jun 23, 2008)

AnnMarie said:


> It is in the general area for just that reason. The EWG subforum is the more strict area... he started this with a pro/con/troubles tone, so the general discussion area of the WB is where it's best served.



Thank you.. that is exactly how I saw it the first time around


----------



## CAMellie (Jun 23, 2008)

TraciJo67 said:


> Well, that's how it looks to *you*.
> 
> And I'm fine with that.
> 
> I know my intent, and I'd venture to say that many other women understood it too.



This woman did.


----------



## MisterGuy (Jun 23, 2008)

You know, it's sometimes striking to me how often these sorts of discussions crop up here. I guess it's the uneasy dichotomy of Dims as a pro-fat/pro-fat sex board with a shitton of provocative material and pictures and Dims as a sort of feminist, pro-woman stronghold. I believe (and I could be wrong) that the site was started more as the former, and has naturally become as much the latter if not more. Probably a natural progression, considering that the concerns of fat women are in many ways a condensation or magnification of the concerns of women in general--i.e. body image, media manipulation, male cluelessness, etc.

I'm not sure exactly what my point is, other than pointing out the obvious. I think it's kind of funny and a bit sad when newbies come here drooling and typing with one hand, expecting fat porn, and then run into a wall of female/feminist disapproval. It's an interesting site.


----------



## Tooz (Jun 23, 2008)

TraciJo67 said:


> Well, that's how it looks to *you*.
> 
> And I'm fine with that.
> 
> I know my intent, and I'd venture to say that many other women understood it too.



This one agrees with Conrad.


----------



## Tooz (Jun 23, 2008)

MisterGuy said:


> feminist, pro-woman stronghold.



But, is it really feminism if it cannot accept a woman's choice to do something (even if it is something that contradicts the "feminism" ideals)? I don't know that I'd call it a feminist stronghold.

Just my 2 centies.


----------



## largenlovely (Jun 23, 2008)

boy that was well said....

some people believe feminism is only TRUE feminism if it holds to certain supposed "ideals". If a woman wants to work in the kitchen and raise 10 babies well then as long as she realizes she has a choice then it's her prerogative. Same goes for a woman becoming immobile. We don't know if it wasn't this womans choice to become that way. I also agree with Conrad, we really shouldn't be automatically passing judgement.



Tooz said:


> But, is it really feminism if it cannot accept a woman's choice to do something (even if it is something that contradicts the "feminism" ideals)? I don't know that I'd call it a feminist stronghold.
> 
> Just my 2 centies.


----------



## TraciJo67 (Jun 23, 2008)

largenlovely said:


> boy that was well said....
> 
> some people believe feminism is only TRUE feminism if it holds to certain supposed "ideals". If a woman wants to work in the kitchen and raise 10 babies well then as long as she realizes she has a choice then it's her prerogative. Same goes for a woman becoming immobile. We don't know if it wasn't this womans choice to become that way. I also agree with Conrad, we really shouldn't be automatically passing judgement.



Just a point of clarification ... I am not judging the woman. As a formerly very fat woman with my own encroaching mobility issues, I can empathize with her situation, without judging how or why she got that way (it's not my freaking business). Her choice or not, though, I can readily identify with pain -- emotional or physical. It cannot be easy for this woman to have to rely on others to feed her, and a wheelchair to transport her -- completely aside from whether or not she enjoys the sexual/aethestic benefits of her fat body.

My point of objection was that the initial post wasn't about how "sexy" the woman was. It was a man expressing some feelings about witnessing someone reach the limits of her mobility, and how that made him feel. 

Having someone chime in with how "hot" that would be, to witness what the OP described, just didn't seem appropriate to me. To say the least. 

And had I not been scolded for what was a rather restrained response (for me, anyway) I would have left it at :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: I do realize that this is the sexuality part of the board. Perhaps this thread should have been started elsewhere.


----------



## TraciJo67 (Jun 23, 2008)

Spanky said:


> <giggle>
> 
> I sent a mini-van over to you. It will be delivered tomorrow morning. It has a "I <3 fat soccer-moms" bumper sticker on it. Car seat in the back. Norm in '08 sticker and a "What would Wellstone do?" sticker just to keep 'em guessing.
> 
> PTA: It is your future, m'lady. And yes, they have cookies AND cupcakes. $1 each. Sorry.



Keep the minivan, Sparkles. I need me a Geo Metro. Unless, of course, you're offering to pitch in for the gas ... in which case, I suppose I could compromise on the "Norm in '08" biz. 

"WWWD" would, natch, be a very welcome accessory in its own right


----------



## wrestlingguy (Jun 23, 2008)

sweet&fat said:


> And how is Conrad calling TJ a member of the Harper Valley PTA any better or less judgmental?



IT's not any less judgmental, IMO. Fact of the matter is, though, that he owns this site, and can editorialize as much as he wants to. 

Also, I understood what TJ meant with her "doh's", as I've seen enough of her posts to feel that I know her somewhat, albeit limited to matters of size acceptance, and other topics found in Dims.

I think we take for granted however, that there are countless newbies who come here and have no iidea what the hell we're talking about, since they don't understand the background of the poster.

Just sayin'..................................


----------



## largenlovely (Jun 23, 2008)

the person also said that he didn't mean to be wrong for saying it... sometimes a persons sexual fantasies can be contradictory to the reality of a situation. Lord knows we've seen that a lot all over these boards. Should he be hung out to dry for it? no...should he have necessarily posted that in this thread? probably not. 



TraciJo67 said:


> My point of objection was that the initial post wasn't about how "sexy" the woman was. It was a man expressing some feelings about witnessing someone reach the limits of her mobility, and how that made him feel.
> 
> Having someone chime in with how "hot" that would be, to witness what the OP described, just didn't seem appropriate to me. To say the least.


----------



## Tad (Jun 23, 2008)

largenlovely said:


> the person also said that he didn't mean to be wrong for saying it... sometimes a persons sexual fantasies can be contradictory to the reality of a situation. Lord knows we've seen that a lot all over these boards. Should he be hung out to dry for it? no...should he have necessarily posted that in this thread? probably not.



I don't think he was hung out to dry on it.

My internal reaction to that second post was similar to Traci-Jo's, and I tried about three times to write it down, but we are capped at something like 8 emoticons, and words just didn't do it justice. I thought she showed great restraint in only using 5 of them 

Seriously, it wasn't just the second post on its own, it was the contrast between the two. The OP made it clear he saw this as troubling, described it really not an erotic way, and it seemed a pretty clear illustration of fantasy running into reality. Then the response came that seemed to _totally_ miss that essential point of the whole thing. It came across a bit like someone coming out of "Super-Size Me" and saying only "Wow, I wish someone would pay me to eat out for a month." How to express the frustration any more clearly than smacking your forehead, even if just in an illustration?

And yes, I agree that it is important to keep freedom to talk about fat and eroticism on the weight board, and limit the criticism. But at least to me this was not a case of someone attacking someone simply for being a feeder.

Regards;

-Ed


----------



## TraciJo67 (Jun 23, 2008)

largenlovely said:


> the person also said that he didn't mean to be wrong for saying it... sometimes a persons sexual fantasies can be contradictory to the reality of a situation. Lord knows we've seen that a lot all over these boards. Should he be hung out to dry for it? no...should he have necessarily posted that in this thread? probably not.



A *lot* of people's sexual fantasies are contradictory to the reality of a situation. I wouldn't go to a "rape survivors" board and share fantasies of being violated. I wouldn't go to a "recovery from cancer" board and wax on about how much surgical scars turn me on. 

And I wouldn't discuss how "hot" it is that a woman is incapacitated by her body size. 

I have many evil thoughts that I keep to myself. So long as they remain locked firmly away in my mind, nobody can pass judgment on them.

If/when I share them publicly, I'm going to have to expect that some people will be disgusted and/or horrified ... especially if I pay no attention to context. 

Finally, the "Harper Valley" reference was a bit before my time. I actually had to google it to figure out what Conrad was talking about. This isn't about jealousy, nor is it about any hypocrisy on my part. What bothered me about that first response to the OP's original post is the same issue that gnaws at me every time I see it.

I understand, respect, and appreciate love for the fat female body. I find soft, rounded curves to be aethestically pleasing myself. I know of many fine men who post at Dims, and they are as hard-wired to their preferences as I am to mine. There is a world of difference between objectifying and respecting, though. I hate to see the former, and worse, I hate to see defense of that kind of behavior. Would we defend a pedophile for his actions? How about a man who searches out the latest accident victims because he has a fetish for amputees? 

If not, then why rush to the defense of someone who finds immobility and reliance upon others for basic human needs to be sexy?


----------



## largenlovely (Jun 23, 2008)

that's a bit over the top wouldn't you say? comparing someone expressing they are turned on by an immobile woman to that of expressing desires of rape in a forum for victims? I don't think this is a forum for victims ...I'm not sure why so many people go to such extreme's to prove a point here. 

The poster probably shouldn't have posted in this thread, but i see no point in going to this extreme...there are many men here who have expressed that they are turned on by immobility. So it shouldn't be such a shock. No he wasn't being delicate to the original poster's intention, but geeze..c'mon



TraciJo67 said:


> A *lot* of people's sexual fantasies are contradictory to the reality of a situation. I wouldn't go to a "rape survivors" board and share fantasies of being violated. I wouldn't go to a "recovery from cancer" board and wax on about how much surgical scars turn me on.


----------



## TraciJo67 (Jun 23, 2008)

largenlovely said:


> that's a bit over the top wouldn't you say? comparing someone expressing they are turned on by an immobile woman to that of expressing desires of rape? I'm not sure why so many people go to such extreme's to prove a point here.
> 
> The poster probably shouldn't have posted in this thread, but i see no point in going to this extreme...there are many men here who have expressed that they are turned on by immobility. So it shouldn't be such a shock. No he wasn't being delicate to the original poster's intention, but geeze..c'mon



I don't think that you understood the point I was trying to make at all.

I'm not going to clarify. I was clear enough the first few times.

I've said what I wanted to say about this issue, and now it's (far past) time to move on.


----------



## Webmaster (Jun 23, 2008)

wrestlingguy said:


> IT's not any less judgmental, IMO. Fact of the matter is, though, that he owns this site, and can editorialize as much as he wants to.



I very rarely invoke that right. However, if I see a persistent pattern of dissing others in inappropriate places, I issue a warning. I do not wish for posters to be intimidated into not posting for fear someone will tear into them or mock them.


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy (Jun 23, 2008)

I just PM'ed Roy and hope he gets back to me. I asked him if he would like to restart this thread on the health board and offered to help him if he is interested in doing so.
Let's see if we can discuss the reality of immobilization over there....


----------



## largenlovely (Jun 23, 2008)

which is really very generous ...ya know, being that if it weren't for you we wouldn't have a place to DEMAND our right to speak, in any forum period lol



Webmaster said:


> I very rarely invoke that right. However, if I see a persistent pattern of dissing others in inappropriate places, I issue a warning. I do not wish for posters to be intimidated into not posting for fear someone will tear into them or mock them.


----------



## Jack Skellington (Jun 23, 2008)

In TraciJo's defense she was a lot nicer than I would have been.


----------



## KHayes666 (Jun 23, 2008)

wrestlingguy said:


> IT's not any less judgmental, IMO. Fact of the matter is, though, that he owns this site, and can editorialize as much as he wants to.
> 
> Also, I understood what TJ meant with her "doh's", as I've seen enough of her posts to feel that I know her somewhat, albeit limited to matters of size acceptance, and other topics found in Dims.
> 
> ...



Yeah, and a lot of people on here have this "eh, the newbies need to pay their dues and keep their mouths shut until they're around for a while" attitude and I personally think thats a bunch of you know what.

I know a lot of people around here have trust issues, especially in the light of the Loves situation from months ago, but newbies aren't always guys that read off "how much do you weigh" questions from a list, they could be like you and me and could contribute positively to the board.

As I stated before, the OP's situation is he's concerned about the mobility of his friend, he never said anything about wanting her to be immobile. His concern is not misplaced either in my opinion.


----------



## Wagimawr (Jun 23, 2008)

Jack Skellington said:


> In TraciJo's defense she was a lot nicer than I would have been.


Would you have included some explanation in your attack, as opposed to a wordless "oh god, not this again" that does just as much good spoken aloud in the room as it does expressed in smileys on the board?


----------



## Jack Skellington (Jun 23, 2008)

Wagimawr said:


> Would you have included some explanation in your attack, as opposed to a wordless "oh god, not this again" that does just as much good spoken aloud in the room as it does expressed in smileys on the board?



It would have been a verbal tirade of mythical proportions.


----------



## Wagimawr (Jun 23, 2008)

Equally helpful, I'm sure.


----------



## Jack Skellington (Jun 23, 2008)

Wagimawr said:


> Equally helpful, I'm sure.



You flatter me Wag. I've always liked that about you.


----------



## Wagimawr (Jun 23, 2008)

I can't tell if it's the avatar or the spite.


----------



## Jack Skellington (Jun 23, 2008)

Wagimawr said:


> I can't tell if it's the avatar or the spite.



I can only rep you so much, you know.


----------



## Wagimawr (Jun 23, 2008)

Jack Skellington said:


> I can only rep you so much, you know.


space it out, bitch!


----------



## Jack Skellington (Jun 23, 2008)

Wagimawr said:


> space it out, bitch!



See, there you go again just *begging *for more rep. It's your own damn fault, really.


----------



## BigBeautifulMe (Jun 23, 2008)

Got him for ya. 

Bwahahahahahahahaha


----------



## TraciJo67 (Jun 23, 2008)

BigBeautifulMe said:


> Got him for ya.
> 
> Bwahahahahahahahaha



Actually, oddly enough, so did I.

Coz he called Jack a bitch. More REP where that came from if you start referring to him as 'my bitch' 


Disclaimer: Secretly, I adore you, Jack


----------



## Wagimawr (Jun 23, 2008)

Jack's spite bows for no man. Or woman. Or Dr. Girlfriend, for that matter.


----------



## MisticalMisty (Jun 23, 2008)

sweet&fat said:


> I think that the five doh's expresses the very real frustration that a good number of people feel in response to such comments. He is free to express how he feels, and TJ should be free to do the same. We don't have to like what each other says, but we do have to recognize and accept the fact that there are dissenting viewpoints.



I'd think it'd be a whole different conversation if she and some others weren't KNOWN for making similar comments in similar threads.

Seriously.

We all know what can and has been posted here. We also know who cries foul every damn time there's a thread about someone wanting someone to be fat to immobility..etc.

I think Conrad, Wag and many other people are just tired of the same type of comments, from the same people, about the same damn things. It's the weight board for fuck's sake.


----------



## Jack Skellington (Jun 23, 2008)

MisticalMisty said:


> It's the weight board for fuck's sake.



Yes, but not the feeder one.


----------



## MisticalMisty (Jun 23, 2008)

Jack Skellington said:


> Yes, but not the feeder one.



Who's talking about feeding?


----------



## TraciJo67 (Jun 23, 2008)

MisticalMisty said:


> I'd think it'd be a whole different conversation if she and some others weren't KNOWN for making similar comments in similar threads.
> 
> Seriously.
> 
> ...



Excuse me? 

I'm fairly certain that the only 'controversial' thing I've posted on the fat sexuality board occured many months ago, and came about because someone posted a very disturbing fantasy about feeding women to death. I'd appreciate some enlightenment as to how that qualifies me as "KNOWN" to be anything, Misty. Especially when it comes to "EVERY DAMN TIME". 

What you've just done is personally attack me. I'll hold my breath while I wait to see your post edited, or a warning to be issued to you.


----------



## Jack Skellington (Jun 23, 2008)

MisticalMisty said:


> Who's talking about feeding?



Now that you mention it.



MisticalMisty said:


> We also know who cries foul every damn time there's a thread about someone wanting someone to be fat to immobility..etc.


----------



## KHayes666 (Jun 23, 2008)

Jack Skellington said:


> Yes, but not the feeder one.



So????

Is dimensions segregationalist now?

Are you telling me you have to be a certain "label" in order to post something somewhere.


----------



## Wagimawr (Jun 23, 2008)

No, but the point was already made earlier that the Erotic Weight Gain subforum was the place for protected talk about things that are hot about weight gain. The Fat Sexuality subforum and the main Weight Board forum are not protected in any way.


----------



## MisticalMisty (Jun 23, 2008)

TraciJo67 said:


> Excuse me?
> 
> I'm fairly certain that the only 'controversial' thing I've posted on the fat sexuality board occured many months ago, and came about because someone posted a very disturbing fantasy about feeding women to death. I'd appreciate some enlightenment as to how that qualifies me as "KNOWN" to be anything, Misty. Especially when it comes to "EVERY DAMN TIME".
> 
> What you've just done is personally attack me. I'll hold my breath while I wait to see your post edited, or a warning to be issued to you.



It wasn't a personal attack. 

I could go back and find some of your post or those of others to prove my point..but I have other things to do..but if it comes to that..well..I don't mind.

People just want to be able to start threads, post, make comments etc about their fantasies or fetishes without judgement.


----------



## Jack Skellington (Jun 23, 2008)

KHayes666 said:


> So????
> 
> Is dimensions segregationalist now?
> 
> Are you telling me you have to be a certain "label" in order to post something somewhere.



Feeders of course can post anywhere they like but The feeder topics go in the protected erotic weight gain forum. That's how the admins set it up. The other weight forums are for general fat related sexuallity. At least thats my understanding of the rules.


----------



## Tooz (Jun 23, 2008)

MisticalMisty said:


> People just want to be able to start threads, post, make comments etc about their fantasies or fetishes without judgement.



While I definitely agree with you about this, I think the nature of the original post isn't really the same thing. I really wish this thread would get moved or something.


----------



## KHayes666 (Jun 23, 2008)

Alright everybody calm down.....don't need to be fighting.

The topic is should we be concerned about our friends even if the circumstances are arrousing, the answer is yes.


----------



## MisticalMisty (Jun 23, 2008)

Tooz said:


> While I definitely agree with you about this, I think the nature of the original post isn't really the same thing. I really wish this thread would get moved or something.



I totally get that..seriously.


----------



## Tooz (Jun 23, 2008)

MisticalMisty said:


> I totally get that..seriously.



We're definitely on the same page, minority though we may be.


----------



## largenlovely (Jun 23, 2008)

it's starting to look that way isn't it



KHayes666 said:


> So????
> 
> Is dimensions segregationalist now?
> 
> Are you telling me you have to be a certain "label" in order to post something somewhere.


----------



## largenlovely (Jun 23, 2008)

I'm with you ladies as well...this is just getting ridiculous



Tooz said:


> We're definitely on the same page, minority though we may be.


----------



## Jack Skellington (Jun 23, 2008)

Wagimawr said:


> Jack's spite bows for no man. Or woman. Or Dr. Girlfriend, for that matter.



I feel that would be an accurate thing to say. 

More rep coming your way as soon as I am able.


----------



## TraciJo67 (Jun 23, 2008)

MisticalMisty said:


> It wasn't a personal attack.
> 
> I could go back and find some of your post or those of others to prove my point..but I have other things to do..but if it comes to that..well..I don't mind.
> 
> People just want to be able to start threads, post, make comments etc about their fantasies or fetishes without judgement.




Since you painted me with that broad brush, I'd like to see where I've made frequent mention of disgust regarding feederism and/or fantasies revolving around that issue. Please do post the "EVERY DAMN TIME" examples that you were referring to. And if you're not prepared to do so, then DON'T SPLATTER ME WITH THAT GODDAMN PAINT BRUSH.


----------



## Tooz (Jun 23, 2008)

Whoooooooooa calm down.


----------



## Santaclear (Jun 23, 2008)

largenlovely said:


> I'm with you ladies as well...this is just getting ridiculous



As long as this is getting ridiculous, I should just chime in and add that even though I thought I was straight, those :doh: emoticons are _really_ cute. :batting:


----------



## TraciJo67 (Jun 23, 2008)

Tooz said:


> Whoooooooooa calm down.



Whoooooooooa ... hop out. You didn't get splattered with the "EVERY DAMN TIME" comment. You don't get to judge how upset such a sweeping generalization has made me.


----------



## largenlovely (Jun 23, 2008)

here's why the entire thing is ridiculous.......



Webmaster said:


> I very rarely invoke that right. However, if I see a persistent pattern of dissing others in inappropriate places, I issue a warning. I do not wish for posters to be intimidated into not posting for fear someone will tear into them or mock them.



I believe the OWNER of this website has spoken


----------



## Tooz (Jun 23, 2008)

TraciJo67 said:


> Whoooooooooa ... hop out. You didn't get splattered with the "EVERY DAMN TIME" comment. You don't get to judge how upset such a sweeping generalization has made me.



To this, I say a lot of people have said a lot of upsetting things to almost everyone here.


----------



## ripley (Jun 24, 2008)

What this thread has proved to me is that for some people, they never move from "fantasy" to "concern" no matter what happens. And that's just sad.


----------



## Fascinita (Jun 24, 2008)

Wagimawr said:


> space it out, bitch!



Oh, Waggie! You adorable dickweed! lololol


----------



## TheNowhereMan (Jun 24, 2008)

It's just one of those things you know?
You can talk about and so forth but when it actually happens what can you do?
If it's a mutual thing let it be I suppose, other wise it can a very bad situation.
A sexual fantasy is just that, a fantasy. Though it may be possible to achieve it might not be in the best interest of both parties to go through with. I admit I have had immobility fantasies but I also realize it's a hard thing to live with in real life. So for me at least I leave it to dirty talk or a pretend immobility role-play such as go through the motions of the care like sponge bathing, lotioning, massages, and of course a little feeding. In my opinion it would not only be a burden on the person who is gaining for the obvious reasons, but care for someone in that kind of a situation is also taxing physically, mentally, and not to mention the monetary stresses. So all I am trying to say is that in my opinion unless your partner truly and honestly wants to be that big don't try and force them. 

I dunno once I typed it out it didn't seem that profound after all.


----------



## FaxMachine1234 (Jun 24, 2008)

ripley said:


> What this thread has proved to me is that for some people, they never move from "fantasy" to "concern" no matter what happens. And that's just sad.



+1. Or at least it never occurs to them to think about what they say before them decide to come off like an insensitive idiot who treats these women just like fantasy objects. These are the kinds of people they made that "Feed" movie about it.

And having these divisions between the different Weight Boards seem silly to me, as I've never seen a clear demarkation between them (in particular, the Fat Sexuality board seems to spill out everywhere). Quibbling over where to put this thread is just distracting from the actual discussion at hand.


----------



## Santaclear (Jun 24, 2008)

Ekim said:


> ..(in particular, the Fat Sexuality board seems to spill out everywhere)



Isn't that the idea, though?


----------



## Tina (Jun 24, 2008)

The funny thing is that the original post has nothing to do with fantasy, and this whole thread was re-routed from the second post on. The original post would definitely have been appropriate for the health board, since the gentleman expressed concern and wasn't in any way fetishizing her.


----------



## BothGunsBlazing (Jun 24, 2008)

I love the fact that the person who posted the original comment that started this whole thing hasn't posted since. It was hit & run! 

It's like going into the "name a song from the last letter" thread and posting

HIV is friggin' adorable!

See ya!


----------



## olwen (Jun 24, 2008)

TraciJo67 said:


> What if I'd described a scenario in which I watched a friend or family member suffer from a life-threatening illness, and I witness her falter, shrivel into a hollowed-out husk of what she once was, lose her hair from chemo, develop sores all over the areas of her body targeted by radiation ...
> 
> ... and the response I got was, "Wow .... that's sad, but bald heads are *so* sexy!"
> 
> Do you think that the respondant would be missing the point, to an extent that it's extremely offensive?



Traci, none of these qualifiers matter. Sexuality is too complicated. There are lots of things that I don't like, wouldn't do, don't understand why other people do them, but it's not for me to judge. Nor is it helpful to judge. It's a way to police someone else's sexuality. That's not good for anyone.


----------



## TotallyReal (Jun 24, 2008)

Entire Thread said:


> ::argument::


:doh::doh::doh::doh::doh:


----------



## TraciJo67 (Jun 24, 2008)

olwen said:


> Traci, none of these qualifiers matter. Sexuality is too complicated. There are lots of things that I don't like, wouldn't do, don't understand why other people do them, but it's not for me to judge. Nor is it helpful to judge. It's a way to police someone else's sexuality. That's not good for anyone.



I'm going to speak generally here, Olwen ... because I do mostly agree with you. When both parties are consenting adults, and nobody is physically or emotionally harmed, it's not OK to judge. 

This situation wasn't about two consenting adults. In fact, it wasn't about sex or sexual preference at all. The initial post was about a man who was empathizing with a woman's physical limitations. He went to great length to describe what had happened to her, and how sad that made him feel. I didn't get a 'pity' vibe. Just a matter-of-fact accounting of how he felt, observing someone who had reached the limit of her mobility. I read the post, and the feelings that it inspired in me were very similar to the OP's. When I saw someone posting about how "sexy" it would be to see a woman struggling to do what most of us just take for granted (walking, feeding ourselves), and having to rely on other people to meet her basic needs ... it struck a chord in me. It wasn't, as some appear to believe, because I'm a harpy or a shrew. It was because I genuinely can relate and empathize with what the OP was saying, and because I judged the "how sexy" response to be very objectifying and demeaning to women in general. 

Whether or not he has a right to those fantasies isn't at issue here. Nor is it OK for me to judge (though yeah, I do judge it, and I admit that). What I mostly objected to, though, was the _context_. 

Finally, I do want to ask you a question, Olwen. In your opinion, is it ever OK to judge? How about a 40-year-old man who gets excited by 8-year-old girls?Or a man who needs to be with emotionally and/or physically vulnerable women ... so that he can control them? Is it OK to judge a person who needs to humiliate and violate other people in order to be sexually gratified? I'm not relating this directly to this thread, since I don't know the first thing about the person whose post I objected to. I'm actually curious because you brought up the "it's not for me to judge" issue.


----------



## Jack Skellington (Jun 24, 2008)

olwen said:


> Traci, none of these qualifiers matter. Sexuality is too complicated. There are lots of things that I don't like, wouldn't do, don't understand why other people do them, but it's not for me to judge. Nor is it helpful to judge. It's a way to police someone else's sexuality. That's not good for anyone.



As many have pointed out and Tina just did again:



> The funny thing is that the original post has nothing to do with fantasy, and this whole thread was re-routed from the second post on. The original post would definitely have been appropriate for the health board, since the gentleman expressed concern and wasn't in any way fetishizing her.



This thread was about health concerns. Not sexuality. So the following post by FaFrankie was both off topic and rather callous. 

To me I think this has become another example of the "boys will be boys" mentality. We (meaning our culture) very often excuses and defends men for inappropriate comments and or behavor. Men will say something offensive and people will rush to defend them and anyone who is frustrated by it or speaks against it is an oversensitive bitch. 

I feel we as a culture are still very much stuck in the mindset of what man says is law and they are not to be judged or questioned. Which does both women and men a huge diservice. Women will be continued to be devalued and men will continue to be stuck in the rude horny teenage boy mindset and never emotionally mature.

Anyhoo...

Dims is a place for adults and it's not unreasonanble to expect men not to act like horny teenage boys in topics unrelated to sexuality. In other words, there is a time and place for horniness. This clearly wasn't it.


----------



## largenlovely (Jun 24, 2008)

first you compare it to rape and now you're comparing it to pedophelia? i can't even begin to say how horribly offended i am by your post. Not to even mention the fact that you're saying to any immobile woman who might be reading this thread that she should feel humiliated because she may be in a feeder/feedee relationship ...that probably IS between consenting adults

I'd always believed that the weight board was a place for feeders to discuss their interest in a positive manner without feeling attacked (which is why i believe Conrad made the post that he did and issued you a warning in the first place)..because you've been in attack mode from the very beginning of this thread. Now you've not only attacked this fella who expressed himself (even though it was misdirected) but you've also attacked feeders, feedees and immobile women (albeit indirectly). 

I wish someone would do SOMETHING about this horrible god awful thread.




TraciJo67 said:


> Finally, I do want to ask you a question, Olwen. In your opinion, is it ever OK to judge? How about a 40-year-old man who gets excited by 8-year-old girls?Or a man who needs to be with emotionally and/or physically vulnerable women ... so that he can control them? Is it OK to judge a person who needs to humiliate and violate other people in order to be sexually gratified? I'm not relating this directly to this thread, since I don't know the first thing about the person whose post I objected to. I'm actually curious because you brought up the "it's not for me to judge" issue.


----------



## TraciJo67 (Jun 24, 2008)

largenlovely said:


> first you compare it to rape and now you're comparing it to pedophelia? i can't even begin to say how horribly offended i am by your post. Not to even mention the fact that you're saying to any immobile woman who might be reading this thread that she should feel humiliated because she may be in a feeder/feedee relationship ...that probably IS between consenting adults
> 
> I'd always believed that the weight board was a place for feeders to discuss
> their interest in a positive manner without feeling attacked (which is why i believe Conrad made the post that he did and issued you a warning in the first place)..because you've been in attack mode from the very beginning of this thread. Now you've not only attacked this fella who expressed himself (even though it was misdirected) but you've also attacked feeders, feedees and immobile women (albeit indirectly).
> ...



Actually, you're reading something into what I've written that isn't there, and never has been there. 

I'm not comparing feederism to pedophilia or rape.

I'm comparing *discussion* of that topic, in a conversation that's not about feederism, with *discussion* of rape fantasies in a format that isn't about rape fantasies. Etc. Ad nauseaum.

And again, you are extrapolating that I am opposed to feederism/fantasy play. I am not. What is between consenting adults remains there.

That is, however, a separate issue *altogether* from someone who posts that he is turned on by a woman's immobility. 

Your offense at my "crime" here seems rather ... goal-oriented to me, LargenLovely.


----------



## Ruby Ripples (Jun 24, 2008)

TraciJo67 said:


> A *lot* of people's sexual fantasies are contradictory to the reality of a situation. I wouldn't go to a "rape survivors" board and share fantasies of being violated. I wouldn't go to a "recovery from cancer" board and wax on about how much surgical scars turn me on.
> 
> And I wouldn't discuss how "hot" it is that a woman is incapacitated by her body size.
> 
> ...



I don't feel your analagies are comparable with this at all. This is not a forum of desperately sad, immobile women trying to lose weight, and in deep trauma. 

Maybe you need to read that first response to the OPs original post again? At no point in his very short post did he say that he finds immobility and reliance upon others for basic human needs to be sexy, not did he even hint at it. He did in fact appear to say that he found HER SIZE sexy, the fatness she was, as had been described in the original post. I never read it as him being turned on by her immobility in the slightest, in fact I read it as him saying that it was ONLY her size that he found attractive, NOT the immobility. He states that th thinks its sad, but that someone THAT FAT is sexy. NOTHING to do with the mobility issue.


----------



## largenlovely (Jun 24, 2008)

if you weren't comparing it then why would you even bring these subjects up? You obviously feel there must be some sort of comparison.

My only "goal" here is to express my own opinion..what is your goal? Whether or not you admit to it, your obvious distaste for feederism in general is shining through. Though a lot of women feel that way around here...it's nothing new. The thing i was most offended by was the fact that you said that immobile women should feel humiliated and victimized...though your other comparisons were almost equally as offensive. 



TraciJo67 said:


> Actually, you're reading something into what I've written that isn't there, and never has been there.
> 
> I'm not comparing feederism to pedophilia or rape.
> 
> ...


----------



## largenlovely (Jun 24, 2008)

THANK YOU!! i was trying to make that point earlier and it was completely ignored..rep rep rep



Ruby Ripples said:


> I don't feel your analagies are comparable with this at all. This is not a forum of desperately sad, immobile women trying to lose weight, and in deep trauma. .


----------



## TraciJo67 (Jun 24, 2008)

largenlovely said:


> if you weren't comparing it then why would you even bring these subjects up? You obviously feel there must be some sort of comparison.
> 
> My only "goal" here is to express my own opinion..what is your goal? Whether or not you admit to it, your obvious distaste for feederism in general is shining through. Though a lot of women feel that way around here...it's nothing new. The thing i was most offended by was the fact that you said that immobile women should feel humiliated and victimized...though your other comparisons were almost equally as offensive.



You know what? I'm done with this. You have your own agenda. I am not opposed to what consenting adults do ... period. I feel that is fairly obvious. I also feel that you have a completely different reason for jumping on this issue as you have. And, bottom line, we're not going to change each other's minds. This can only get uglier. Before it does, I'm bowing out.


----------



## largenlovely (Jun 24, 2008)

I'm not sure what other reasons i SHOULD have...i think the ones mentioned are reasons enough to be offended...but i can agree that we are not going to change one anothers minds. 



TraciJo67 said:


> You know what? I'm done with this. You have your own agenda. I am not opposed to what consenting adults do ... period. I feel that is fairly obvious. I also feel that you have a completely different reason for jumping on this issue as you have. And, bottom line, we're not going to change each other's minds. This can only get uglier. Before it does, I'm bowing out.


----------



## olwen (Jun 24, 2008)

TraciJo67 said:


> I'm going to speak generally here, Olwen ... because I do mostly agree with you. When both parties are consenting adults, and nobody is physically or emotionally harmed, it's not OK to judge.
> 
> This situation wasn't about two consenting adults. In fact, it wasn't about sex or sexual preference at all. The initial post was about a man who was empathizing with a woman's physical limitations. He went to great length to describe what had happened to her, and how sad that made him feel. I didn't get a 'pity' vibe. Just a matter-of-fact accounting of how he felt, observing someone who had reached the limit of her mobility. I read the post, and the feelings that it inspired in me were very similar to the OP's. When I saw someone posting about how "sexy" it would be to see a woman struggling to do what most of us just take for granted (walking, feeding ourselves), and having to rely on other people to meet her basic needs ... it struck a chord in me. It wasn't, as some appear to believe, because I'm a harpy or a shrew. It was because I genuinely can relate and empathize with what the OP was saying, and because I judged the "how sexy" response to be very objectifying and demeaning to women in general.
> 
> ...



First let me say there is a difference between having a fantasy and acting it out. Even if your fantasies involve non-consent and exploitation they are still fantasies and it's healthy to explore these parts of yourself no matter how disturbing. Now if you go to act out that sort of fantasy, then yes, it's not okay if the other person doesn't understand what's going on or gets hurt without wanting to be hurt. 

I would pass judgement when children are involved. If one party can not consent then there is a jagged line there. It makes me want to do very bad things to that person. But even then I feel bad for wanting to pass judgement for wanting to be the judge, jury, and executioner. I don't know what that person is going thru. I don't know their history, I don't know anything except he/she has these urges that I don't like or understand. Trying to understand this person is better than simply dismissing him/her away as a monster. 

...I actually know a guy who is a convicted sex offender/pedophile. I found out a couple of months ago. I've known the guy since I was a teenager. Needless to say I was shocked. Had I known that about him before I met him I'd have been tempted to take the humanity out of him and only see him as a monster. But because I know him I experienced some very complicated feelings towards him because I want to be able to see him as a person and not a monster. He's polite and helpful, loves his mother, tries to be an overall good person. So why should I want to take that away from him? But now when I look at him I sort of clench up all over and I try not to think about what he's done or who he's done it to, and I remind myself that he's not a serial killer, he's not a monster, he's a person with some very big demons on him and that's that.

As for humiliation and such no, it's not okay to judge that. There are A LOT of people who do get off on such humiliation/violation. Then too how do you define humiliation? How do you define violation? It's different for different people. I know that seems counterintuitive, but I'm telling you there are things you may find humiliating/violating that I would laugh off and vice versa. It's like this for everyone. 

I've heard some off the wall whacked out fantasies in my day, stuff that made me want to gag or punch someone in the ear, or things that just made me go wha?, and trust me feeding/gaining is tame compared to those things. I highly doubt that any gainer does so against his/her will. Even if the logistics haven't been thought out, even if he/she regrets it in the end. Is the gainer emotionally vulnerable or somehow incapable of making informed decisions about his/her sexuality for wanting to be taken care of or controlled in a very intense way? That's not for me to say. I have no idea. The reasons why are different for every gainer. There are a lot of people who want to be controlled sexually or who want to dominate sexually. Trying to understand it requires the ability to let down the judgement wall.

How vulnerable are any of us when it comes to relationships? We probably all are to some degree. Do I think a guy is a jerk for exploiting that vulnerability to his and only his gain regardless of the other's feelings? Yeah, I do. But my next thought would be to wonder why he would behave that way. I'd want to understand. It's hard to try to understand when you put up a you're-a-freak wall. While there are things I think are horrible to do sexually, I try really hard to back away from these hard and fast judgements. I really do, because like I've said before, human sexuality is just too complicated a thing to reduce it to black and white squares.


----------



## olwen (Jun 24, 2008)

Jack Skellington said:


> As many have pointed out and Tina just did again:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



::pens mouth, closes mouth, opens mouth, closes mouth::::

Yes, men have many more opportunities to express their sexuality than women do. To not question is to make things status quo. And no, it's not to much to ask men to be respectful and grown up about their sexuality. 

But rather than shut them down, how about if we try to understand where they're coming from (other than a place of privilege, because there is more to it than that) and then try to make a place for women to express themselves as well. I sometimes find it offensive when people assume that all women would be offended by certain things just because we are cultured to believe that we are supposed to be offended because we are women. This stuff is just too complicated for me to think in such stark terms.


----------



## TraciJo67 (Jun 24, 2008)

olwen said:


> First let me say there is a difference between having a fantasy and acting it out. Even if your fantasies involve non-consent and exploitation they are still fantasies and it's healthy to explore these parts of yourself no matter how disturbing. Now if you go to act out that sort of fantasy, then yes, it's not okay if the other person doesn't understand what's going on or gets hurt without wanting to be hurt.
> 
> I would pass judgement when children are involved. If one party can not consent then there is a jagged line there. It makes me want to do very bad things to that person. But even then I feel bad for wanting to pass judgement for wanting to be the judge, jury, and executioner. I don't know what that person is going thru. I don't know their history, I don't know anything except he/she has these urges that I don't like or understand. Trying to understand this person is better than simply dismissing him/her away as a monster.
> 
> ...




Thank you for that very rational, eloquent & well-thought-out response, Olwen. The thing is, I don't agree with everything that you've said, but I respect how you said it, and I understand the reasons behind why you feel the way that you do. 

What I do agree with is that we aren't usually in a position to be able to accurately judge whether or not someone is being exploited. For me, exploitation is an interesting topic of conversation (not really relevant here, but a future conversation that I'd love to have with you, in PM or another thread altogether), but I honestly didn't mean to convey that I felt the woman in the OP's initial post was being exploited. I can't possibly know that. I'm assuming that this isn't the case, actually. I do think that most people into feederism are mature adults capable of making rational decisions. They may not be decisions that I'd make for myself, but then ... I've made choices that many people wouldn't be able to readily identify with, either.


----------



## Admiral_Snackbar (Jun 24, 2008)

Countering one extreme example (extreme feederism to the point of immobility/sickness/death) with another opposite extreme example (child molestation/abuse/alcoholism) doesn't resolve anything. The middle-of-the-road argument rarely applies in these instances, as we are all in a very Bacchanalian environment here sometimes.

As Tina indicated, the OP pointed to a guy's sad viewing of a woman taking her weight gain to extremes. Sexuality was only vaguely implied ("she was making some FA or feeder very happy"), and the thread as usual devolved into a diatribe of the happy or "it's her life" fat positives and/or gainers vs. the incredulous and wary/disgusted non-gainers and in the end it's the aftermath of a tornado in a trailer park. Allow me to forecast a timeline, to wit:

: Original post
: Facepalm
: Is she happy? It's her life
: It's unhealthy, I feel sad/angry
: Who are you to judge?
: Retort
: Counter retort
: Counter/counter retort with implied F-U
: Questioning of Dims' charter, free speech and forum freedom
: Inclusion of mod/owner argumentative, censorship threats and waving around of massive e-genitalia
: Threats of warning or bannination
: Requests of warning or bannination
: Can't we all just get along?
: You shut your mouth while the men are talking!
: Pompous windbag
: Jane, you ignorant slut
: Open-mouthed incredulity
: Apologies all around
: Flower and puppies
: Angry flare up ("Hey I missed the fight, care to rematch?")
: Thread closure

I think I covered everything, right? :doh::wubu:


----------



## alienlanes (Jun 24, 2008)

Admiral_Snackbar said:


> I think I covered everything, right? :doh::wubu::



Nope.



> : Original post
> : Facepalm



should be



> : Original post
> *: Ridiculous, inappropriate horndog comment*
> : Facepalm



In the context of the perennial feederism debate into which this thread got derailed, Olwen has already made the critical point: there's a distinction between _having_ a fantasy and acting it out. 

But in the context of the first few posts, I wholeheartedly endorse the original facepalms.


----------



## BigBeautifulMe (Jun 24, 2008)

SlackerFA said:


> Nope.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Must spread it around, etc. etc. Darn it.  I was about to post virtually the same exact thing. 

It's not the comment, it's the CONTEXT of the comment. The OP asked for genuine help on a topic important to him, and the second poster took that request for help and turned it into something else for his own sexual purposes. Frankly, I'm not surprised the OP hasn't been back.

I have no problems with feederism/fantasy play between two consenting adults, as others have said, but using someone else's call for help for your own sexual purposes is just not right, IMHO.


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy (Jun 24, 2008)

Well fook...this thread went all to hell. So why in hell can't I puts a random youtube moment here? 

Breathe- Blu Cantrell
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKSfgMKw84Q


She's just beautiful, isn't she? Oh, and Sean Paul ain't bad either


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy (Jun 24, 2008)

BigBeautifulMe said:


> Must spread it around, etc. etc. Darn it.  I was about to post virtually the same exact thing.
> 
> It's not the comment, it's the CONTEXT of the comment. The OP asked for genuine help on a topic important to him, and the second poster took that request for help and turned it into something else for his own sexual purposes. Frankly, I'm not surprised the OP hasn't been back.
> 
> I have no problems with feederism/fantasy play between two consenting adults, as others have said, but using someone else's call for help for your own sexual purposes is just not right, IMHO.



Jeez, thanks for laying out the obvious for everyone....it seems to need to be said again. 
THE MAKER OF THE THREAD WASN'T TRYING TO MAKE SEXY TALK TIME - HE WANTED TO DISCUSS HOW SAD IT MADE HIM TO SEE THAT WOMAN BECAUSE HE FEELS SHE IS MISSING OUT ON SOMETHING IN LIFE!!!
What is wrong with discussing that? Why can't we do that here...on a forum full of fat people with many of us KNOWING FULL DAMN WELL that as we get fatter, we lose some of our abilities. Don't try to lie to me either....I can't run....or even walk as fast as I used to. It's part of being fat.....and not everyone finds it sexy. And some want to talk about the pros and cons of it....why can't we? This is NOT the "erotic weight gain" forum....as even a mod pointed out. :doh:


----------



## CAMellie (Jun 24, 2008)

BigBeautifulMe said:


> Must spread it around, etc. etc. Darn it.  I was about to post virtually the same exact thing.
> 
> It's not the comment, it's the CONTEXT of the comment. The OP asked for genuine help on a topic important to him, and the second poster took that request for help and turned it into something else for his own sexual purposes. Frankly, I'm not surprised the OP hasn't been back.
> 
> I have no problems with feederism/fantasy play between two consenting adults, as others have said, but using someone else's call for help for your own sexual purposes is just not right, IMHO.



Thank you! Exactly why I endorsed TraciJo's many :doh:s initially.


----------



## largenlovely (Jun 24, 2008)

I don't think anyone denies that the poster was insensitive to the original posters intent...i know i don't. I personally think the post wound up on the wrong board...and as Conrad stated, that there are so many men who feel attacked on a regular basis here for voicing their opinions on what they find sexually attractive. That really needs to stop.

As for what the thread actually turned into...wow...but i've said enough on that matter and hope to be done with that altogether. 



BigBeautifulMe said:


> Must spread it around, etc. etc. Darn it.  I was about to post virtually the same exact thing.
> 
> It's not the comment, it's the CONTEXT of the comment. The OP asked for genuine help on a topic important to him, and the second poster took that request for help and turned it into something else for his own sexual purposes. Frankly, I'm not surprised the OP hasn't been back.
> 
> I have no problems with feederism/fantasy play between two consenting adults, as others have said, but using someone else's call for help for your own sexual purposes is just not right, IMHO.


----------



## fatchicksrockuk (Jun 24, 2008)

BigBeautifulMe said:


> but using someone else's call for help for your own sexual purposes is just not right, IMHO.



I didn't read the original post as a call for help?


----------



## BigBeautifulMe (Jun 24, 2008)

Seemed like one to me. "I'm sad that something I usually find sexually exciting can have such negative consequences when it's acted out, and I'm expressing that here as a way to deal with the disconnect." *Shrug.* We all read things different ways, I suppose.


----------



## Tina (Jun 24, 2008)

largenlovely said:


> I personally think the post wound up on the wrong board...and as Conrad stated, that there are so many men who feel attacked on a regular basis here for voicing their opinions on what they find sexually attractive. That really needs to stop.


Melissa, I agree, and I disagree.

First, I think that people should be allowed their fantasies.

Second, just in looking at a HP rule about things deemed to be generally anti-social, I think there are and should be limits. That's all I'll say about that, and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the OP or the one that followed.

Third, this will NEVER stop as long as there are clueless people who only think with certain parts of their anatomies, who have no clue about context, or sensitivity about what is originally being discussed, who seem to try to turn it into wankage, whether they say "not to sound wrong" or not (because, have you ever noticed that usually the worst things come after the phrase, "not to be mean, but..."?).

Fourth, as long as the opposite sex (read: women) are able to view things that are generally being written about us, at least some of the group will personalize it, right or wrong, and react to it. 

So, because of these things and so much more, I wouldn't count on the cluelessness, nor the rolling eyes reaction (and worse), to stop. It's just my own deduction based upon logic and human nature.


----------



## largenlovely (Jun 24, 2008)

actually i can agree with your disagreement LOL

I fully admit that i found his post to be insensitive..which i've said a number of times. I suppose the general problem i have (with how the posts started in the beginning half of the thread, before it turned into something else entirely) is the automatic attack, which has become so prevalent around these parts...but yes, i understand what you're saying. It's hard to get people to stop that. Though, i don't know that it's gonna do any good either way. That guy probably hasn't even read all these posts to know people were even upset about his reaction. 




Tina said:


> Melissa, I agree, and I disagree.
> 
> First, I think that people should be allowed their fantasies.
> 
> ...


----------



## largenlovely (Jun 24, 2008)

LOL and i still love you too, even if we disagree  *huggers*



BigBeautifulMe said:


> I have no problems with feederism/fantasy play between two consenting adults, as others have said, but using someone else's call for help for your own sexual purposes is just not right, IMHO.


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy (Jun 24, 2008)

I started a new thread on the health forum if anyone is interested in continuing this discussion over there.....

http://www.dimensionsmagazine.com/forums/showthread.php?p=833222


----------



## largenlovely (Jun 24, 2008)

that's the best news i've heard all day lol

honestly i think had it been there to start with, that maybe none of this would have come about.




Green Eyed Fairy said:


> I started a new thread on the health forum if anyone is interested in continuing this discussion over there.....
> 
> http://www.dimensionsmagazine.com/forums/showthread.php?p=833222


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy (Jun 24, 2008)

largenlovely said:


> that's the best news i've heard all day lol
> 
> honestly i think had it been there to start with, that maybe none of this would have come about.



Personally, I saw nothing wrong with discussing that guy's feelings on the weight board...esp the part that is not "protected" such as erotic weight gain. There needs to be balance.....and the second poster in this thread was out of place if you honestly give a damn about the original post/thread intention. 

I get tired of these clusterfucks....and censorship runs both ways around here, I notice...


----------



## largenlovely (Jun 24, 2008)

you may not but even a mod said that she felt it should've been on the health board to start with....which i also thought was quite obvious *shrug*

and for the record, as i've stated too many times to count..i never said that he wasn't out of place  

*edit* though, had the post been placed on the health board to begin with, his post probably wouldn't have ever even been placed in the thread.



Green Eyed Fairy said:


> Personally, I saw nothing wrong with discussing that guy's feelings on the weight board...esp the part that is not "protected" such as erotic weight gain. There needs to be balance.....and the second poster in this thread was out of place if you honestly give a damn about the original post/thread intention.
> 
> I get tired of these clusterfucks....and censorship runs both ways around here, I notice...


----------



## TraciJo67 (Jun 24, 2008)

I said, at least 4 times, in as many different ways that I could think of, the EXACT SAME THING that several others just recently said. That it wasn't the fantasy element that I objected to per se -- that it was the context of the message. As far as I can see, what I said is not much different than what others also said.

And the response I've gotten has been that I have a frequent history of jumping all over feeders/feedees (with no corresponding proof of this being offered, despite the fact that I asked for it). 

I got another person taking what I said extremely (EXTREMELY) out of context, cramming words into my mouth, and then all but begging the moderators to ban me. 

I got the owner of the website implying that I was issued a warning for my "bad behavior" (no warning was issued, for the record, unless he's referring to his public remarks) and then another person taking that and running with it - offering it as "proof", so to speak, that I'm nothing more than a shrieking harpy. 

So the message that I take from this? It's OK to objectify women. It's OK for women to feel objectified. It's not OK for us to say so. 

What really makes me angry is that I got hopped all over ... and as soon as it became apparent that several other people happen to agree with me ... 

.... why, it was never in question that the post I referred to was inappropriate! Gosh, no! It was more that men need an outlet in which to safely discuss their sexual fantasies, but still, of *course* the OP shouldn't have said what he did! Backpedal much?

For the record, my remarks related to what I objected to below. 




TraciJo67 said:


> There's a world of difference between that being a preference, and that being a fetish (which will often completely override care for the person occupying the fat body).





TraciJo67 said:


> My point of objection was that the initial post wasn't about how "sexy" the woman was. It was a man expressing some feelings about witnessing someone reach the limits of her mobility, and how that made him feel.....
> 
> Perhaps this thread should have been started elsewhere.





TraciJo67 said:


> Whether or not he has a right to those fantasies isn't at issue here. Nor is it OK for me to judge (though yeah, I do judge it, and I admit that). What I mostly objected to, though, was the _context_.





TraciJo67 said:


> I'm comparing *discussion* of that topic, in a conversation that's not about feederism, with *discussion* of rape fantasies in a format that isn't about rape fantasies. Etc. Ad nauseaum.


----------



## Tooz (Jun 24, 2008)

Not at all trying to be mean, but you ALSO said:




TraciJo67 said:


> You know what? I'm done with this. [...] I'm bowing out.


----------



## largenlovely (Jun 24, 2008)

I'm not sure which part of that you were referring to ME specifically lol

but Lord knows i never needed to cram any words into your mouth, you were doing that well enough on your own lol It was quite easy to see what you were saying...and i never once denied that the post was insensitive...go back and read  You elaborated and made very inappropriate comparisons, that was my problem with a large majority of your posts. I thought the initial attack was quite pointless as well, but wasn't truly offended until your comparisons.

Also, i never once saw anyone beg for you to be banned...perhaps i should go back and re-read....




TraciJo67 said:


> I said, at least 4 times, in as many different ways that I could think of, the EXACT SAME THING that several others just recently said. That it wasn't the fantasy element that I objected to per se -- that it was the context of the message. As far as I can see, what I said is not much different than what others also said.
> 
> And the response I've gotten has been that I have a frequent history of jumping all over feeders/feedees (with no corresponding proof of this being offered, despite the fact that I asked for it).
> 
> ...


----------



## ripley (Jun 24, 2008)

largenlovely said:


> you may not but even a mod said that she felt it should've been on the health board to start with....which i also thought was quite obvious *shrug*
> 
> and for the record, as i've stated too many times to count..i never said that he wasn't out of place
> 
> *edit* though, had the post been placed on the health board to begin with, his post probably wouldn't have ever even been placed in the thread.



I for one don't think this is a health issue at all. It's a fantasy issue.

It was (as far as I read the original post) a man saying "My fantasies came smack up against reality, and I found I was more concerned for her than sexually aroused."*

I don't even think the "problem" post was that out of line. He seemed to say "Even in that situation, no matter how much I might realize that woman had her quality of life compromised, I still would have been aroused."*

I think it could have become a valuable discussion of feeder/weigh gain fantasy vs. the reality of life at a high weight, and how those can change (or not) over time, in different situations, etc. The fact of it is, no matter how inappropriate and horn-doggy the "problem" post came off...it's reality for many of our members. They're dealing with fantasies and sexual reactions that they don't have a lot of control over.

Personally, I think his comment was disturbing. I would have liked to have discussed if HE thought it was all right to still have those feelings in the face of reality, but he'd be a fool to kick this hornet's nest again...or very brave.







*If it's not readily apparent, I paraphrased both posts.


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy (Jun 24, 2008)

largenlovely said:


> you may not *but even a mod said that she felt it should've been on the health board to start wit*h....which i also thought was quite obvious *shrug*
> 
> and for the record, as i've stated too many times to count..i never said that he wasn't out of place
> 
> *edit* though, had the post been placed on the health board to begin with, his post probably wouldn't have ever even been placed in the thread.



I'm not sure what mod you are referring to but I meant this one....



AnnMarie said:


> It is in the general area for just that reason. The EWG subforum is the more strict area... *he started this with a pro/con/troubles tone, so the general discussion area of the WB is where it's best served.*



This IS the general discussion area of the weight board.....

She said it's appropriate here...this is not a "protected" place. Simple enough...


----------



## TraciJo67 (Jun 24, 2008)

Tooz said:


> Not at all trying to be mean, but you ALSO said:



And we all know what "not at all trying to be mean" is a preface to, right?

I changed my mind. 

Surely not worth more than a few :doh::doh::doh:'s.


----------



## largenlovely (Jun 24, 2008)

I didn't see AnnMarie's post..i was referring to THIS one




Tina said:


> The funny thing is that the original post has nothing to do with fantasy, and this whole thread was re-routed from the second post on. The original post would definitely have been appropriate for the health board, since the gentleman expressed concern and wasn't in any way fetishizing her.





Green Eyed Fairy said:


> I'm not sure what mod you are referring to but I meant this one....


----------



## largenlovely (Jun 24, 2008)

but a fantasy that turned into a health concern....that turned into an attack that turned into this monster thread lol

though to respond to your very good point, I don't think a lot of men really are prepared for a lot of the realities...and there are a lot of them. 



ripley said:


> I for one don't think this is a health issue at all. It's a fantasy issue.
> 
> It was (as far as I read the original post) a man saying "My fantasies came smack up against reality, and I found I was more concerned for her than sexually aroused."*
> 
> ...


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy (Jun 24, 2008)

largenlovely said:


> I didn't see AnnMarie's post..i was referring to THIS one



Ok cool beans...so I started another thread on the health forum.
However, my point of discontent in this thread is just that I really didn't think this thread is inappropriate here. It is "allowed"...which some people were saying it shouldn't be...or rather that all view points shouldn't be heard because "they are sick of it".
The WHOLE weight board isn't the erotic weight gain forum. There are others of us that enjoy the weight board, as well, and there is nothing wrong or "offensive" about discussing the fine line between fantasy and reality. From my point of view, this thread was hijacked by someone making it about sex again...and that is not what the thread is SUPPOSED to be about. 
No one should be taking that personally.
I'm "sick of" some things, too, but ain't that just my tough shit sometimes?


----------



## largenlovely (Jun 24, 2008)

i can absolutely agree to discussion  whether or not i feel the post is in the appropriate place...i just hate to see automatic attacks...i think most of us can agree those aren't productive in any way.

*edit* which is what i was objecting to initially. 



Green Eyed Fairy said:


> Ok cool beans...so I started another thread on the health forum.
> However, my point of discontent in this thread is just that I really didn't think this thread is inappropriate here. It is "allowed"...which some people were saying it shouldn't be...or rather that all view points shouldn't be heard because "they are sick of it".
> The WHOLE weight board isn't the erotic weight gain forum. There are others of us that enjoy the weight board, as well, and there is nothing wrong or "offensive" about discussing the fine line between fantasy and reality.
> No one should be taking that personally.


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy (Jun 24, 2008)

largenlovely said:


> *but a fantasy that turned into a health concern....that turned into an attack that turned into this monster thread lol*
> 
> though to respond to your very good point, I don't think a lot of men really are prepared for a lot of the realities...and there are a lot of them.



The Op was not discussing a fantasy...he was discussing his *CONCERN* about the hard reality that fantasy can turn into......( please go back and read the FIRST post....)
The original post...that is what this thread is SUPPOSED to be about....not some other guys fantasy.


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy (Jun 24, 2008)

largenlovely said:


> i can absolutely agree to discussion  whether or not i feel the post is in the appropriate place...i just hate to see automatic attacks...i think most of us can agree those aren't productive in any way.
> 
> *edit* which is what i was objecting to initially.



I understand and totally respect your feelings. As I said, my issues lie with the "appropriateness of posting this here" part of the argument, that is all.


----------



## largenlovely (Jun 24, 2008)

well i think we're kind of having to guess here because the original poster took off lol

It sounded to me as if he was enjoying seeing her get bigger (which might be his own fantasy) until he became concerned over mobility issues.



Green Eyed Fairy said:


> The Op was not discussing a fantasy...he was discussing his *CONCERN* about the hard reality that fantasy can turn into......( please go back and read the FIRST post....)
> The original post...that is what this thread is SUPPOSED to be about....not some other guys fantasy.


----------



## ripley (Jun 24, 2008)

largenlovely said:


> but a fantasy that turned into a health concern....that turned into an attack that turned into this monster thread lol
> 
> though to respond to your very good point, I don't think a lot of men really are prepared for a lot of the realities...and there are a lot of them.



But it wasn't the person with health concerns posting...it was an observer relating to how he went from "Fantasy to concern."

I still hold it's not a health post.


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy (Jun 24, 2008)

largenlovely said:


> well i think we're kind of having to guess here because the original poster took off lol
> 
> It sounded to me as if he was enjoying seeing her get bigger (which might be his own fantasy) until he became concerned over mobility issues.



Exactly...he's not opposed to weight gain per se...but he is wondering..and wanted to discuss his concern over seeing her limited abilities now. I think that was really kind/nice/responsible of him. I wish he hadn't been scared off...or would, at least, come back.


----------



## largenlovely (Jun 24, 2008)

concern over her mobility..which implies health...

tomato/tomata 

*throws a tomata at ripley* lol




ripley said:


> But it wasn't the person with health concerns posting...it was an observer relating to how he went from "Fantasy to concern."
> 
> I still hold it's not a health post.


----------



## largenlovely (Jun 24, 2008)

I think a lot of men become concerned when you start bringing up mobility issues as a reality of weight gain. I made sure me and Bruce had this discussion being that i knew he was a feeder. He and I both agreed that while some immobility fantasies are interesting, it's best left to fantasy. 



Green Eyed Fairy said:


> Exactly...he's not opposed to weight gain per se...but he is wondering..and wanted to discuss his concern over seeing her limited abilities now. I think that was really kind/nice/responsible of him. I wish he hadn't been scared off...or would, at least, come back.


----------



## TraciJo67 (Jun 24, 2008)

largenlovely said:


> I'm not sure which part of that you were referring to ME specifically lol
> 
> but Lord knows i never needed to cram any words into your mouth, you were doing that well enough on your own lol It was quite easy to see what you were saying...and i never once denied that the post was insensitive...go back and read  You elaborated and made very inappropriate comparisons, that was my problem with a large majority of your posts. I thought the initial attack was quite pointless as well, but wasn't truly offended until your comparisons.
> 
> Also, i never once saw anyone beg for you to be banned...perhaps i should go back and re-read....



Yes, what I was saying is exactly what I quoted. 

You extrapolated the extras. Repeatedly. Despite me stating several times that it wasn't what I was saying at all (nor do I think that anyone else saw it the way that you do; if so, though, I'd like to know ... then it would be an issue of my failure to communicate effectively, rather than what I assume right now, which is that you were deliberately misreading me). 

As I mentioned, repeatedly, I see nothing wrong with feederism per se. I have, in the past, mentioned that it's a practice that I can readily understand, to an extent. I am a woman who loves to eat. How could I not "get" the interplay between food and eroticism? What two consenting adults do (again, as I've repeatedly said) is between them. 

The issue that I have revolves around my perception of objectification. I see it as no different than ... say, a crew of construction workers who shout lewd obscenities at a pretty woman who happens to be strolling by. Their actions would be judged far differently if they were behaving the same way in a crowded bar at 2:00 a.m. in front of a group of interested co-eds. In the first example, the woman didn't offer her consent to be treated as nothing more than a slab of meat. In the second, consent is at least implied. 

This thread was never meant to be about how sexy an immobile woman can be. And yet again ... I'm not suggesting that she isn't, or can't be (since by now, I realize that you'll jump all over anything I say that can be even *vaguely* taken out of context). I am saying that it is *beside the point*, since the woman that the OP referenced wasn't laid forth as an object of desire. 

As far as the "attacks" -- they were started by Conrad, who chastised me for a very mild response to a very offensive post. You quite willingly carried the ball. And if this wasn't a very thinly veiled request for a moderator to ban me, I'll eat my foot.

At the very least, you misread me, and badly. Whether intentionally or not, I don't know. Why not just OWN UP to it, though?


----------



## largenlovely (Jun 24, 2008)

*sigh* in MY opinion, your comparisons and analogies were very offensive. I read them how i read them and responded in kind. 

When i asked for someone to do something about the thread, it was a plea to have it moved. I'm not sure what other motive you're claiming i have. Pardon me for expressing my own opinions in this thread that do not adhere to your own. I also don't feel that i should have to tiptoe over your hurt feelings because i spoke my mind about the issue and you are now crying foul and that there is some sort of wild conspiracy against you in this thread. 

*edit* Also, the initial objection was that your post was an attack rather than any sort of constructive criticism



TraciJo67 said:


> Yes, what I was saying is exactly what I quoted.
> 
> You extrapolated the extras. Repeatedly. Despite me stating several times that it wasn't what I was saying at all (nor do I think that anyone else saw it the way that you do; if so, though, I'd like to know ... then it would be an issue of my failure to communicate effectively, rather than what I assume right now, which is that you were deliberately misreading me).
> 
> ...


----------



## ripley (Jun 24, 2008)

largenlovely said:


> concern over her mobility..which implies health...
> 
> tomato/tomata
> 
> *throws a tomata at ripley* lol



I think it could have been a much more interesting conversation if we could have kept it to the fantasy vs. reality realm though. I mean, how much of a health discussion could we have? 

I'm concerned about her health.
Yeah?
Yeah.
That's too bad.
Yeah.

I'd STILL like to hear the first poster and the "problem" poster talk about how fantasies can change (or not) when confronted with negative quality of life. I think that would be interesting, appropriate to the forum, and enlightening.




Now I'm off to make a tomata sandwich.


----------



## largenlovely (Jun 24, 2008)

Which very well may be the reasoning AnnMarie had when she posted that it belonged on this board. 



ripley said:


> I think it could have been a much more interesting conversation if we could have kept it to the fantasy vs. reality realm though. I mean, how much of a health discussion could we have?
> 
> I'm concerned about her health.
> Yeah?
> ...


----------



## ripley (Jun 24, 2008)

largenlovely said:


> Which very well may be the reasoning AnnMarie had when she posted that it belonged on this board.



Yah, so listen to your elders, missy.


----------



## largenlovely (Jun 24, 2008)

EEK!!! avoid the tomatoes...they got the salmonella!! 



ripley said:


> Now I'm off to make a tomata sandwich.


----------



## Tooz (Jun 24, 2008)

TraciJo67 said:


> And we all know what "not at all trying to be mean" is a preface to, right?



I actually meant it. It was indirect advice as you seem to be upset-- kind of like "try to save yourself the grief" kind of thing.

Good Lord.


----------



## TraciJo67 (Jun 24, 2008)

largenlovely said:


> *sigh* in MY opinion, your comparisons and analogies were very offensive. I read them how i read them and responded in kind.
> 
> When i asked for someone to do something about the thread, it was a plea to have it moved. I'm not sure what other motive you're claiming i have. Pardon me for expressing my own opinions in this thread that do not adhere to your own. I also don't feel that i should have to tiptoe over your hurt feelings because i spoke my mind about the issue and are now crying foul and that there is some sort of wild conspiracy against you in this thread.
> 
> *edit* Also, the initial objection was that your post was that it was an attack rather than any sort of constructive criticism



Nope. No wild conspiracy. You, with your own agenda. I haven't the foggiest what that is. But since I've been very clear, and nothing that I said was markedly different than posts that you're now lavishing your complete understanding upon, I *am* wondering.

And I'm not hurt by what you said, I'm angry that you are [what seems to me to be] deliberately misunderstanding me. 

And appalled that I'm having this discussion at all, frankly. And that I haven't followed my initial impulse to just ignore your deliberate ATTACKS (since you seem to like that word so much). 

And yes, the examples that I gave were in fact analogies ... and, as I stated many, many, MANY times ... they were analogous to making INAPPROPRIATE REMARKS IN AN INAPPROPRIATE SETTING. I.E., sharing rape fantasies on a rape survivor board. Not analogies about sexual behaviors per se. To be clear: Not. Comparing. Feeders. To. Rapists. 

If you're referring to the remarks that I made to Olwen, then you either didn't actually *read* what I said, or, again, you have your own agenda here. Because I clearly stated a disclaimer, bolded below:
_
Finally, I do want to ask you a question, Olwen. In your opinion, is it ever OK to judge? How about a 40-year-old man who gets excited by 8-year-old girls?Or a man who needs to be with emotionally and/or physically vulnerable women ... so that he can control them? Is it OK to judge a person who needs to humiliate and violate other people in order to be sexually gratified?* I'm not relating this directly to this thread, since I don't know the first thing about the person whose post I objected to. I'm actually curious because you brought up the "it's not for me to judge" issue.*_


----------



## largenlovely (Jun 24, 2008)

if you can't figure out an agenda, well...newsflash ...maybe there isn't one. 

I think my previous posts explained exactly how i felt about the issues you brought up. I don't think anything more needs to be said about the matter. Instead, you continue to complain about it rather than participate in the new discussion that has come from all of this. 



TraciJo67 said:


> Nope. No wild conspiracy. You, with your own agenda. I haven't the foggiest what that is. But since I've been very clear, and nothing that I said was markedly different than posts that you're now lavishing your complete understanding upon, I *am* wondering.
> 
> And I'm not hurt by what you said, I'm angry that you are [what seems to me to be] deliberately misunderstanding me.
> 
> ...


----------



## Tina (Jun 24, 2008)

largenlovely said:


> I didn't see AnnMarie's post..i was referring to THIS one


To clarify, for those who are directly, and obliquely, saying what I feel, my exact words were: "The original post would definitely have been appropriate for the health board, since the gentleman expressed concern and wasn't in any way fetishizing her."

I didn't say that's where it should have been, just that it would be appropriate there (after reading GEF's idea about making a thread there). Kinda not the same to say that it would be appropriate there, which gives the sense that it _could_ go there, and that it _should_ go there, like that's the only place it would belong.


----------



## largenlovely (Jun 24, 2008)

perhaps that was my mistake then...

though i still think that's where it should've went initially...and *stomps foot* dangit y'all can't make me think otherwise lol

though i will concede that through Ripley's reasoning, i can see why it was felt that this may have been the appropriate place. 



Tina said:


> To clarify, for those who are directly, and obliquely, saying what I feel, my exact words were: "The original post would definitely have been appropriate for the health board, since the gentleman expressed concern and wasn't in any way fetishizing her."
> 
> I didn't say that's where it should have been, just that it would be appropriate there (after reading GEF's idea about making a thread there). Kinda not the same to say that it would be appropriate there, which gives the sense that it _could_ go there, and that it _should_ go there, like that's the only place it would belong.


----------



## TraciJo67 (Jun 24, 2008)

largenlovely said:


> if you can't figure out an agenda, well...newsflash ...maybe there isn't one.
> 
> I think my previous posts explained exactly how i felt about the issues you brought up. I don't think anything more needs to be said about the matter. Instead, you continue to complain about it rather than participate in the new discussion that has come from all of this.



Oh, I see you're playing the "we've all moved on, why haven't you?" card.

Well played, if not a bit predictable.

You went on and on about how horrifically offended you were by my remarks, you stated that I dislike feeders, that I see immobile women as objects to be pitied (not to mention, that they should feel humilated by their circumstances), that I see feeders/feedees as the same as rapists and pedophiles. You've repeatedly stated that I've been in "attack" mode since the beginning of this thread. You pointed to a few :doh::doh::doh:'s as the beginning of the "horrific" attack. And I'm not entirely sure what other "attacks" I've made here, since what *I* see is that I've mostly been defending myself from posts in which you've mischaracterized me in an astonishingly offensive fashion (all while crying how "offended" *you* are). 

Perhaps I'm "complaining" about it because you refuse to acknowledge that you've had anything to do with the hell-on-earth that this thread has become. No ... you've moved on! <best "Who, me?" shrug>


----------



## Tina (Jun 24, 2008)

I think that had the second post not derailed it from the seeming original intent of the OP it might have been an interesting discussion.


----------



## largenlovely (Jun 25, 2008)

I stand by all that i said ...perhaps you should go back and re-read your own posts rather than concentrating so much on mine. 



TraciJo67 said:


> Oh, I see you're playing the "we've all moved on, why haven't you?" card.
> 
> Well played, if not a bit predictable.
> 
> ...


----------



## furious styles (Jun 25, 2008)

*reads thread*

another day on dimensions. :|


----------



## FaxMachine1234 (Jun 25, 2008)

Tina said:


> I think that had the second post not derailed it from the seeming original intent of the OP it might have been an interesting discussion.



I still think it'd be interesting if the thread returned to either of its main topics, instead of arguing about personal slights nobody else cares about.


----------



## KHayes666 (Jun 25, 2008)

Ekim said:


> I still think it'd be interesting if the thread returned to either of its main topics, instead of arguing about personal slights nobody else cares about.



I agree.......everybody twist!

*dances*


----------



## LillyBBBW (Jun 25, 2008)

Tina said:


> I think that had the second post not derailed it from the seeming original intent of the OP it might have been an interesting discussion.



I agree, which is why I'm supporting TraciJo in this argument. Yeah I know I know, why defend her? My kneejerk reaction is to defend the second poster's right to express himself which is what I strongly believe in but in this case it seemed disrespectful in the place that it was. The OP was clearly upset about the failing health of a good friend, he himself being a feedee. The conflict of emotions that we all feel in those regards would have made for a great discussion. A wolf whistle after such an angsty post was just... inappropriate and the poster knew it. The OP probably should have posted it elsewhere. Even so, the second posters sensitivity meter seems a little low on batteries. It probably could have been addressed much better than :doh::doh::doh::doh::doh: but looking at the clusterfuck it has caused it kinda seems appropriate now. I support him being able to say what he said, I just think he shouldn't have said it there.


----------



## Kortana (Jun 25, 2008)

I have been suffering from some pretty bad insomia for the past few weeks, so I have actually had some time to read this thread throughly. Personally, I think it is a great thread; entertaining at times,educational and dramatic 

Although I could ask a million questions but i do have one question that sticks out- what possible alterior motive could LnL have for saying what she did? I just don't get it!?!?! The way I see it is that LnL has enough experiene with the subject to be an asset to the conversation.

Also,it's obvious that the "out of place" commentary at the beginning was definetly "out of place" BUT (and although I DOUBT anyone will answer this) I am sure others thought what he had posted. Maybe on the Erotic weight gain board we would have had more people open up on that. 

I think the post went in a great diretion- it just goes to show that reality and fantasy will sometimes smack in you the face- just as much as an out of place post on a message board!


----------



## largenlovely (Jun 25, 2008)

there wasn't one Kortana..i was actually just flat out offended, though it seems impossible to believe. 

I've tried to explain this, but maybe i'm not doing a good job lol. At first i was just bothered at the automatic attack without any constructive criticism. Though bothered is a far cry from offended. Later i became offended because I felt that there was an undercurrent to the posts by even bringing up certain atrocities as comparisons. Though they were denied, yet had there been no comparison in the posters mind, then they wouldn't have been in the post in the first place..is the way i see it. 




Kortana said:


> Although I could ask a million questions but i do have one question that sticks out- what possible alterior motive could LnL have for saying what she did? I just don't get it!?!?! The way I see it is that LnL has enough experiene with the subject to be an asset to the conversation.


----------



## TraciJo67 (Jun 25, 2008)

Kortana said:


> Although I could ask a million questions but i do have one question that sticks out- what possible alterior motive could LnL have for saying what she did? I just don't get it!?!?! The way I see it is that LnL has enough experiene with the subject to be an asset to the conversation.



I've considered a few possibilities and dismissed them, because they seem so petty. Yet I don't know what else to think. I've repeatedly stated my intent, she's soundly ignored it, and continues to shovel words into my mouth (I hate feeders, I "pity" fat women, etc). I believe that I've been clear.as.a.bell on what I meant. Nobody else has claimed that they saw anything other than what I intended to convey. That leaves me thinking that to LnL, this is personal. If it wasn't, she surely would have acknowledged that yes, she misunderstood me and that yes, she attempted to shovel some mighty offensive words into my mouth. Because the alternative reality is that I'm lying, she's a mindreader, and she's used her amazing psychic abilities to dig around into the nooks 'n crannies of my brain.


----------



## Ernest Nagel (Jun 25, 2008)

Yes, the idea of someone being objectified for wrecking their health and even jeopardizing their life is pretty appalling. That someone would want to have sex with another person based on the fact that they are willing to tolerate absurd amounts of pain, permanent disability and even irreparable brain damage is an example of how inconsiderate and selfish some people can be. 

We should probably get a memo out to the UFC, NFL, NBA, MLB, pro boxing, pro rodeo, NASCAR and just about every other competitive men's sport to let them know their large female fan bases in general and legions of groupies in particular (who fantasize about men who may not be able to walk or even form a complete sentence by the time they're 50) are exploiting and abusing their athletes. 

Sure, they're also paid millions of dollars and I can find some other points were the analogy to SSBBW admirers is weak. Still, women want pro athletes bodies regardless of the long term damage they're required to absorb. The bottom line is we are all sexually selective at some level. We don't naturally take into consideration the consequences of our choices. Want a “good provider”? Is his triple bypass and borderline alcoholism an acceptable cost for winning the rat race? What about his premature death at age 65? Want someone who will raise lots of great kids? Is the toll on her body and personal fulfillment a problem for you?

At the same time many of us make self-destructive or unwise choices to enhance our desirability as potential mates. It’s an intrinsic part of the human condition. Like it or not we’re stupid about getting laid, boys and girls alike. I agree, it shouldn't be this way. It doesn't have to be. A faceslap here, a snark there won’t change anything though.

Pretending that feeders and encouragers are any more inconsiderate or exploitative than millions of others with more normal or accepted fixations is hypocritical, imo. They're easy targets and often contemptible for a plethora of other reasons. Bullies will always swarm on guys like them. When we single them out for particular derision simply because they're willing to honestly acknowledge something about themselves I think we make it a little harder for each of us to own our choices. Suppressing honesty is a bad idea, even when it reveals an ugly truth. Ugly truths, not pretty lies are what often move us forward.

I wanted to make this point sooner but I kept waiting for the dust from the snark-a-thon to settle. Not happening, so just leaving this for posterity. This post is NOT a personal attack on or reference to anyone in this thread.

One other quick, unrelated point, just if anyone’s still reading. Olwen is the most under-repped citizen of Dims I know of. Her contributions are insightful, authentic and incisive. She should be closing on a gold can, minimum. JMO. Let’s make sure she knows how much we appreciate her. Thanks.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Jun 25, 2008)

Ernest Nagel said:


> One other quick, unrelated point, just if anyones still reading. Olwen is the most under-repped citizen of Dims I know of. Her contributions are insightful, authentic and incisive. She should be closing on a gold can, minimum. JMO. Lets make sure she knows how much we appreciate her. Thanks.



I agree with you on everything but this. Olwen has been here 5 months and is already within the ranks of people who've been posting here since the site opened. She is the highest ranking member who joined in 2008, surpassing all by at least 3 cans. My fingers are raw from Repping olwen.


----------



## Tina (Jun 25, 2008)

Kortana said:


> Also,it's obvious that the "out of place" commentary at the beginning was definetly "out of place" BUT (and although I DOUBT anyone will answer this) I am sure others thought what he had posted.


Yes, but isn't that what our internal editors are supposed to be for? Just because one thinks something, that doesn't mean one should say it.


----------



## Wagimawr (Jun 25, 2008)

Self-moderation is sooooooo last century.


----------



## olwen (Jun 25, 2008)

Ernest Nagel said:


> Yes, the idea of someone being objectified for wrecking their health and even jeopardizing their life is pretty appalling. That someone would want to have sex with another person based on the fact that they are willing to tolerate absurd amounts of pain, permanent disability and even irreparable brain damage is an example of how inconsiderate and selfish some people can be.
> 
> We should probably get a memo out to the UFC, NFL, NBA, MLB, pro boxing, pro rodeo, NASCAR and just about every other competitive men's sport to let them know their large female fan bases in general and legions of groupies in particular (who fantasize about men who may not be able to walk or even form a complete sentence by the time they're 50) are exploiting and abusing their athletes.
> 
> ...




:blush::blush: Thanks Ernest for the kind words really. :blush::blush:

I'm not into sports so I've never thought about that before, but the analogies you made did make me think....tho some women may like the athletic male form, I'd say that the display of "manliness," or aggression involved in such bloody and violent sports is not something that men do for the benefit or adoration of women. I'd say they do it because we as a society encourage such aggression. (Do women excel in contact sports?) That some women would be attracted to that is just a byproduct. I'd even go so far as to say that some of these women would be just as attracted to the status, power, and wealth involved as they are the athletes bodies. Is it exploitation in that case? Sure. _Would _they be attacked for such preferences? Yes, but not as sexual predators to be sure. They be attacked for being vicious gold-diggers or home wreckers or some such or utterly dismissed as irrelevant.


....Strange how women with "deviant" sexual behaviors are more likely to be considered misguided or broken, while men are more likely to be considered psycho or evil....


----------



## Jack Skellington (Jun 25, 2008)

olwen said:


> Strange how women with "deviant" sexual behaviors are more likely to be considered misguided or broken, while men are more likely to be considered psycho or evil....



Oh, I don't know...

_Maybe_ because male sexual deviants have a penchant for enjoying physically harming/mutilating/torturing other human beings and gold diggers just enjoy the status of having wealthy and powerful men. Then there also the little thing of women having such historically shit status and options in society that the need for protection and status of powerful and wealthy men became a real necessity for their and their children's very survival

But we are getting a weensy bit off topic here.


----------



## Admiral_Snackbar (Jun 25, 2008)

Wagimawr said:


> Self-moderation is sooooooo last century.


We moderate here? Some of these threads get so out of control, it's like someone locked Robin Williams in a hotel room with an eight ball, a case of Red Bull and a typewriter and told him to "just write what he's feeling".

I do agree that is is very easy for a decently initiated thread about a heartfelt sentiment regarding a female friend to be completely derailed by someone phoning in the equivalent of a "but how big are her tits?" comment. Even squorshing the trolls doesn't help, because like snakes, zombies and Bill O'Reilly, you cannot kill them with conventional weapons unless you cut off their head.

Buncha savages in this place sometimes...


----------



## olwen (Jun 25, 2008)

Jack Skellington said:


> Oh, I don't know...
> 
> _Maybe_ because male sexual deviants have a penchant for enjoying physically harming/mutilating/torturing other human beings and gold diggers just enjoy the status of having wealthy and powerful men. Then there also the little thing of women having such historically shit status and options in society that the need for protection and status of powerful and wealthy men became a real necessity for their and their children's very survival
> 
> But we are getting a weensy bit off topic here.




I should have been clear. I wasn't considering a gold-digger to be "deviant." I was actually thinking of gaining or submission among other things. Someone who doesn't understand it is likely to think the female gainer is somehow broken and the feeder is psycho. I agree that the need for protection and status has historically been a necessity for a woman's survival. 

I think your explanation about male "deviant" behavior is a bit reductive. I know lots of women who enjoy all those things as much as men, myself included. There is a difference between eroticizing such behavior and being simply exploitative. There is of course a problem if one person is eroticizing this behavior and the other is not, which then goes to non-consent, but I'm assuming you are referring to the simply exploitative kind and I'll leave it at that.


----------



## Jack Skellington (Jun 25, 2008)

olwen said:


> I should have been clear. I wasn't considering a gold-digger to be "deviant." I was actually thinking of gaining or submission among other things.



Submission aspects? 

Well, if you really want to go there, women have long been conditioned by society to submit to the might of the penis. In other words, it is beaten into their heads that sexuality is only for the enjoyment of men and they must be good little girls and submit to the desires and fantasies of men without question.

Resulting in many people of both genders having an unhealthy view of sexuality in my opinion. Too many people view sex as a battle of dominance and submission and not one of mutual enjoyment and or an expression of love. Again, in my opinion.


----------



## Ernest Nagel (Jun 25, 2008)

olwen said:


> :blush::blush: Thanks Ernest for the kind words really. :blush::blush:
> 
> I'm not into sports so I've never thought about that before, but the analogies you made did make me think....tho some women may like the athletic male form, I'd say that the display of "manliness," or aggression involved in such bloody and violent sports is not something that men do for the benefit or adoration of women. I'd say they do it because we as a society encourage such aggression. (Do women excel in contact sports?) That some women would be attracted to that is just a byproduct. I'd even go so far as to say that some of these women would be just as attracted to the status, power, and wealth involved as they are the athletes bodies. Is it exploitation in that case? Sure. _Would _they be attacked for such preferences? Yes, but not as sexual predators to be sure. They be attacked for being vicious gold-diggers or home wreckers or some such or utterly dismissed as irrelevant.
> 
> ...



Well, I'm really just trying to point out that women who _encourage_ men to participate in athletics with long term devastating consequences aren't all that different from feeders if we look at outcomes. Not every athlete nor every SSBBW winds up crippled, but many do. Why is one acceptable and the other not?

You may not agree that most women endorse or support violent sporting competitions. As a former (long time ago) HS and college athlete I can promise you plenty do though.  Winners get laid way more than losers and stars get laid more than they even always want. 

We all want something and very few of us draw hard lines about stopping when we have a whiff of it. Some things we want are socially acceptable. Some aren't. I guess it gets back to the "when is it acceptable to judge" question? For some of us the answer is "as long as it's not our ox being gored". For others, empathy gets too much in the way.

Try watching the brutal, dust covered mating ritual of even an amateur rodeo and decide whether feeders have a monopoly or even a lead on crass exploitation. Watch the cowgirls rubbing and kissing the cowboys bruises and abrasions. It's just a little more blatant and easier to see there, but abusive sexual relationships are probably much closer to the norm than an aberration. JMO. (Still not endorsing feederism, btw, just sayin')



Jack Skellington said:


> Oh, I don't know...
> 
> _Maybe_ because male sexual deviants have a penchant for enjoying physically harming/mutilating/torturing other human beings and gold diggers just enjoy the status of having wealthy and powerful men. Then there also the little thing of women having such historically shit status and options in society that the need for protection and status of powerful and wealthy men became a real necessity for their and their children's very survival
> 
> *But we are getting a weensy bit off topic here*.



Off topic?!? In THIS thread??? Jack, you are a RIOT!! :doh::doh::doh: ROFLMAO


----------



## Jack Skellington (Jun 25, 2008)

Ernest Nagel said:


> Off topic?!? In THIS thread??? Jack, you are a RIOT!! :doh::doh::doh: ROFLMAO



I am to please. Spite rep coming your way Ernest. :kiss2:


----------



## Jack Skellington (Jun 25, 2008)

Ernest Nagel said:


> Well, I'm really just trying to point out that women who _encourage_ men to participate in athletics with long term devastating consequences aren't all that different from feeders if we look at outcomes. Not every athlete nor every SSBBW winds up crippled, but many do. Why is one acceptable and the other not?



I’m going to be totally blunt here, men do that shit to pad their own egos.

And...like I stated previously because of societal inequities there has been in still is a reason for women to be drawn to men of status/wealth/power.


----------



## olwen (Jun 25, 2008)

Jack Skellington said:


> Submission aspects?
> 
> Well, if you really want to go there, women have long been conditioned by society to submit to the “might of the penis.” In other words, it is beaten into their heads that sexuality is only for the enjoyment of men and they must be good little girls and submit to the desires and fantasies of men without question.
> 
> Resulting in many people of both genders having an unhealthy view of sexuality in my opinion. Too many people view sex as a battle of dominance and submission and not one of mutual enjoyment and or an expression of love. Again, in my opinion.



I'm just having communication issues with myself today. I should have explained further.

Since I am the submissive in D/s relationships who happens to also be a feminist, I have often thought about what you say above. I have struggled with this. How can I want to and enjoy submitting to MEN when my entire world view has been to resist the urge to give up my sexual power to the big bad meanie in the corner. (Seriously, I've used those words in my own inner dialog.) When I told my friends this thing about myself some of them said "But you're a feminist. How could you?" They thought I was broken. The resulting discussions only led to more confusion - at first. I've even had to wrestle with comments along the lines of "how could you slave to a _white _man?" Again, it's the assumption that I'm somehow broken or misguided. 

I don't think I am. I also no longer think there is anything to reconcile. I think this is something that turns me on to such a degree that it makes me whole and that's that. Any further attempts to deconstruct it will only result in more unnecessary headaches.

That being said, does all of this mean I have an unhealthy view of the sexual power dynamic? Certainly not. Am I being exploited? Absolutely not. It means I'm willing to explore and play with those dynamics to their full erotic potential. I can say it can be a very intimate and loving thing to exchange power in such a way with someone. However brutal things may seem to the outside person, however unbelievable, we understand what's going on here and in those moments who is being dominant and who is being submissive becomes blurry and it honestly doesn't matter. We both hold the energy in our hands. It can't be captured or contained unless we all do it together.... 

But unfortunately what you say is true. Many people do have an unhealthy attitude about this particular power exchange. Both parties want to be on top so to speak. But this is because of what we all are taught with regards to sexual power - men want to have it and women should keep it locked up or the underlying tale, women have it and men are afraid of it and so act accordingly.

...I'm sure I've derailed this topic to the nth degree by now. Sorry folks.


----------



## Ernest Nagel (Jun 25, 2008)

Jack Skellington said:


> Im going to be totally blunt here, men do that shit to pad their own egos.
> 
> And...like I stated previously because of societal inequities there has been in still is a reason for women to be drawn to men of status/wealth/power.



Doesn't really 'splain why they're drawn to men willing to get their heads stepped on by livestock though, does it? Realistically women should focus on men with health, wealth and longevity in order to satisfy simple Darwinian imperatives. Societal inequities don't really excuse everything that happens, IMO. Women want a man who will _sacrifice_ himself in some way just for her.

And if you're saying we (men) do things to pad our egos the same way women dress for each other, ain't necessarily so. At least for me there was, in terms of priorities: getting laid, getting laid, getting laid. Status and ego had no real play in the equation. In fact since even back then I was boinking almost exclusively fat girls my status probably went down, just not my erections, lol.

Anyway, we're all a little dysfunctional when you look behind the curtains; that's my point and I'm stickin' to it.


----------



## Jack Skellington (Jun 25, 2008)

Ernest Nagel said:


> Doesn't really 'splain why they're drawn to men willing to get their heads stepped on by livestock though, does it?



Men have a deep psychological drive to compete and best other men. The I’m bigger, stronger, tougher, can take more punches to the head, can piss the farthest, spit the farthest, blah, blah, blah. 

Women being drawn to men of status is an unintended side benefit of this, in my opinion.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Jun 25, 2008)

Jack Skellington said:


> Men have a deep psychological drive to compete and best other men. The Im bigger, stronger, tougher, can take more punches to the head, can piss the farthest, spit the farthest, blah, blah, blah.
> 
> Women being drawn to men of status is an unintended side benefit of this, in my opinion.



You've a right to your opinion but I think people waste a great deal of time trying to explain why people are the way they are. If I say I want to be dominated, if I say I want to be dominant, if I insist on being equal there will always be someone to point to some aspect of society that causes me to want what I want.


----------



## olwen (Jun 25, 2008)

Ernest Nagel said:


> Doesn't really 'splain why they're drawn to men willing to get their heads stepped on by livestock though, does it? Realistically women should focus on men with health, wealth and longevity in order to satisfy simple Darwinian imperatives. Societal inequities don't really excuse everything that happens, IMO. Women want a man who will _sacrifice_ himself in some way just for her.
> 
> And if you're saying we (men) do things to pad our egos the same way women dress for each other, ain't necessarily so. At least for me there was, in terms of priorities: getting laid, getting laid, getting laid. Status and ego had no real play in the equation. In fact since even back then I was boinking almost exclusively fat girls my status probably went down, just not my erections, lol.
> 
> Anyway, we're all a little dysfunctional when you look behind the curtains; that's my point and I'm stickin' to it.



I have to disagree with you here Ernest. It goes to virility. A man who can display things like agility, bodily control, and power over others, which in turn can equal health, is something we are taught to seek out, whether directly or indirectly. But this doesn't apply to all women. No, just the ones for whom it applies. 

How can you say men don't necessarily do things to pad each other's egos? Haven't you ever spent time in the weight room in the gym? 

You say dysfunctional, I say complicated.


----------



## olwen (Jun 25, 2008)

LillyBBBW said:


> You've a right to your opinion but I think people waste a great deal of time trying to explain why people are the way they are. If I say I want to be dominated, if I say I want to be dominant, if I insist on being equal there will always be someone to point to some aspect of society that causes me to want what I want.



But Lilly, it's human nature to be curious....


----------



## largenlovely (Jun 25, 2008)

and there are so many other factors that shape the way we are and our preferences. I mean afterall, aren't a lot of our preferences programmed by age six?



LillyBBBW said:


> You've a right to your opinion but I think people waste a great deal of time trying to explain why people are the way they are. If I say I want to be dominated, if I say I want to be dominant, if I insist on being equal there will always be someone to point to some aspect of society that causes me to want what I want.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Jun 25, 2008)

olwen said:


> But Lilly, it's human nature to be curious....



I just have this theory that some people are just hard wired to like what they like. I hate dark chocolate but my nephew loves it. I think a lot of these things are rooted mainly in physical things and reactions. Environment may influence these things in one way or the other but I think that most of the core stuff is just an element of who the person is. It may not necessarily be a reaction to how wonderful/awful the men/women were that they were presented with. It's starting to appear that way to me more and more.


----------



## olwen (Jun 25, 2008)

LillyBBBW said:


> I just have this theory that some people are just hard wired to like what they like. I hate dark chocolate but my nephew loves it. I think a lot of these things are rooted mainly in physical things and reactions. Environment may influence these things in one way or the other but I think that most of the core stuff is just an element of who the person is. It may not necessarily be a reaction to how wonderful/awful the men/women were that they were presented with. It's starting to appear that way to me more and more.



Right. Hard wiring aside, I don't know that wanting to figure out why is necessarily a waste of time. I can see instances where trying to figure it out would probably do more harm than good (i.e. the are people born gay question). The thing is so many people struggle with these sorts of questions...finding some kind of clarity or understanding seems crucial, even if the answer you come up with is - I am the way I am because, and there's no reason to question it further.


----------



## braindeadhead (Jun 25, 2008)

largenlovely said:


> and there are so many other factors that shape the way we are and our preferences. I mean afterall, aren't a lot of our preferences programmed by age six?



Some times younger I believe


----------



## largenlovely (Jun 25, 2008)

I think so too...down to something as silly as football lol I remember being around two years old (I'm sure i was two because we only lived in Denver CO at around that time) but i was very young and my dad had all his friends over watching football and they were yelling and screaming at the tv ..i was like, omg that looks like fun!! lol

I'm not sure that i formulated that whole sentence lol, but i remember i "felt" that. I have talked to a bunch of FA's who say that they knew from extremely young ages they liked fat girls.



braindeadhead said:


> Some times younger I believe


----------



## olwen (Jun 25, 2008)

largenlovely said:


> I think so too...down to something as silly as football lol I remember being around two years old (I'm sure i was two because we only lived in Denver CO at around that time) but i was very young and my dad had all his friends over watching football and they were yelling and screaming at the tv ..i was like, omg that looks like fun!! lol
> 
> I'm not sure that i formulated that whole sentence lol, but i remember i "felt" that. I have talked to a bunch of FA's who say that they knew from extremely young ages they liked fat girls.



LnL, this doesn't just apply to FAs. It applies to many other sexual attractions as well. I've heard lots of men say something to the effect of "...I don't know...I was (insert age below 10) when x happened and since then..."

The things is I don't hear many women say such things, except perhaps the FFAs here. Could be because I haven't really asked. But I can remember being 13 and seeing all the rockers with long hair and thinking "hot hot hot." For a long time I had a thing for guys with long hair. Now that I'm older I very much appreciate and like short hair too, but it took a while for that to develop.


----------



## KHayes666 (Jun 25, 2008)

largenlovely said:


> I think so too...down to something as silly as football lol I remember being around two years old (I'm sure i was two because we only lived in Denver CO at around that time) but i was very young and my dad had all his friends over watching football and they were yelling and screaming at the tv ..i was like, omg that looks like fun!! lol
> 
> I'm not sure that i formulated that whole sentence lol, but i remember i "felt" that. I have talked to a bunch of FA's who say that they knew from extremely young ages they liked fat girls.



So when you were 2 years old in 1976 you were watching Roger Staubach get sacked by Mean Joe Greene and everyone yelled at the tv?

Sounds normal in my house lol


----------



## largenlovely (Jun 25, 2008)

ya know i actually figured some of mine out. I've always found latin men more attractive...which it eventually grew to dark hair and eyes..not *just* latin men. But...i think it started around the time i lived in Denver. My dad's cousin is latin and would come over and sit and play the guitar and sing for me. I remember thinking i loved him lol...so i think that might be where it started heh...oh young love  ...but yeah, that was at around the age of two for me. 



olwen said:


> LnL, this doesn't just apply to FAs. It applies to many other sexual attractions as well. I've heard lots of men say something to the effect of "...I don't know...I was (insert age below 10) when x happened and since then..."
> 
> The things is I don't hear many women say such things, except perhaps the FFAs here. Could be because I haven't really asked. But I can remember being 13 and seeing all the rockers with long hair and thinking "hot hot hot." For a long time I had a thing for guys with long hair. Now that I'm older I very much appreciate and like short hair too, but it took a while for that to develop.


----------



## largenlovely (Jun 25, 2008)

my memory is good, but it's not THAT good lol



KHayes666 said:


> So when you were 2 years old in 1976 you were watching Roger Staubach get sacked by Mean Joe Greene and everyone yelled at the tv?
> 
> Sounds normal in my house lol


----------



## LillyBBBW (Jun 25, 2008)

largenlovely said:


> ya know i actually figured some of mine out. I've always found latin men more attractive...which it eventually grew to dark hair and eyes..not *just* latin men. But...i think it started around the time i lived in Denver. My dad's cousin is latin and would come over and sit and play the guitar and sing for me. I remember thinking i loved him lol...so i think that might be where it started heh...oh young love  ...but yeah, that was at around the age of two for me.



Yeah but was he the only man you were exposed to at that age? You found him attractive. If what you are saying is true and that latin guy was instead a 98 year old man with rotted teeth and an eyepatch you'd have a waaaaay more interesting story to reveal about yourself.  

I do believe if he were a redhead this may have kindled a pleasant response to redheads so I do believe you are partially right. But I think this theory only works so much, you know?


----------



## largenlovely (Jun 25, 2008)

hahahhaa yes an interesting one indeed...and yeah, i think had it been a redhead then i would have a special place for redheads maybe. 

I think it's interesting how it grew from just latin men to men who have dark hair and eyes. Not to say i'm only into men with dark hair and eyes, but i'm generally more attracted to those features. I think that my environment played a factor for sure. There were almost zero latin men growing up here in Alabama..so i suppose i would've had to expand the pool. 



LillyBBBW said:


> Yeah but was he the only man you were exposed to at that age? You found him attractive. If what you are saying is true and that latin guy was instead a 98 year old man with rotted teeth and an eyepatch you'd have a waaaaay more interesting story to reveal about yourself.
> 
> I do believe if he were a redhead this may have kindled a pleasant response to redheads so I do believe you are partially right. But I think this theory only works so much, you know?


----------



## alienlanes (Jun 25, 2008)

Jack Skellington said:


> Men have a deep psychological drive to compete and best other men. The Im bigger, stronger, tougher, can take more punches to the head, can piss the farthest, spit the farthest, blah, blah, blah.
> 
> Women being drawn to men of status is an unintended side benefit of this, in my opinion.



So when a man competes, he's acting out a (biologically innate?) "deep psychological drive", but when a woman's attracted to him for winning, she's acting out her oppressive socialization?


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy (Jun 25, 2008)

I'm simply attracted to his big............errrrrrrrrrrrrrr nose :batting: 


And the world keeps telling me it's wrong :doh:


----------



## Jack Skellington (Jun 25, 2008)

SlackerFA said:


> So when a man competes, he's acting out a (biologically innate?) "deep psychological drive", but when a woman's attracted to him for winning, she's acting out her oppressive socialization?



It's of course a simplification but yes I would say that is basically accurate.


----------



## BigBeautifulMe (Jun 25, 2008)

SlackerFA said:


> So when a man competes, he's acting out a (biologically innate?) "deep psychological drive", but when a woman's attracted to him for winning, she's acting out her oppressive socialization?


Really, I think it's just an innate desire to continue the species manifesting itself in different ways.

Physical displays of power mean virility...continuing the species.
Wealth means ability to provide for our health and wellbeing, and that of our children...continuing the species.
Power leads to wealth, leads to ability to provide...continuing the species.

Some of us interpret power differently, though: 

Intelligence leads to ability to provide through innovation, if not through monetary wealth...continuing the species.

Now, before I get jumped all over, I'm not saying all women want children. I'm saying this is an innate, subconscious drive, and is not even something we're cognizant of. And of course, this is only PART of the whole picture that is desire and attraction, YMMV, everyone's different, I'm only speaking for me, your disclaimer here, etc. etc.


----------



## alienlanes (Jun 25, 2008)

Jack Skellington said:


> It's of course a simplification but yes I would say that is basically accurate.



But if there wasn't any reproductive benefit to outcompeting other men (until patriarchy happened), why did men evolve the instinct to compete with each other?


----------



## KHayes666 (Jun 25, 2008)

SlackerFA said:


> But if there wasn't any reproductive benefit to outcompeting other men (until patriarchy happened), why did men evolve the instinct to compete with each other?



I challenge you to a duel of Connect 4!

lol


----------



## Ernest Nagel (Jun 25, 2008)

olwen said:


> Right. Hard wiring aside, I don't know that wanting to figure out why is necessarily a waste of time. I can see instances where trying to figure it out would probably do more harm than good (i.e. the are people born gay question). The thing is so many people struggle with these sorts of questions...finding some kind of clarity or understanding seems crucial, even if the answer you come up with is - I am the way I am because, and there's no reason to question it further.



The unexamined life may not be worth living but the over scrutinized life can suck on its own special level. I don't think we're that far apart on the dysfunctional vs complicated bit. Failures propagate in direct proportion to complexity. My original point is still that no one is completely without culpability in the suffering of others. (I know, I didn't say that out loud. It was implied in order to minimize the snarking of the self-righteous. )

There is some perverse, albeit helpful in the right light, truth to the notion that "we always hurt the ones we love". Completely apart from the BDSM conversation, (or maybe not?) there is the joy of knowing you have it made with someone, that nothing you can do or say will make them stop loving you. That was a hyper-segue, I know but it has to do with what most of us _really_ want, so I'm heaving it in. Inside of that level of trust you never want to do or say anything that will make them stop loving you. That's love.

I think the other thing most of us truly desire is freedom. I suspect maybe we only find real freedom by studying and understanding the prisons we build for ourselves and unlocking our own cells. Judging and assessing the way other _consenting adults_ live their lives just buries us a little deeper. JMO.


----------



## Jack Skellington (Jun 25, 2008)

SlackerFA said:


> But if there wasn't any reproductive benefit to outcompeting other men (until patriarchy happened), why did men evolve the instinct to compete with each other?



Limited resources. Food, shelter, etc. Alpha male syndrome as it were.


----------



## Ernest Nagel (Jun 25, 2008)

SlackerFA said:


> So when a man competes, he's acting out a (biologically innate?) "deep psychological drive", but when a woman's attracted to him for winning, she's acting out her oppressive socialization?



Duly repped. :bow: Slack on! Or slack off, if that's your thing?


----------



## BothGunsBlazing (Jun 25, 2008)

Jack Skellington said:


> It's of course a simplification but yes I would say that is basically accurate.



I'm definitely beginning to grasp this whole spite thing. Geez.


----------



## Jack Skellington (Jun 25, 2008)

BothGunsBlazing said:


> I'm definitely beginning to grasp this whole spite thing. Geez.



I see someone wants some spite rep.


----------



## alienlanes (Jun 25, 2008)

Jack Skellington said:


> Limited resources. Food, shelter, etc. Alpha male syndrome as it were.



But if resources are scarce, they're scarce for women as well as men. Since women didn't depend on men for material support until patriarchy happened, why didn't they evolve the same competitive instinct?



KHayes666 said:


> I challenge you to a duel of Connect 4!
> 
> lol



BOO-YAH MOTHAFUCKA IT'S ON!!!!!!!! _*beats chest, flexes muscles*_


----------



## Blackjack (Jun 25, 2008)

KHayes666 said:


> I challenge you to a duel of Connect 4!
> 
> lol



ROCK-PAPER-SCISSORS FOR THE POSITION OF WORLD EMPEROR


----------



## Jack Skellington (Jun 25, 2008)

SlackerFA said:


> But if resources are scarce, they're scarce for women as well as men. Since women didn't depend on men for material support until patriarchy happened, why didn't they evolve the same competitive instinct?



Cave Man: Men big strong hunters. 

Cave Man: Me biggest and strongest of all. Me get most food, honor and pick of women. 

Cave Man: Women small and weak. You cook food and watch babies. 

Cave Woman: You know, I'm pretty much boned here. But at least I'll get some protection and food my children and myself. 

Fair enough? 

Anyhoo, we are not going to change each other's minds. So we might as well agree to disagree.


----------



## FaxMachine1234 (Jun 25, 2008)




----------



## Jack Skellington (Jun 25, 2008)

Ekim said:


>



I like it. 

I'm handing out rep like Halloween candy tonight.


----------



## KHayes666 (Jun 25, 2008)

Blackjack said:


> ROCK-PAPER-SCISSORS FOR THE POSITION OF WORLD EMPEROR



You're on!!!! lol


----------



## alienlanes (Jun 25, 2008)

Jack Skellington said:


> Cave Man: Men big strong hunters.
> 
> Cave Man: Me biggest and strongest of all. Me get most food, honor and pick of women.
> 
> ...



Since all I've done so far is ask questions, I'm curious as to what position you think I'm trying to convert you to.

I genuinely want to know the answer to that question, but since you're sick of arguing and I need to go to bed, I'll spell my position out . 

I wasn't just making an assumption for the sake of debate when I said this: 



> women didn't depend on men for material support until patriarchy happened



The first humans weren't cartoon cavemen, they were hunter-gatherers on the African savannah. Every healthy adult had the same set of skills and depended on the same food supply of wild plants and game, so if some wannabe patriarch started threatening to bash his mate, all she had to do to was pick up her digging stick and move somewhere else. Patriarchy as a social system didn't appear until the development of grain agriculture and the domestication of livestock. (Why else do you think farming is called "husbandry"?)

Once there was hoardable permanent wealth in the form of grain, livestock and arable land, and the ensuing social inequalities, men started worrying about inheritance. _I_ can't enjoy my big stockpile of grain and cattle after I'm dead, thinks the beardy Old Testament patriarch, but if I have a male heir, he's _kinda_ like me, which I guess is the next best thing... so I have to make sure he's _mine_ (and not some other guy's) by any means necessary, up to and including turning my wife into a domestic slave who can't own grain and cattle of her own because that would take away her unquestioned dependence on me.

So it's not the cavemen you should be angry at, it's the farmers . (Nice work, guys.) There are differences in size between men and women, but it's only with the development of agriculture and property that women became _powerless_ against men.

*But*, and this is a big "but", just because patriarchy is an oppressive and (hopefully) historically anomalous social system, that doesn't mean that *some* aspects of human sexuality aren't hardwired. I think it's plausible that women are evolutionarily predisposed towards healthy, vigorous, "successful" mates, because healthy, vigorous, "successful" children are a good thing to have. And I think it's equally plausible that male humans compete, at least in part, to impress women, just like male peacocks and male deer and male bison do. (It should go without saying, but I'll say it anyways, that these are _generalizations_, not ironclad rules of behavior -- as a terminally non-competitive male, I know this better than anyone.)

I go into all this at length because I think we're on the same side -- I don't like patriarchy any more than you do. But clinging to fables about how men are innately brutish and women are innately pristine, based on a discredited "blank slate" theory of human nature that doesn't take into account the empirically verifiable fact that humans are a primate species subject to Darwinian evolution, makes us weaker in the face of a reactionary backlash led by people who say that _all_ men _have_ to compete, and _all_ women _have_ to want them, "because God says so."



</soapbox>


----------



## olwen (Jun 25, 2008)

LillyBBBW said:


> I agree with you on everything but this. Olwen has been here 5 months and is already within the ranks of people who've been posting here since the site opened. She is the highest ranking member who joined in 2008, surpassing all by at least 3 cans. My fingers are raw from Repping olwen.



I just noticed this post...I was so busy derailing this thread. Not sure what the heck you're talking about? But I will still bow: :bow::bow::bow::bow: :blush::blush::blush:


----------



## Jack Skellington (Jun 25, 2008)

SlackerFA said:


> The first humans weren't cartoon cavemen



It was a joke. Notice the wink smilie?


----------



## alienlanes (Jun 25, 2008)

Jack Skellington said:


> It was a joke. Notice the wink smilie?



Sorry, I couldn't help myself. When someone starts talking about evolutionary psychology my testosterone kicks in and I have to write a long post to demonstrate my supreme unconquerable manliness   .


----------



## KHayes666 (Jun 25, 2008)

SlackerFA said:


> Sorry, I couldn't help myself. When someone starts talking about evolutionary psychology my testosterone kicks in and I have to write a long post to demonstrate my supreme unconquerable manliness   .



Those words are too big for me, however if you ask about WWE Royal Rumble entrants over the years, that's when I can write long points to demonstrate....whatever you said lol


----------



## Jack Skellington (Jun 25, 2008)

SlackerFA said:


> Sorry, I couldn't help myself. When someone starts talking about evolutionary psychology my testosterone kicks in and I have to write a long post to demonstrate my supreme unconquerable manliness   .



See and there you go and that's your answer for this!



> why didn't they evolve the same competitive instinct?



Men have much higher levels of the sex hormone Testosterone. It makes them more competative and aggressive.


----------



## olwen (Jun 25, 2008)

SlackerFA said:


> But if there wasn't any reproductive benefit to outcompeting other men (until patriarchy happened), why did men evolve the instinct to compete with each other?



Even in a matriarchy there is a need to compete for the highest ranking female's attention. 

Remember too, there are benefits to winning a competition. For many peoples such competitions doubled as rites of passage. If they cannot pass the rite, then they do not earn the right to be men. In the eyes of the tribe they are still boys and therefore powerless.


----------



## olwen (Jun 25, 2008)

SlackerFA said:


> But if resources are scarce, they're scarce for women as well as men. Since women didn't depend on men for material support until patriarchy happened, why didn't they evolve the same competitive instinct?
> .....



In a matriarchy power and wealth are passed down thru the women. This doesn't necessarily mean women didn't depend on men. You still need all the members of the tribe to contribute so that the entire tribe survives.


You're explanation is good too.


----------



## olwen (Jun 25, 2008)

Ernest Nagel said:


> The unexamined life may not be worth living but the over scrutinized life can suck on its own special level. *I don't think we're that far apart on the dysfunctional vs complicated bit.* Failures propagate in direct proportion to complexity. My original point is still that no one is completely without culpability in the suffering of others. (I know, I didn't say that out loud. It was implied in order to minimize the snarking of the self-righteous. )
> 
> There is some perverse, albeit helpful in the right light, truth to the notion that "we always hurt the ones we love". Completely apart from the BDSM conversation, (or maybe not?) there is the joy of knowing you have it made with someone, that nothing you can do or say will make them stop loving you. That was a hyper-segue, I know but it has to do with what most of us _really_ want, so I'm heaving it in. Inside of that level of trust you never want to do or say anything that will make them stop loving you. That's love.
> 
> I think the other thing most of us truly desire is freedom. I suspect maybe we only find real freedom by studying and understanding the prisons we build for ourselves and unlocking our own cells. Judging and assessing the way other _consenting adults_ live their lives just buries us a little deeper. JMO.



Let's then say it's different sides of the same coin. 

I'd say trust and love can be and are often mutually exclusive. I don't need love someone to trust them. 

Freedom indeed.


----------



## Ernest Nagel (Jun 25, 2008)

olwen said:


> Let's then say it's different sides of the same coin.
> 
> I'd say trust and love can be and are often mutually exclusive. *I don't need to love someone to trust them.*
> 
> Freedom indeed.



Just me, but I do need to trust someone to love them though. Kinda provincial that way. :blush: So anyway I sure _hope_ they're not mutually exclusive!

How did you arrive at that conclusion, if I may ask?


----------



## olwen (Jun 25, 2008)

Ernest Nagel said:


> Just me, but I do need to trust someone to love them though. Kinda provincial that way. :blush: So anyway I sure _hope_ they're not mutually exclusive!
> 
> How did you arrive at that conclusion, if I may ask?



There are just some things I would do that I wouldn't need to trust someone for and things I would do that I would need to trust someone for. Love just isn't a prerequisite for me for either. Love just makes those things even more intimate or heightened. It's entirely possible to love someone and not trust them tho. 

...there's no hard and fast determiner about which is which either. It's all just on a case by case basis. Not quite sure how to explain it better. I think when it comes to BDSM, skill is one of the most respected and important things. If I know a certain person is known for his skills I know I will be safe with that person. It's really nice to play with people with lots of skills. Of course there are other factors involved too....But that's just my opinion on it. Others may think otherwise.


----------



## ripley (Jun 26, 2008)

Ernest Nagel said:


> Yes, the idea of someone being objectified for wrecking their health and even jeopardizing their life is pretty appalling. That someone would want to have sex with another person based on the fact that they are willing to tolerate absurd amounts of pain, permanent disability and even irreparable brain damage is an example of how inconsiderate and selfish some people can be.
> 
> We should probably get a memo out to the UFC, NFL, NBA, MLB, pro boxing, pro rodeo, NASCAR and just about every other competitive men's sport to let them know their large female fan bases in general and legions of groupies in particular (who fantasize about men who may not be able to walk or even form a complete sentence by the time they're 50) are exploiting and abusing their athletes.
> 
> Sure, they're also paid millions of dollars and I can find some other points were the analogy to SSBBW admirers is weak. Still, women want pro athletes bodies regardless of the long term damage they're required to absorb. The bottom line is we are all sexually selective at some level. We don't naturally take into consideration the consequences of our choices. Want a good provider? Is his triple bypass and borderline alcoholism an acceptable cost for winning the rat race? What about his premature death at age 65? Want someone who will raise lots of great kids? Is the toll on her body and personal fulfillment a problem for you?



I cannot disagree with this more. The issue that many have with feeders is that a good portion of them are turned on by the negative, painful, or disgusting aspects of extreme weights. The woman who thinks rodeo cowboys are hot are NOT aroused by broken bones and scars...I believe they can be turned on by testosterone and machismo but not seeing their man getting his head kicked by a 1,000lb bull. The woman who marries a "good provider" is not turned on by gin blossoms and watching her man take HBP meds. 



SlackerFA said:


> The first humans weren't cartoon cavemen, they were hunter-gatherers on the African savannah. Every healthy adult had the same set of skills and depended on the same food supply of wild plants and game, so if some wannabe patriarch started threatening to bash his mate, all she had to do to was pick up her digging stick and move somewhere else. Patriarchy as a social system didn't appear until the development of grain agriculture and the domestication of livestock. (Why else do you think farming is called "husbandry"?)
> 
> Once there was hoardable permanent wealth in the form of grain, livestock and arable land, and the ensuing social inequalities, men started worrying about inheritance. _I_ can't enjoy my big stockpile of grain and cattle after I'm dead, thinks the beardy Old Testament patriarch, but if I have a male heir, he's _kinda_ like me, which I guess is the next best thing... so I have to make sure he's _mine_ (and not some other guy's) by any means necessary, up to and including turning my wife into a domestic slave who can't own grain and cattle of her own because that would take away her unquestioned dependence on me.
> 
> ...



I find what you're saying very interesting. 

I think that men are stronger than women physically, and often have higher sex drives. Even in hunter/gatherer societies (I read once that 80-90% of their nutrition came from the gatherer) men are still physically stronger and the hunt is the big hoo-ha. I think that "testosterone poisoning" can't be underestimated.

I'm still not sure how Inuit society with their open views of sex would fit in though.


----------



## Jack Skellington (Jun 26, 2008)

ripley said:


> I think that "testosterone poisoning" can't be underestimated.



Very true.


----------



## Angel (Jun 26, 2008)

Quoting the first post in this thread:



Roy C. said:


> I have watched a young lady in my community go from a very active "big girl" to one that is struggling to get around. I first noticed her at an outdoor event, in only lycra shorts and sport bra, her huge bare belly was barely contained in those shorts. As the years went by, she continued to get bigger and bigger, she was making some FA or feeder very happy. Over about 8 years she has come close to doubling her size.
> 
> I recently run into her at a bbq, where she she struggled to move around in a wheel chair. She did try to get some food for herself, but it was very difficult for her to lift herself out of the chair to get to where the food was. Her size also made it difficult to reach the table where the food was located, her huge belly is now bigger than the reach of her arms. Someone noticed her having problems, and fixed her plate for her piling it high with food. She stuffed herself back into the wheel chair, and it took two friends to push her to the covered area.
> 
> ...




I'd like to toss out some variables to his account just to see if it would change anyone's perspective; personal opinions; or even the way in which we view or judge other women who by society's standards are fat.

Variable 1.) The woman was 5 feet tall and weighed 140 pounds the first time he saw her. Eight years later she weighs approximately 280. 

Variable 2.) Same woman as in variable 1. He hasn't seen the woman in the past six months. She was walking then. Now she is in a wheelchair.

Variable 3.) Again, same woman. Yes, she has doubled her weight. Yes, she is now in a wheelchair. To the OP, she appeared to be struggling physically. Did anyone even stop to wonder why she was struggling? 

Variable 4.) Same woman. Progressive scenario. She struggles. People watch and stare, assuming that her current physical difficulties are due to one thing and one thing only: the fact that she appears to have doubled her weight in eight years.

Variable 5.) Same woman. Progressive scenario. Instead of watching from afar for eight years, one musters the courage to say hello and to introduce themself. She explains that she was in an auto accident 4 months ago and suffered injuries (no casts; no visible bruises or scars) and that those injuries are why she is temporarily in a wheelchair and currently struggles physically.

Variable 6.) Then she tells you that she is on steroids and other anti rejection meds because she had a kidney transplant. She expresses with sadness what those meds have done to her body in the past 6 years. 

Variable 7.) She introduces her husband to you and tells you how he has stood beside her and cared for her and took care of her even though she is no longer the same woman he married 9 years ago. 


Do those variables change your perception at all? Do you view the woman in a different way? How about her male partner?


Does anyone even get the intended messages behind those variables?


----------



## Tori DeLuca (Jun 26, 2008)

Not everything is as it seems :bow:


----------



## Shosh (Jun 26, 2008)

LillyBBBW said:


> I agree with you on everything but this. Olwen has been here 5 months and is already within the ranks of people who've been posting here since the site opened. She is the highest ranking member who joined in 2008, surpassing all by at least 3 cans. My fingers are raw from Repping olwen.



I also appreciate Olwen's measured and articulate, well thought out responses to questions posed. She is one smart cookie mate.:bow:


----------



## FaxMachine1234 (Jun 26, 2008)

Angel said:


> Quoting the first post in this thread:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well, it's more like the same message repeated seven times, but sure. The way the OP was talking about it, though, was that she had already doubled her weight from a "big" size (invalidating #1), and it seemed to him (and we're only hearing this from him) that she was eating enough to convey to him that she had gained the weight through similar overeating. Even if the guy was wrong about what he saw, he was just using this example to bring up how uneasy he was with mobility issues relating to extreme gaining. How we got to talking about how cavemen provided for their mates is beyond me.


----------



## Ernest Nagel (Jun 26, 2008)

ripley said:


> I cannot disagree with this more. The issue that many have with feeders is that a good portion of them are turned on by the negative, painful, or disgusting aspects of extreme weights. The woman who thinks rodeo cowboys are hot are NOT aroused by broken bones and scars...I believe they can be turned on by testosterone and machismo but not seeing their man getting his head kicked by a 1,000lb bull. The woman who marries a "good provider" is not turned on by gin blossoms and watching her man take HBP meds.



I didn't even know we were allowed to have issues with feeders? Wanna guess how may times I've been snarked for that? I really have a hard time conceiving of someone getting off on any of the infirmities and limitations of extreme size. I can barely imagine that someone would have no regard for it. 

I am attracted to SSBBW. I hate the medical and mobility consequences when it becomes unmanageable/untenable. One of the reasons I come to Dims is to help me resolve those issues. When I've asked that FA's be thought of separately from feeders and fetishists I'm told essentially we're not and I'm an arrogant prick for thinking otherwise.

I don't really think there's anything wrong with my preferences. I've essentially been told repeatedly here that I have no business being concerned about the preferences of others though. OK. (I've noticed women are allowed those concerns, just not men.)

I'm now just exploring the notion that's everybody's OK because everybody's a little bit (or a lot) fucked up. Never said it was the truth.


----------



## olwen (Jun 26, 2008)

Angel said:


> Quoting the first post in this thread:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I get the intended messages behind those variables. Had she not been fat and in a wheelchair this discussion would have taken a completely different turn....:doh:


----------



## olwen (Jun 26, 2008)

Susannah said:


> I also appreciate Olwen's measured and articulate, well thought out responses to questions posed. She is one smart cookie mate.:bow:



Thanks Shoosh. :blush::blush:


----------



## olwen (Jun 26, 2008)

> > Quote:
> > Originally Posted by ripley View Post
> > I cannot disagree with this more. The issue that many have with feeders is that a good portion of them are turned on by the negative, painful, or disgusting aspects of extreme weights. The woman who thinks rodeo cowboys are hot are NOT aroused by broken bones and scars...I believe they can be turned on by testosterone and machismo but not seeing their man getting his head kicked by a 1,000lb bull. The woman who marries a "good provider" is not turned on by gin blossoms and watching her man take HBP meds.
> 
> ...



A rodeo fan may not be attracted to bull riders for the broken bones. A football fan may not be attracted to football players for the crunches and smashes and broken bones. A NASCAR fan may not be attracted by the crashes and fires, but there are people who are turned on by blood and broken bones and wounds and fires and crashes, and what have you. Who's to say that any of them are not? None of that does anything for me, but I understand that this is so because, as I see it, for many people the taboo nature of a thing is part of the attraction. Being attracted to the more painful and difficult aspects of being fat is an acceptable taboo to many, and therefore, a turn on for some. Again this is also out of my purview, but to each his own.

I don't necessarily see this issue as someone not having any regard for the other person. Tho this may be true for some it can't be true for all. For the OP it was long a fantasy he never got to play out and to see the reality of it hit home. How many feeders deal with whatever shame and/or guilt they bring to it? How many gainers? Who's to say that all the pain and blood and immobility are not delivered and taken with love? That's all for the OP and those like him to think about. But essentially I don't see anything wrong with this.  These people are willing to go to a place that most of us couldn't or wouldn't. They are sexual explorers. More power to them.


And, Ernest, I don't know who's telling you that all FAs are feeders. That's just plain ridiculous. Surely there are bbws and bhms who have been with ones who are not. I would think anybody telling you that is so horrified by the concept that they can't see past it and that is that.

....Only women are allowed these concerns? I suppose it may seem this way since by and large so many women here are often the targets of those concerns and my have a vested interest in it all. Not saying men don't have a say, cause they obviously do, but just trying to think out loud here...or maybe I'm saying cut some of the bbws a little slack on this issue because we are often the targets of fantasies we may not understand or be able to wrap our brains around or be disgusted by. Just saying.


----------



## Ernest Nagel (Jun 26, 2008)

olwen said:


> A rodeo fan may not be attracted to bull riders for the broken bones. A football fan may not be attracted to football players for the crunches and smashes and broken bones. A NASCAR fan may not be attracted by the crashes and fires, but there are people who are turned on by blood and broken bones and wounds and fires and crashes, and what have you. Who's to say that any of them are not? None of that does anything for me, but I understand that this is so because, as I see it, for many people the taboo nature of a thing is part of the attraction. Being attracted to the more painful and difficult aspects of being fat is an acceptable taboo to many, and therefore, a turn on for some. Again this is also out of my purview, but to each his own.
> 
> I don't necessarily see this issue as someone not having any regard for the other person. Tho this may be true for some it can't be true for all. For the OP it was long a fantasy he never got to play out and to see the reality of it hit home. How many feeders deal with whatever shame and/or guilt they bring to it? How many gainers? Who's to say that all the pain and blood and immobility are not delivered and taken with love? That's all for the OP and those like him to think about. But essentially I don't see anything wrong with this. These people are willing to go to a place that most of us couldn't or wouldn't. They are sexual explorers. More power to them.
> 
> ...



This isn't particularly to you Olwen, just trying to get a little clarification. Nobody told me all FA's are feeders, simply that wanting to differentiate FA's from feeders was judgmental. I disagree. If Feeders are OK with their preferences let them identify as such. Or at least don't be offended when I identify myself as a non-feeder FA. I don't even have a problem with feeders as long as they have their partners consent to put them at risk like that. 

Re the sports injuries. They are the known negative consequences of a lifestyle choice. Being attracted to professional athletes _could_ be viewed as disdainful of another persons future well-being. So could being an SSA. I was attempting to differentiate how being drawn to a hard body that will eventually suffer probable long term damage is different from being attracted to a large, soft one. Pro athlete admirers carry no stigma that I know of. (I'm sure some of them do worry, of course.) Ask me how much shit I've taken as an SSA over the years for not trying to make my partner lose weight. I'm being asked to be non-judgmental but SSA's take it from all quarters. Where's our safe haven? 

I've tried to make statements about my personal feelings and experiences without casting aspersions on others. It gets a little tedious saying this is how I feel *but no one else is wrong for feeling otherwise * every GD time though. My feelings, OK? Not asking anyone else to validate, agree, convert, nothing by way of accusations. Just my POV. I thought that's what any "forum" was about?


----------



## olwen (Jun 26, 2008)

Ernest Nagel said:


> This isn't particularly to you Olwen, just trying to get a little clarification. Nobody told me all FA's are feeders, simply that wanting to differentiate FA's from feeders was judgmental. I disagree. If Feeders are OK with their preferences let them identify as such. Or at least don't be offended when I identify myself as a non-feeder FA. I don't even have a problem with feeders as long as they have their partners consent to put them at risk like that.
> 
> Re the sports injuries. They are the known negative consequences of a lifestyle choice. Being attracted to professional athletes _could_ be viewed as disdainful of another persons future well-being. So could being an SSA. I was attempting to differentiate how being drawn to a hard body that will eventually suffer probable long term damage is different from being attracted to a large, soft one. Pro athlete admirers carry no stigma that I know of. (I'm sure some of them do worry, of course.) Ask me how much shit I've taken as an SSA over the years for not trying to make my partner lose weight. I'm being asked to be non-judgmental but SSA's take it from all quarters. Where's our safe haven?
> 
> I've tried to make statements about my personal feelings and experiences without casting aspersions on others. It gets a little tedious saying this is how I feel *but no one else is wrong for feeling otherwise * every GD time though. My feelings, OK? Not asking anyone else to validate, agree, convert, nothing by way of accusations. Just my POV. I thought that's what any "forum" was about?




....if only we had that FA Handbook....


----------



## Jack Skellington (Jun 26, 2008)

Ernest Nagel said:


> I identify myself as a non-feeder FA.



I agree with you there and see what you are saying. 



> Pro athlete admirers carry no stigma that I know of.



This is where you lose me and I *strongly* disagree with you. Comparing women who like athletes to feeders is beyond apples and oranges. As Ripley said some women like the machismo and or the feelings of security of strong athletic men and as I have said women have had a real cultural need for men of wealth and status. 

This does not in any way compare to feederism.



> Ask me how much shit I've taken as an SSA over the years for not trying to make my partner lose weight.



Ah! Now, we are getting somewhere.

This is what I feel your problem is in my opinion. You are so caught up in your own feelings of rejection right now that you cannot see past it. So you are projecting a false comparison of women to feeders to ease your pain. 

I hope I'm not coming off as harsh, and that is not my intention, and I am also sorry you've felt rejected. But this false comparison of women to feeders is not going help you understand or come to terms with your feelings of rejection you have as a SSA.


----------



## Ernest Nagel (Jun 26, 2008)

Jack Skellington said:


> This is where you lose me and I *strongly* disagree with you. Comparing women who like athletes to feeders is beyond apples and oranges. As Ripley said some women like the machismo and or the feelings of security of strong athletic men and as I have said women have had a real cultural need for men of wealth and status.
> 
> This does not in any way compare to feederism....
> 
> ...



No! I'm NOT comparing women admirers of athletes to FEEDERS! Only to non-feeder FA's. And yeah, I am attempting to reconcile my own guilt over the suffering and sadness of SSBBW, even though I did not support or encourage their gaining. All I'm trying to say is many people encourage potential partners to make unhealthy choices that may have long term adverse effects. FA's, non-feeder FA's who are in open and committed relationships with SSBBW constantly deal with judgments about why we "let her get so big". And if she gets sick or immobile, who do you think winds up carrying most of the blame? Do you think Ali's wife takes crap for "letting him" continue to box? If she does I think it's wrong. 

I've taken more crap in my lifetime for loving someone exactly as they are and not trying to change their weight than many wife-beaters probably have to deal with. So, yeah, a little raw and this place isn't helping much. Note my title. Sad to say I feel I earned it. 

I wonder how many SSA in long-term committed relationships are actually here? If there are more than a handful it sure ain't because this is such a friendly, understanding place for us.


----------



## Jack Skellington (Jun 26, 2008)

Ernest Nagel said:


> No! I'm NOT comparing women admirers of athletes to FEEDERS! Only to non-feeder FA's.



Okay, my mistake on that. I apologize. 



> Do you think Ali's wife takes crap for "letting him" continue to box? If she does I think it's wrong.



But again apples and oranges. 



> I've taken more crap in my lifetime



That's life sadly. We all take crap. Projecting this onto women for something that isn't their fault isn't going to help you.


----------



## Ivy (Jun 26, 2008)

ripley said:


> I cannot disagree with this more. The issue that many have with feeders is that a good portion of them are turned on by the negative, painful, or disgusting aspects of extreme weights. The woman who thinks rodeo cowboys are hot are NOT aroused by broken bones and scars...I believe they can be turned on by testosterone and machismo but not seeing their man getting his head kicked by a 1,000lb bull. The woman who marries a "good provider" is not turned on by gin blossoms and watching her man take HBP meds.



it's really funny that you should use this as an example. i just talked to an ex-boyfriend of mine a week ago and he was telling me about his new girlfriend, who is really active with skateboarding. 

anyway, she has a big scar on her thigh from a past injury and is often bruised up. he told me he finds her bruises and scar on her leg to be kind of sexy in the way that is shows that she is a rough and tumble kind of chick and that she participates in an "extreme sport" even though she is a size 18. he thinks that her battle scars are one of the sexiest aspects of her body, but worries that she will eventually get severely injured and worries whenever she has an event or is practicing for a competition. 

kind of like how some feeders can be aroused by "negative, painful, or disgusting aspects of extreme weights," but they still worry for their partners health and well being. very few feeders would actually want or even allow their partner get to a situation where their health or mobility was in great danger. even though they fantasize about such situations, it isn't something they would ever want in real life, especially for someone they loved. feeders are people, not monsters. having a fantasy is perfectly fine and totally healthy, regardless of what that fantasy is and as long as it stays a fantasy if it endangers the health or safety of themselves of someone else.

people cant help what they find arousing or sexy, and it's really sickening how adamant you are about making sure someone who finds such things arousing knows that there is a whole group of people out there who think they're sick and disgusting for being turned on by such things. don't you think they have enough internal guilt about their fantasies as it is?


----------



## Jack Skellington (Jun 26, 2008)

Ivy said:


> don't you think they have enough internal guilt about their fantasies as it is?



People that eroticize human suffering should feel guilt in my opinion. It's a natural safeguard that separates the sane from the insane. This goes for all extremes of fetishes. The moment they stop having those concerns in the back of their heads is the moment the might consider actually acting on those extreme fantasies.


----------



## Ivy (Jun 26, 2008)

Jack Skellington said:


> People that eroticize human suffering should feel guilt in my opinion. It's a natural safeguard that separates the sane from the insane. This goes for all extremes of fetishes. The moment they stop having those concerns in the back of their heads is the moment the might consider actually acting on those extreme fantasies.



i think that in general, all people should have some sort of internal guilt. it's healthy and normal and keeps in you in check. what i do have a problem with is other people trying to make people feel even more guilty for things, feelings, fantasies, etc that are completely out of their control.


----------



## largenlovely (Jun 26, 2008)

I would agree with a large majority of your post Ivy  I can understand that some people aren't into feederism and are horrified by it...i mean, i was at that point once in my life as well. I'm still not totally sure what point i am in my life with it at the moment...but that's another post (which i've kind of already made on another board) lol

Anyway...I think what we're forgetting too is that these boards aren't "real life" to a lot of people. Yes we're all real people with real feelings...but these guys are expressing fantasies that they don't play out in their real lives and more than likely never will. Like the guys post that everyone became irate over. Ya know what...that guy will probably never be in a feeder/feedee relationship. Though even if he WERE involved in a relationship, while he may think the idea of immobility is arousing or whatever...that doesn't mean when it applies to his life and someone he loves that he will feel the same way about it. Sure he may still have the feelings of arousal when thinking about it, but the reality of the situation would probably be something else entirely for him. Of course, this is all speculation on my part though, but imo, i think that a large number of feeders only express their arousal about the idea of immobility and wouldn't choose to necessarily live it out. 




Ivy said:


> people cant help what they find arousing or sexy, and it's really sickening how adamant you are about making sure someone who finds such things arousing knows that there is a whole group of people out there who think they're sick and disgusting for being turned on by such things. don't you think they have enough internal guilt about their fantasies as it is?


----------



## LillyBBBW (Jun 26, 2008)

Jack Skellington said:


> People that eroticize human suffering should feel guilt in my opinion. It's a natural safeguard that separates the sane from the insane. This goes for all extremes of fetishes. The moment they stop having those concerns in the back of their heads is the moment the might consider actually acting on those extreme fantasies.



I'm sorry jack but I strongly disagree with you there. That's the same argument people use for burning books and banning cop shows. Somehow they will cause our children to go ballistic and shoot up their schools. Surely there are idiots out there that are within an inch of doing so but that is because they are idiots. The rest of us who merely fantasize about getting back at the people who torment us are sensible enough not to purchase amo after watching "Dirty Harry" on television.


----------



## largenlovely (Jun 26, 2008)

yes....what she said 



LillyBBBW said:


> I'm sorry jack but I strongly disagree with you there. That's the same argument people use for burning books and banning cop shows. Somehow they will cause our children to go ballistic and shoot up their schools. Surely there are idiots out there that are within an inch of doing so but that is because they are idiots. The rest of us who merely fantasize about getting back at the people who torment us are sensible enough not to purchase amo after watching "Dirty Harry" on television.


----------



## Jack Skellington (Jun 26, 2008)

Ivy said:


> what i do have a problem with is other people trying to make people feel even more guilty for things, feelings, fantasies, etc that are completely out of their control.



And I have a big problem with the women should just shut up and take it attitude I see many have. No, not just here. It is a far greater cultural problem.

It is disturbing and it is offensive to many (myself included) that so much eroticism in general involves the humiliation, degradation and suffering of women. Just as people have the right to voice their opinion they get off on the fantasy of women suffering, people that disagree should have the right to voice that opinion as well.

I also personally think the prevalence of eroticism of female suffering and submission is more of a reflection of womens status in our culture and male fear of female sexual power than something inborn men have no control over.


----------



## largenlovely (Jun 26, 2008)

there is also the opposite extreme of that...i haven't read all of the posts, but i would think Olwen probably mentioned in BDSM there are males suffering. It goes both ways...people have all kinds of crazy fantasies.

Also, in feederism...it's not always about the female being the submissive as i'm sure this has also been mentioned. 



Jack Skellington said:


> I also personally think the prevalence of eroticism of female suffering and submission is more of a reflection of womens status in our culture and male fear of female sexual power than something inborn men have no control over.


----------



## Wagimawr (Jun 26, 2008)

LillyBBBW said:


> I'm sorry jack but I strongly disagree with you there. That's the same argument people use for burning books and banning cop shows. Somehow they will cause our children to go ballistic and shoot up their schools. Surely there are idiots out there that are within an inch of doing so but that is because they are idiots. The rest of us who merely fantasize about getting back at the people who torment us are sensible enough not to purchase amo after watching "Dirty Harry" on television.


Jack's talking about the difference between those who act out acts such as strangling that boss who won't get off your back, and those that don't.

The same argument gets thrown up against video games time and time again, and I would expect that Jack's been as pissed off at some of the accusations against GTA-type games from Jack Thompson-type morality figures, so I sincerely doubt that's the point he's trying to make.


----------



## Jack Skellington (Jun 26, 2008)

Wagimawr said:


> Jack's talking about the difference between those who act out acts such as strangling that boss who won't get off your back, and those that don't.



Exactly, we all might occasionally fantasize about beating the hell out of an obnoxious co-worker. But sane people don't actually act on it.


----------



## largenlovely (Jun 26, 2008)

Also, there are ways to act out feederism aspects in real life without there being, what some may consider, negative risks. Fantasy play during an intimate moment is totally different from sitting at the table with your partner writing out checks to pay bills...fantasy isn't always 24/7 for everyone. 



Jack Skellington said:


> Exactly, we all might occasionally fantasize about beating the hell out of an obnoxious co-worker. But sane people don't actually act on it.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Jun 26, 2008)

Jack Skellington said:


> Exactly, we all might occasionally fantasize about beating the hell out of an obnoxious co-worker. But sane people don't actually act on it.



Jack I apologize if I am misunderstanding you but lets make this analogy a bit more rediculous for the sake of argument. Should disclaimers be aired during the commercial breaks of violent TV shows or video games? I'm not trying to say you don't have a right to your opinion or to voice them. I just take issue with the insinuation that people must be continually reminded to feel guilty for being sick enough to play WOW or watch a slasher movie. If someone doesn't want to watch that stuff or they don't understand it that's perfectly fine. I just think it goes a bit far to suspect that inside each person who partakes in such things is a misogynist beast just waiting for the right circumstance to come along. Again, forgive me if I misunderstand you but that is what your arguments are sounding like.


----------



## olwen (Jun 26, 2008)

Jack Skellington said:


> And I have a big problem with the women should just shut up and take it attitude I see many have. No, not just here. It is a far greater cultural problem.
> 
> It is disturbing and it is offensive to many (myself included) that so much eroticism in general involves the humiliation, degradation and suffering of women. Just as people have the right to voice their opinion they get off on the fantasy of women suffering, people that disagree should have the right to voice that opinion as well.
> 
> I also personally think the prevalence of eroticism of female suffering and submission is more of a reflection of womens status in our culture and male fear of female sexual power than something inborn men have no control over.



Jack, I'm really not sure how you've made this leap to "any time a man expresses his sexuality, it must by default involve a woman's suffering." You sound like Andrea Dworkin right now. Eroticized suffering IS NOT the same as actual suffering. It really shouldn't matter which sex is doing the suffering and which sex is getting off. Whenever I engage in a scene involving humiliation, quite honestly for me it has nothing to do with my gender. It has a lot to do with my weight and that is my way of working out my own feelings about my weight. An outlet I'm grateful to have. This is not to say that gendered power dynamics aren't involved for other women, but honestly Jack - what difference does it make really? 

One can also take those cultural roles and apply the power dymanic to power over men, as many people do. (In reality shared sexual power is "power with" and not "power over," and yes it IS shared). When I do watch female Dominants with male submissives, I admit I sometimes get a bit uncomfortable with the way that for sissy (read male) slaves, being treated "like a woman" is humiliation for them. But I applaud the fact that those men even bother to explore those boundaries, when so many men don't, especially when you consider that to many men the thought of being the bottom is just plain anathma.

Consider, just consider that this is a good way to work out and explore such feelings.


----------



## Jack Skellington (Jun 26, 2008)

LillyBBBW said:


> Should disclaimers be aired during the commercial breaks of violent TV shows or video games?



We are getting into an apples and oranges thing here. But warnings and advisories are run before and during violent or mature TV shows and video games are rated and heavily regulated. But again apples and oranges. 

Many of us have strong opinions on this and never will agree. I am personally just very tired of the boys will be boys/shut up and take it attitude that is so prevalent.


----------



## largenlovely (Jun 26, 2008)

I've seen it go both ways for both genders...in real life and on these boards *shrug*



Jack Skellington said:


> Many of us have strong opinions on this and never will agree. I am personally just very tired of the boys will be boys/shut up and take it attitude that is so prevalent.


----------



## Ivy (Jun 26, 2008)

Jack Skellington said:


> And I have a big problem with the women should just shut up and take it attitude I see many have. No, not just here. It is a far greater cultural problem.
> 
> It is disturbing and it is offensive to many (myself included) that so much eroticism in general involves the humiliation, degradation and suffering of women. Just as people have the right to voice their opinion they get off on the fantasy of women suffering, people that disagree should have the right to voice that opinion as well.
> 
> I also personally think the prevalence of eroticism of female suffering and submission is more of a reflection of women’s status in our culture and male fear of female sexual power than something inborn men have no control over.



as a woman who has never just shut up and taken it, i feel like i should add that in many of these situations where the woman is gaining and her partner is enjoying it and getting off on embarrassing situations or struggle, sometimes (often even, in the couples that i know and myself included) also are getting off on the struggle and embarrassment. 

in many feedee/feeder relationships the feedee is actually the dominant one. she orders her feeder around and has the upper hand in the situation. i know several such couples. some of which even involve the feedee verbally degrading the feedee while making demands.

there are many examples of female suffering being eroticized in our culture, but there are also many exampled of men being forced to suffer in an erotic situation as well. (CBT, forced cross dressing, human ash trays, human furniture, general verbal humiliation, etc.)


----------



## largenlovely (Jun 26, 2008)

I honestly feel that in a LOT of instances the feedee winds up being the more dominant partner in those situations. I believe feeders go into worshipping mode. 




Ivy said:


> in many feedee/feeder relationships the feedee is actually the dominant one. she orders her feeder around and has the upper hand in the situation. i know several such couples. some of which even involve the feedee verbally degrading the feedee while making demands.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Jun 26, 2008)

Jack Skellington said:


> We are getting into an apples and oranges thing here. But warnings and advisories are run before and during violent or mature TV shows and video games are rated and heavily regulated. But again apples and oranges.
> 
> Many of us have strong opinions on this and never will agree. I am personally just very tired of the boys will be boys/shut up and take it attitude that is so prevalent.



Yes but these warnings are usually just to tell you that the item contains violence, nudity, etc. etc. It's not too remind people that the objectification of naked women and shooting up liquor stores is morally wrong and that some of you watching are diviant pricks who need help.


----------



## ripley (Jun 26, 2008)

Ivy said:


> people cant help what they find arousing or sexy, and it's really sickening how adamant you are about making sure someone who finds such things arousing knows that there is a whole group of people out there who think they're sick and disgusting for being turned on by such things. don't you think they have enough internal guilt about their fantasies as it is?



I didn't think I was being adamant, but I'm sorry you were sickened.

I know that there are "a whole group of people out there who think they're sick and disgusting for being turned on by such things. don't you think they have enough internal guilt about their fantasies as it is?" but I'm not sure why you assume it's me.


----------



## dodo (Jun 26, 2008)

I went to the Terminal Cancer and Oncology/Chemo Admiration Board and tried to find those things sexy. I can't help you. In fact, I've given thought to all sorts of scenarios (some involving livestock) and - only one does it for me. Blame it on the dna. I'll take blubber.



TraciJo67 said:


> What if I'd described a scenario in which I watched a friend or family member suffer from a life-threatening illness, and I witness her falter, shrivel into a hollowed-out husk of what she once was, lose her hair from chemo, develop sores all over the areas of her body targeted by radiation ...


----------



## Kortana (Jun 26, 2008)

dodo said:


> I went to the Terminal Cancer and Oncology/Chemo Admiration Board and tried to find those things sexy. I can't help you. In fact, I've given thought to all sorts of scenarios (some involving livestock) and - only one does it for me. Blame it on the dna. I'll take blubber.



Personally I think TraciJo is just bad at analogies.
:doh:


----------



## Kortana (Jun 26, 2008)

largenlovely said:


> I honestly feel that in a LOT of instances the feedee winds up being the more dominant partner in those situations. I believe feeders go into worshipping mode.



My current relationship is the only relationship I have been in with a "feeder" but I must say, he is the more submissive one. So I would agree with this statement, I am goddess.


----------



## Fascinita (Jun 27, 2008)

Ivy said:


> having a fantasy is perfectly fine and totally healthy, regardless of what that fantasy is and as long as it stays a fantasy if it endangers the health or safety of themselves of someone else.



Maybe so, but if my boyfriend confessed to me that he fantasized about seeing me so fat I can't move and have to lie in my own filth, I would find it personally very disturbing. As fantasies go, we all have our limits. I don't understand why it's fine to express the fantasy, but not fine to express that one is disturbed by it.



> don't you think they have enough internal guilt about their fantasies as it is?



Isn't the guilt part of the thrill? In my rudimentary understanding of psychology, people who enjoy transgression tend to enjoy it _because_ it is transgressive--it's the awareness that something is "forbidden" that makes it so appealing. Once something ceases to be tabboo, the thrill of breaking the tabboo goes away, too.


----------



## TraciJo67 (Jun 27, 2008)

dodo said:


> I went to the Terminal Cancer and Oncology/Chemo Admiration Board and tried to find those things sexy. I can't help you. In fact, I've given thought to all sorts of scenarios (some involving livestock) and - only one does it for me. Blame it on the dna. I'll take blubber.



I'll take "fantasies involving livestock" for $200, Alex  

I do have a male friend who finds bald women extremely sexy. Obviously, he's not looking for a cancer survivor (though ... he did find Natalie Portman attractive beyond belief in "V for Vendetta" ... and to me, she looked about 5 lost pounds away from death) but given his prediliction, I've no doubt he's ogled a chemo patient or two. Of course, he'd have no way of knowing the reason behind why the object of his lusty gaze is bald. He just likes bald chicks. The prevert 

(General Disclaimer: That's a joke. I am in no way judging my friend who likes 'em bald. Nor am I comparing fat women to bald people. Or claiming that Jeebus liked to torture cute 'n cuddly animals)


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy (Jun 27, 2008)

Fascinita said:


> Maybe so, but if my boyfriend confessed to me that he fantasized about seeing me so fat I can't move and have to lie in my own filth, I would find it personally very disturbing. As fantasies go, we all have our limits. I don't understand why it's fine to express the fantasy, but not fine to express that one is disturbed by it.
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't the guilt part of the thrill? In my rudimentary understanding of psychology, people who enjoy transgression tend to enjoy it _because_ it is transgressive--it's the awareness that something is "forbidden" that makes it so appealing. Once something ceases to be tabboo, the thrill of breaking the tabboo goes away, too.



Wow...good post Lady.


----------



## Ernest Nagel (Jun 27, 2008)

I'd post this in the Arousal Survey thread but I expect it'd be considered verboten hate speech there? 

I've been thinking about why I'm so uncomfortable with some of these fantasy discussions. Basically I think it's somewhat because I've hardly ever had any? The fact that I am borderline Aspergers syndrome (high functioning autistic) probably has something to do with it? I basically just lack imagination. 

There's also the fact that because I physically matured very early there wasn't much time between when I started thinking about sex and when I actually started having it (age 13). Again, perhaps because of the aspergers I'm largely lacking in social skills and awareness. I have been an out and proud FA from the beginning. Never shy about letting BBW know I was interested. Quite frankly when you can do that it keeps you a little busy to bother with fantasies. :eat2:

That said, I have been in relationships with BBW/SSBBW most of my life since adolescence. I have cared for, lived with and been married to them for a long time. That means when they are embarrassed, uncomfortable or hurting I've been there with them. I am not the most empathetic person in the world, far from it. Seeing her face as we wait interminably with a group of friends for a table rather than a booth, watching her struggle through crowds both for breath and room, feeling her anxiety as she tests a chair with her weight, treating her wounds that don't heal because of poor circulation and a hundred other things with a dozen different women, I wonder how Im supposed to fantasize or be aroused by what has already been frighteningly real? 

I wonder too, how many of the respondents on the survey thread have ever been on so much as a date with a BBW? How many have ever been in a committed relationship or married to one, or ever will be? Hard not to think of that New Testament verse: 

When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. I Corinthians 13:11 *

_Selfish fantasies_, and for me that means _ones that degrade or objectify others, are childish_. Not so much abhorrent as pitiable in a grown man. Almost like a the way a boy role plays about the honor and grandeur of war until he grows up and sees the unspeakable cruelty of it all.

All this by way of saying Im through apologizing for how I feel about degrading fantasies. If you need them to enjoy sex maybe youre just not mature enough to be having sex? And as always I freely and completely acknowledge this is _just my opinion_. *It's not intended to suppress or deny anyone else their truths or happiness.* :bow: Infantile wankers.  Well, at least I feel better now.  

* I'm a non-observant Jew, fyi. Don't want any undue aspersions cast against Christians.


----------



## Blackjack (Jun 27, 2008)

Ernest Nagel said:


> Words go here



For those who didn't bother to read all that, I'll summarize:

"I'm going to stop apologizing for what I think, which is that you're freaks and shouldn't be having sex."


----------



## TraciJo67 (Jun 27, 2008)

Blackjack said:


> For those who didn't bother to read all that, I'll summarize:
> 
> "I'm going to stop apologizing for what I think, which is that you're freaks and shouldn't be having sex."



Or, another version (likely closer to the truth): "I'm uncomfortable with the thought of obtaining any kind of pleasure from the suffering of other people." 

Ernest, to clarify: You aren't suggesting that the fantasy itself is wrong, are you? I've read you to mean that carrying out such fantasies is the act that you find personally unacceptable.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Jun 27, 2008)

TraciJo67 said:


> *Or, another version (likely closer to the truth): "I'm uncomfortable with the thought of obtaining any kind of pleasure from the suffering of other people." *
> 
> Ernest, to clarify: You aren't suggesting that the fantasy itself is wrong, are you? I've read you to mean that carrying out such fantasies is the act that you find personally unacceptable.



Oh please don't leave out the gratuitous name calling. That's the funniest part. But he's the victim in all of this, just so we're clear.


----------



## Ernest Nagel (Jun 27, 2008)

TraciJo67 said:


> Or, another version (likely closer to the truth): "I'm uncomfortable with the thought of obtaining any kind of pleasure from the suffering of other people."
> 
> Ernest, to clarify: You aren't suggesting that the fantasy itself is wrong, are you? I've read you to mean that carrying out such fantasies is the act that you find personally unacceptable.



Yes, thank you Traci, but I want to be completely honest. That anyone should take even imaginary pleasure from real suffering is more than troubling _to me_. Since the real suffering described in the survey very much DOES exist however, the fantasy line seems very blurry. They get hard from thinking about those things but not actually seeing them, so that's OK? (Yeah, right) Or they didn't personally cause those things so their arousal is "innocent"?

I understand the whole "forbidden fruit" attraction. No problems there. Fantasize away. This strikes me more as a "rights" issue, though. As in "My right to swing my fist ends at your nose" My right to a hard-on ends at your hardship. Still leaves lots of room for brazen and blazing kinkiness, imo. 



LillyBBBW said:


> Oh please don't leave out the gratuitous name calling. That's the funniest part. But he's the victim in all of this, just so we're clear.



Passive-aggressive much? I enjoyed the company of every abundant woman I've ever been with and continue to choose them without hesitation. It's never occurred to me for an instant that I've lost anything that wasn't more than compensated for by the companionship of some very lovely ladies. Do I wish society could be a little more accepting of them and those who love them? Sure. Are the physical consequences of being very large troubling to me? Absolutely! If that makes me a victim in your determination then what is Dims but Victim Central? 

I'm not really defending myself to you, btw, Lilly. just letting others know they don't have to put up with yours or anyone else's bullying if they don't choose to. I don't embrace everything you do. You're the one who's got a problem with that and has gone out of her way to attack me. Fine. I've never attacked you, unless you object to the truth as a counter-attack? Which one of us does that make more intolerant?

As to gratuitous name calling; I referred to those who fantasize about the suffering of others as pitiable children. You either didn't read any other part of my post or you don't understand the meaning of the word "gratuitous". The "infantile wankers" comment was clearly intended by the emoticons as a joke. Be sure you pick up your sense of humor when you log off.


----------



## furious styles (Jun 27, 2008)

well it seems i have two options

1) years of therapy to rid myself of this evil curse
2) hang myself

sorry i'm the way i am.


----------



## Blackjack (Jun 27, 2008)

First off, Lilly is not "bullying"- she's responding to you implying that feederism is a sick, twisted, sadistic evil thing, and that those who enjoy it are lesser beings than you.




Also, we get it, Ernest- you have a problem with it.

I repeat:

_You _have a problem with it.

Once more:

*YOU *have a problem with it.


That, I think, is more the issue here than the eroticizing of size and such- which you manage to get totally wrong, by the way.

There's a difference between being aroused by suffering and pain (which is normally called "sadism", if I'm not mistaken) and being aroused by supersized partners. The fantasies exist separate from the pain and suffering and such for most people, I should think. 

It's not the joint aches, the poor healing, the embarassment or whatever that turns some feeders on. Those are usually (but not necessarily) side effects of what does, and nonetheless I'm pretty damned sure that most rational people would be more worried about those things and the well-being of the other person than their boner or panty puddles.

Yes, there are cases where people get that backwards and are more concerned about getting off than they are about the well-being of others; I would agree that those people are less mature than the ones who're a bit less selfish and kinder.

But those cases are the extremes and not the norm, from what I can tell.

Please, stop acting as though everyone who's into feederism is on the lunatic fringe, putting their own desires over what's sensible, reasonable, or ethical.


----------



## KHayes666 (Jun 27, 2008)

Blackjack said:


> First off, Lilly is not "bullying"- she's responding to you implying that feederism is a sick, twisted, sadistic evil thing, and that those who enjoy it are lesser beings than you.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Couldn't have said it better myself....props to you Kevin.


----------



## largenlovely (Jun 27, 2008)

what HE said lol

I don't think i should ever post again...i'll just take snippets of what everyone else says and just agree with it lol



Blackjack said:


> First off, Lilly is not "bullying"- she's responding to you implying that feederism is a sick, twisted, sadistic evil thing, and that those who enjoy it are lesser beings than you.
> 
> Yes, there are cases where people get that backwards and are more concerned about getting off than they are about the well-being of others; I would agree that those people are less mature than the ones who're a bit less selfish and kinder.
> 
> ...


----------



## LillyBBBW (Jun 27, 2008)

Ernest Nagel said:


> Yes, thank you Traci, but I want to be completely honest. That anyone should take even imaginary pleasure from real suffering is more than troubling _to me_. Since the real suffering described in the survey very much DOES exist however, the fantasy line seems very blurry. They get hard from thinking about those things but not actually seeing them, so that's OK? (Yeah, right) Or they didn't personally cause those things so their arousal is "innocent"?
> 
> I understand the whole "forbidden fruit" attraction. No problems there. Fantasize away. This strikes me more as a "rights" issue, though. As in "My right to swing my fist ends at your nose" My right to a hard-on ends at your hardship. Still leaves lots of room for brazen and blazing kinkiness, imo.
> 
> ...



Damn. You're so good. You caught me, I never log off. Only long enough to relieve myself, eat, smear salve on my bedsores and engage in deviant activities. See, this is how it works. You post something, we post something in return. Sometimes we agree, sometimes we don't. Sometimes you find what we say offensive, sometimes we find your sentimants offensive. You have the right to express any opinion or judgements on personal character you like apparently. If that were not the case you would have been banned long ago. The downside of all of this is everyone else gets to express their opinion on what you say too and tolerance was never among any of my claims. There are plenty of things I have no tolerance for nor can I find humor in, just as you. I hope you can deal with that.


----------



## Ernest Nagel (Jun 28, 2008)

LillyBBBW said:


> Oh please don't leave out the gratuitous name calling. That's the funniest part. But he's the victim in all of this, just so *we're* clear.



Oh, um right. Reasoned, well thought out and articulate response. Not attacking me personally. Pointing out the flaws in my reasoning. Not attempting to paint me as an outsider challenging the reigning elite here. No, I guess you're right. :doh:



Blackjack said:


> First off, Lilly is not "bullying"- she's responding to you implying that feederism is a sick, twisted, sadistic evil thing, and that those who enjoy it are lesser beings than you.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



First, check the wording of the survey, which is specifically what I was responding to. It doesn't say "aroused by images or thoughts of" or "aroused by fantasies of" does it? I can cut and paste if you want me to?

Secondly, did I say one damn word about feeders? Was that survey about Feeders? If so you're gonna need to cut and paste that one for me cuz I'm totally missing it. 

Again, for the umpteenth time I have never said or implied ANYONE is sick, twisted, evil or sadistic. Not on these boards and nowhere irl, either. My personal philosophy, for whatever business it is of anyone's, doesn't even acknowledge the validity of any such concept as "evil". Nor will you find any instance where I have suggested that Feederism is on the lunatic fringe. What I've said, repeatedly, and you've really gotta be working overtime to miss this one, is ANYTHING among consenting adults is entirely their business. Now if there were to be a debate about the nature of consent, whether someone is giving informed consent in particular, you might not like my interpretation but I've not spoken specifically to that here. 

If you or anyone else disagrees with me I have absolutely no issue with you, no problem. When you misrepresent both my words and intent solely for the purpose of bolstering your own argument and purporting that I'm some self-righteous dickweed (and yeah, you plainly DID _imply_ that, just so we're clear on what the word means) just because I can't personally sign off on specific things that strike me as very disrespectful of BBW, causes me to doubt your security with your own position.

Why is my standing for my personal conviction in this so threatening and offensive? Are you that insecure? I'm one guy trying to articulate what skeeves me out about the responses to that survey. I don't want to be identified or assumed a feeder. I don't wanna be identified as a Catholic priest, rodeo clown or academic either. Doesn't mean I'm condemning those things. They're just not my bag. 

In closing, if you're gonna attack me I'd appreciate some valid points based on facts. I'm not that hard to vilify for completely legitimate reasons. I will complain about this type of outright lies and misrepresentation if it occurs again. I'm not a victim but I do believe allowing this kind of ad hominem BS to persist is unhealthy for the future of Dims. 

As if I should have to say this, none of the foregoing, in this or previous posts is to suggest that I am superior in any way to those who hold contradicting opinions. The fact that I won't lie to make a point or disguise my position to appear other than what I am? Yeah, maybe a little superior in that. :happy:


----------



## Blackjack (Jun 28, 2008)

Other people's opinions aren't personal attacks, you know.

Additionally, I like how we're supposed to respond to _your _opinion with facts.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Jun 28, 2008)

Ernest Nagel said:


> I'd post this in the Arousal Survey thread but I expect it'd be considered verboten hate speech there?



Really? Why? 



Ernest Nagel said:


> I've been thinking about why I'm so uncomfortable with some of these fantasy discussions. Basically I think it's somewhat because I've hardly ever had any? The fact that I am borderline Aspergers syndrome (high functioning autistic) probably has something to do with it? I basically just lack imagination.



I've never been pregnant and I don't have any kids. Surely I have a lot of opinions and some of them are wrong. I can stand as stoicly behind them as I like but without first hand experience it would not be surprising to have expectant mothers get upset when I pontificate repeatedly about how to bear and raise children.




Ernest Nagel said:


> There's also the fact that because I physically matured very early there wasn't much time between when I started thinking about sex and when I actually started having it (age 13). Again, perhaps because of the aspergers I'm largely lacking in social skills and awareness. I have been an out and proud FA from the beginning. Never shy about letting BBW know I was interested. Quite frankly when you can do that it keeps you a little busy to bother with fantasies. :eat2:



I matured early also. I did not begin having sex until my early 30's. Yes, it was because I was frigid and prudish, I wanted to wait until I was in a comitted relationship with someone who cares about me and not about gathering experiences. My knowledge of sex even now is rather limited due to extreme selectiveness on my part, however I do know a lot about fantasies. Those I enjoyed liberally so I consider myhself somewhat well versed on that subject. I won't lecture you about what goes on in your bedroom.



Ernest Nagel said:


> That said, I have been in relationships with BBW/SSBBW most of my life since adolescence. I have cared for, lived with and been married to them for a long time. That means when they are embarrassed, uncomfortable or hurting I've been there with them. I am not the most empathetic person in the world, far from it. Seeing her face as we wait interminably with a group of friends for a table rather than a booth, watching her struggle through crowds both for breath and room, feeling her anxiety as she tests a chair with her weight, treating her wounds that don't heal because of poor circulation and a hundred other things with a dozen different women, I wonder how Im supposed to fantasize or be aroused by what has already been frighteningly real?



No one is asking you to fantasize or be aroused by anything. Stay as you are. What most take issue with is you judging people on something you have no common frame of reference for. 



Ernest Nagel said:


> I wonder too, how many of the respondents on the survey thread have ever been on so much as a date with a BBW? How many have ever been in a committed relationship or married to one, or ever will be? Hard not to think of that New Testament verse:
> 
> When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. I Corinthians 13:11 *
> 
> _Selfish fantasies_, and for me that means _ones that degrade or objectify others, are childish_. Not so much abhorrent as pitiable in a grown man. Almost like a the way a boy role plays about the honor and grandeur of war until he grows up and sees the unspeakable cruelty of it all.



This analogy about people here not having experiences with BBW's or ever having to care for one is one of the most inflammatory statements you've said so far. My expereinces go back generations, not even counting my own personal existence as a SSBBW. What I am is what I am and I do what I have to do. You can feel what you want to feel but keep your pity. I don't appreciate you smugly lecturing me on how I'm supposed to feel about it. 

Fantasies are selfish. I really don't even know what else to say to you Nagel. You could reveal a fantasy about having sex with two women at once to your lover but she probably won't share it. This does not mean the fantasy will go away or that by thinking about it you are subjecting her to some cruelty or you're cheating on her. The fantasy is for you. It is a selfish indulgence that began long before you ever met her.

When I was a child I thought I wanted to be a nurse. When I got older I researched and found out via other first hand experiences that being a nurse is a shitty job. Knowing myself well I was certain that I wouldn't like it so I stopped wishing for it. Knowledge is what made me stop thinking as a child, not fairytales and wonderous guessing at what nursing must be like. And I certainly don't think nurses childish because they didn't see things as I did. My imaginings at my younger age would seem amusing to a real nurse who's on her feet all day dealing with the reality.



Ernest Nagel said:


> All this by way of saying Im through apologizing for how I feel about degrading fantasies. If you need them to enjoy sex maybe youre just not mature enough to be having sex? And as always I freely and completely acknowledge this is _just my opinion_. *It's not intended to suppress or deny anyone else their truths or happiness.* :bow: Infantile wankers.  Well, at least I feel better now.
> 
> * I'm a non-observant Jew, fyi. Don't want any undue aspersions cast against Christians.



I don't recall you ever apologizing for how you feel nor do I recall anyone demanding that you do. Go ahead and keep posting what you feel whenever you feel so inclined. You can post them here or you can post them over there. Someone is bound to have an opinion on it and will post their feelings too. It can't always be back slaps and beer steins Nagel, sometimes someone will strongly disagree with you. When they do it does not mean you are being attacked or persecuted. It means they are exercising their right to voice their opinion on what you say just as you've done. Your defensive stance is what makes you appear to be making yourself out to be a victim here.


----------



## Dr. P Marshall (Jun 28, 2008)

This thread is making my head spin. I've lost track of the actual number of arguments going on in here right now. But I saw one thing in this post of Ernest's and I just wanted to address this. And Ernest, I hope you know, I'm not attacking you. I'm really not. This is actually meant in a very friendly way.


Ernest Nagel said:


> First, check the wording of the survey, which is specifically what I was responding to. It doesn't say "aroused by images or thoughts of" or "aroused by fantasies of" does it? I can cut and paste if you want me to?


That's the reason so many people had trouble with the wording of the questions in that poll. Because to answer the actual question you had to accept an aspect of it that might not actually be true for you as an FA. For example, I answered the first two categories, but I do not enjoy anyone's embarrassment or struggle. But the things listed next to those words were things that I did get turned on by. See? That's why everyone said the wording was out of hand judgmental, because to say you like to see someone pop a button off a blouse meant you had to answer that you enjoyed their embarrassment. For some both things may be present, but for others, it's just the actual popped button or broken chair or whatever. But we still had to say we liked the embarrassment because it was in the question. It would have had far fewer responses if only people who liked those things and liked the pain, struggle, etc answered. 

As for these other shenanigans, what ever happened to gradations and combinations and different extremes of things? When did an interest in feederism automatically mean that you want to see someone immobile? Or degraded? There are so many permutations and combinations that can fall just under the heading of a feeder/feedee relationship alone and that's before you get to all the other fetishes. And then there's still all the different questions of embarrassment or pain etc, and being turned on by it or not and then feeling guilty about it or not and on and on. But somehow all the different shades of fetishism are getting lost and suddenly it's FA only or menace to your fellow humans. And apparently, I'm not real because I keep seeing that there are no women who enjoy a partner's weight gain or any of the things on the infamous arousal list or whatever. This is all so bizarre. Look, you've confused me and I'M A FETISHIST. :doh: 

I get that it bothers you Ernest when someone such as yourself who has no fetishes is lumped in with those of us FAs who do have them. I get that. And, strangely (because I'm in a strangely good mood and you and I, traditionally, get along) I am not actually offended by your stance. I'm guessing it's because you think it makes all BBW more leery of FAs because they think all FAs are feeders, is that right? So, women who don't want that type of relationship will automatically reject FAs because they would think an FA is a fetishist. OK, fine. I can kind of see that, except for a couple of things. There are BBW in this very thread defending feederism. I also think many of the BBW of the world can tell the difference between a feeder and a non-feeder. I'm not trying to be snarky with you, Ernest, you know that. I'm trying to understand why it is that this issue bothers you so much. I really am. I don't think you should have to pretend that you're OK with something you're not, but I don't see why you think it's so important to split off "FA only FAs" and "fetishist FAs." And how would you even do that? There's so much overlap about so many things. And some people might not be fetishists, but have an interest in exploring certain things on certain occasions. And I think if everything on that arousal poll makes a person a fetishist, you'd probably find a small number of FAs who didn't find at least one thing on that list arousing. 

Here's the thing, I'm sure some people fit into these extreme categories as fetishists, but most do not. Most of us fall somewhere on a spectrum and we have differences within the fetishes and things like that. In my little fetishist head, none of this is quite as complicated or as sinister as you're making it out to be. Maybe it is for some, but it's not for me. To me, it's actually pretty straight forward and the only issue for me is guilt or no guilt. And yes, for some things there is guilt and no, in my personal case I do not find the guilt and taboo exciting. I find it the kind of thing that gave me insomnia and used to keep me up crying at nights worrying that I should never go within 50 feet of anyone I might actually ever care about because I would no doubt bring about their destruction because I was a freak and I couldn't possibly be trusted. It's true. And I didn't even need anyone else on this board to tell me that, I came up with all that berating on my own. But I thought about things A LOT, read things here on the boards, thought about experiences I'd had in my life and learned my own boundaries. And now, I'm comfortable with them and I can deal with them and I feel that I have control over my fantasies and my desires and everything else. Really, for many of us it's a process. Sure, some never get that far, but really many of us do and we struggle with it and everything else. But WE CAN'T CHANGE HOW WE FEEL. If you believe that someone is "hard wired" as an FA(and I'm guessing you believe that to be true of at least some FAs) why can't you accept it might be true of fetishists too? I'm not comfortable getting any more detailed here on the board, but honestly, Ernest, this is a sincere offer, PM me if you want to have me explain my personal path and my personal thoughts and feelings to you on this matter. I can't help you on the immobility one since I'm not into that, but I've got a fair number of the other things covered to some degree. You can ask me anything. I mean that. And I won't try to convince you of anything being right or wrong, or that I'm not a monster or anything else, but at least, you'll have the chance to hopefully see that, while you may not want anything to do with us, we're not really so menacing that an actual division needs to be thrown up. That's what I'm hoping and that's why I'm offering. I also am pretty sure you don't think I'm a monster, so maybe hearing it from me would help. So, again, it's a sincere offer, no snark, no offense on my part, nothing.



mfdoom said:


> well it seems i have two options
> 1) years of therapy to rid myself of this evil curse
> 2) hang myself
> 
> sorry i'm the way i am.



3)reread this thread over and over until it drives you slowly insane to the point you can no longer form a coherent thought and none of this will bother you any more

Seriously my friend, I know exactly how you feel.:doh:


----------



## UncannyBruceman (Jun 28, 2008)

TraciJo67 said:


> What if I'd described a scenario in which I watched a friend or family member suffer from a life-threatening illness, and I witness her falter, shrivel into a hollowed-out husk of what she once was, lose her hair from chemo, develop sores all over the areas of her body targeted by radiation ...
> 
> ... and the response I got was, "Wow .... that's sad, but bald heads are *so* sexy!"



So, have you had that conversation with your friend who likes the bald girls? And did you let it slide because you actually know him personally and know that he's not a monster that prowls around hospitals to find a date?


----------



## LillyBBBW (Jun 28, 2008)

Dr. P Marshall said:


> *******Dr. P's Brilliant Post******​



I was raised by and around SSBBW's. One in particular became ill and her husband left her. She became crabby and ill tempered due to her aches and pains and her loss of mobility. Somehow between that, the constant help and allowances that had to be made for her and her turning to alcohol to deal with stress he ended up leaving her for another woman. I never saw this other woman but the family trashed her as a young hussey. Don't know if she was thin or fat, a good person or a bad person but I do know my aunt was devastated and was never quite the same when he left her. He just couldn't handle her illness

A cousin of mine married late in life. She died of cancer a year or so ago but her outcome was completely different than my aunts. She and her husband handled the aging process with such a graceful dignity. Anything that happened to either of them they dealt with, it was just a part of living. At one point she had to care for him after his emergency bypass that neither of them saw coming. Nobody saw an illness, a limp, thinning hair or surgical scars they saw a 'person.' He truly loved her and was a serious FA. He loved her sway when she walked, he loved her sway when she used a cane, he loved her sway when she was in a walker - he loved and was turned on by HER in whatever state she was in. Her smile still warmed him as she lay balded and weak in a hospital bed. I'm holding out hope that I can have what they had. I don't want someone like my uncle. 

The wording of that questionaire made it difficult to express true intent. It really was as Sandie said: like asking someone if they still beat their wife. A person may not be turned on 'by' someone suffering but the love and desire for the person never ceases. Speaking only for me I don't want someone furrowing their brow at my distress. That's not what I'm like and don't want someone bringing me down and looking at me and only seeing physical hardship, aging and glorying in my physical deterioration under the guise of concern. I certainly see myself as more than that and if someone can still appreciate my humor, value my friendship, look forward to my company and think I'm hot even as I'm ambling through my daily struggels it's all good. I'm not knocking anyone elses feelings, this is just how I feel.

EDITED TO ADD: If someone sees my struggles as disgusting they're all wrong for me.


----------



## AnnMarie (Jun 28, 2008)

Just a note, the poll thread is the poll thread, this thread is this thread. 

Bringing responses here just to avoid the rules of the area where the poll was placed, and deliberately placed by the person who started it, is not going to be tolerated. 

You don't get to just drag other threads in here because it's already contentious and a free-for-all. 

Thank you. 

Slash, mod.


----------



## UncannyBruceman (Jun 28, 2008)

Ivy said:


> as a woman who has never just shut up and taken it, i feel like i should add that in many of these situations where the woman is gaining and her partner is enjoying it and getting off on embarrassing situations or struggle, sometimes (often even, in the couples that i know and myself included) also are getting off on the struggle and embarrassment.
> 
> in many feedee/feeder relationships the feedee is actually the dominant one. she orders her feeder around and has the upper hand in the situation. i know several such couples. some of which even involve the feedee verbally degrading the feedee while making demands.
> 
> there are many examples of female suffering being eroticized in our culture, but there are also many exampled of men being forced to suffer in an erotic situation as well. (CBT, forced cross dressing, human ash trays, human furniture, general verbal humiliation, etc.)



You win Post of the Month. Your $10 gift certificate to the Sizzler will be in the mail on Monday.


----------



## Angel (Jun 28, 2008)

Jack Skellington said:


> Submission aspects?
> 
> Well, if you really want to go there, women have long been conditioned by society to submit to the might of the penis. In other words, it is beaten into their heads that sexuality is only for the enjoyment of men and they must be good little girls and submit to the desires and fantasies of men without question.
> 
> Resulting in many people of both genders having an unhealthy view of sexuality in my opinion. *Too many people view sex as a battle of dominance and submission and not one of mutual enjoyment and or an expression of love.* Again, in my opinion.




Marry me.



...or



... ummmmm



... we could just have some of that mutually enjoyable sex! 



*giggles*



*blushing* and *hiding*


----------



## TraciJo67 (Jun 28, 2008)

UncannyBruceman said:


> So, have you had that conversation with your friend who likes the bald girls? And did you let it slide because you actually know him personally and know that he's not a monster that prowls around hospitals to find a date?




I don't think that you're a monster, Bruce. I don't know anything about you, actually ... aside from a few posts that I heartily disagreed with, that had nothing whatsoever to do with feederism. Whatever I think of those posts, I do not believe that you are a monster, or anything approaching that.


----------

