# FA vs Fat Fetishists



## Stealth (Dec 15, 2006)

Hi all!

I had a jolly good night out this evening and some interesting things come up. Quite an attractive friend and myself were out, and we ended up talking about enjoying life VS being on a diet

Now, she got (herself) into the whole FA thing and ran with it saying she'd seen an "FA" program where the male had a 500lb wife, I was a bit surprised because to ME, an FA is purely by name, someone who appreciates women (or men...) of size- with some fat on 'em.

However, this friend in one swoop, linked a straight FA with an extreem feeder.

I'm OK with FA, and I'm OK with Feeder/Feedee relationships that are mutual, but I was a bit shocked than someone could see a normal FA straight off as a "hardcore feeder".

Naturally, I stuck up for the FA and explained that as I myself am an "FA", I like women of all sizes, size 8, or size 24. I am not programmed by the media, and make my own decisions on it.

She seemed a little excited about this really, she's quite chubby herself and I got the feeling the poor bugger thought she was going to end up pulling a fettishist.

I get the feeling tonight she met her first real FA. 


(Now problem number two: I've got a gorgeous girlfriend and am not looking to attract other women, yet I may well have opened this ladies eyes. I do hope she doesn't get the wrong idea about me!!!!)


----------



## T_Devil (Dec 15, 2006)

Stealth said:


> I've got a gorgeous girlfriend and am not looking to attract other women, yet I may well have opened this ladies eyes. I do hope she doesn't get the wrong idea about me!!!!


You gotta tell her straight out that you have a girlfriend. Get that out of the box right away. Establish your boundries or you'l be on the express route to ruined relationship...._ville_. So establish your boundries. It's cool to have a girlfriend and a friend who's a girl, just don't confuse the two.


----------



## Fuzzy Necromancer (Dec 16, 2006)

Um, high. I might be called a fat fetishits.

>.>

Lemme give you a tip. I understand the whole "bogey-man force-feeding serial killer" archetype set up, and even actual "fat fetishests" as you put it, aren't like that. Many of them are whiney, emotionally manipulative, selfish, sneaky, and awful needy bastards, but the same is true of all women and men.

Also, you have a way of using the term "fetishest" that makes me feel labeled on the moral ladder somewhere between con artist and pedophiliac congressmen. But maybe that's just my defensiveness and paranoia.

oh yeah, Welcome to Yee Boardes. I think you might wanna stay out of the weight board. And the story board come to that. Heck, I usually stay out of the story board.


----------



## T_Devil (Dec 16, 2006)

Is there something wrong with having a _Fat Fetish_?
Help me understand as I don't want to offend anybody.


----------



## CurvaceousBBWLover (Dec 16, 2006)

If she equates regular FAs with feeders, then you need to explain the difference to her. Some FAs are fetishists who care more about the fat on the woman's body than they do about the woman. Others are feeders. Then there are some are guys who just for whatever reason prefer women of size.

Make sure you tell this lady that you have a girlfriend. Misleading women can create problems.



Stealth said:


> Hi all!
> 
> I had a jolly good night out this evening and some interesting things come up. Quite an attractive friend and myself were out, and we ended up talking about enjoying life VS being on a diet
> 
> ...


----------



## Wagimawr (Dec 16, 2006)

T_Devil said:


> Is there something wrong with having a _Fat Fetish_?
> Help me understand as I don't want to offend anybody.


Depends on if you find sex offensive.  

Fetish is traditionally a sex-related term, so some people feel that if they have a fetish, then they only have a sexual interest in that topic. Therefore, having a fat fetish would imply that you're only interested in fat women sexually.


----------



## T_Devil (Dec 16, 2006)

Wagimawr said:


> Depends on if you find sex offensive.
> 
> Fetish is traditionally a sex-related term, so some people feel that if they have a fetish, then they only have a sexual interest in that topic. Therefore, having a fat fetish would imply that you're *only* interested in fat women sexually.


That's painting fetisists with a mighty broad brush, don't you think?


----------



## T_Devil (Dec 16, 2006)

CurvaceousBBWLover said:


> If she equates regular FAs with feeders, then you need to explain the difference to her. Some FAs are fetishists who care more about the fat on the woman's body than they do about the woman.


Nope. Sorry, nuh uh. I can't buy that and I won't. Here's why:
That is a generalization of fetisists. To say something that dumb is like saying _"all Feeders want to do is stuff pork rinds in your mouth"._ I know, that stament touches a nerve around here, but it's the truth. If you're gonna paint a picture like that then it's going to be one ugly picture. You can't generalize people like that because not everybody IS like that. You can't pass that kind of judgment on fetishists and not look like some kind of elietist looking down on others.

I can't buy into that.


----------



## Wagimawr (Dec 16, 2006)

T_Devil said:


> That's painting fetisists with a mighty broad brush, don't you think?


Yeah, I'd say.

I just keep myself covered: I'm an FA with a fat fetish.


----------



## ThatFatGirl (Dec 16, 2006)

F-e-t-i-s-h-i-s-t.... click the checkmark with the ABC above it if you need further assistance. Thank you.


----------



## T_Devil (Dec 16, 2006)

ThatFatGirl said:


> F-e-t-i-s-h-i-s-t.... click the checkmark with the ABC above it if you need further assistance. Thank you.


Oh god, you're gonna correct my spelling, arent you. Kill me now.
Seriously, you people make me want to die.


----------



## Canadian (Dec 16, 2006)

Wagimawr said:


> Yeah, I'd say.
> 
> I just keep myself covered: I'm an FA with a fat fetish.



Personally, I try to keep all those labels off myself. I mean really... are they necessary? Are they accurate?

Am I a "Fat Admirer"??? Well c'mon. It's not the fat that I'm attracted to, outright. A girl needs more than just some extra weight to be attractive to me. They need more of a total package. Being fat is just one part of that attractiveness. Let's be blunt here... I don't find all fat attractive, and I certainly don't find each and every fat girl attractive. A fat girl with a bunch of other features that I find unattractive isn't going to get a free pass, just because she's fat. 

When I'm attracted to a girl, it's not the fat I admire, it's the girl. I'm attracted to her because she has a certain set of attributes that I prefer.... of which, fat is likely one. So sure, you could say that I "admire some fat girls", but a label that loose isn't necessary. You can't say I "admire fat", because in a lot of cases, it isn't correct. 

So why have the label at all? I certainly don't feel like I need a label to be normal, or to justify my preferences. In my opinion, my preferences don't require justification in the first place. These days, I'm confident enough to say to another guy, "I prefer big girls"... just as comfortably as he might say to me "I prefer blondes". 

Isn't that a better way to go about things, rather than to bring labels and generalizations into the whole thing? Is prefering a larger girl so different that I really have to call myself an "FA" just to explain myself? 

I hope not.

By the way, if someone wants to make the argument that I am an FA, and that my perspective on the whole thing is just fucked up, go right ahead, and I will listen. Obviously there must be something to it, because it is a pretty popular term around here.

Cheers y'all.


----------



## CurvaceousBBWLover (Dec 16, 2006)

You are entitled to disagree. I never said that everyone was one way or the other. I was simply pointing out categories. 

You have to let a woman know that you like her for HER and not just her fat. A woman who is unfamiliar with the size acceptance movement may think that an FA is a pervert or a deviant because she has not used to meeting people like us.




T_Devil said:


> Nope. Sorry, nuh uh. I can't buy that and I won't. Here's why:
> That is a generalization of fetisists. To say something that dumb is like saying _"all Feeders want to do is stuff pork rinds in your mouth"._ I know, that stament touches a nerve around here, but it's the truth. If you're gonna paint a picture like that then it's going to be one ugly picture. You can't generalize people like that because not everybody IS like that. You can't pass that kind of judgment on fetishists and not look like some kind of elietist looking down on others.
> 
> I can't buy into that.


----------



## T_Devil (Dec 16, 2006)

CurvaceousBBWLover said:


> You are entitled to disagree. I never said that everyone was one way or the other. I was simply pointing out categories.
> 
> You have to let a woman know that you like her for HER and not just her fat. A woman who is unfamiliar with the size acceptance movement may think that an FA is a pervert or a deviant because she has not used to meeting people like us.


So that's why you develop a bond of trust first. Develop that bond through honesty and just being who you are. Eventually, there comes a point where trust becomes established. Once that trust has been earned, treat it as a precious gift, because that is what it is. A person can be totally turned on by fat and still be a good and trusting person too.


----------



## Stealth (Dec 16, 2006)

Oh dear!



> I might be called a fat fetishits.



Yeah, You can get tablets to clear that up and you'll be lettin' them rip left right and center after.



> Also, you have a way of using the term "fetishest" that makes me feel labeled on the moral ladder somewhere between con artist and pedophiliac congressmen



My appologies, I did not mean to use the term to make it sound a bad thing at all!

To me FA is Fat Appreciation. I used Fat Fettish to mean someone who doesn't care for the woman, but only the fat- which was on the extreme side but I just wanted to get the point over. Again, my appologies on the bad choice of terminology.



> That is a generalization of fetisists. To say something that dumb is like saying "all Feeders want to do is stuff pork rinds in your mouth"



Well I assure you I am not that dumb...  However, I did explain myself above!




> You gotta tell her straight out that you have a girlfriend. Get that out of the box right away



Oh, she knows. I have a habbit of attracting people who don't care though!

Anyway, once again, my appologies.

It boils down to the fact that this girl only knew of feeders with wives who weigh 700LBs+ (and don't WANT to.) So, to quote one more thing nailing this on the head:



> A woman who is unfamiliar with the size acceptance movement may think that an FA is a pervert or a deviant because she has not used to meeting people like us.



Bingo!


----------



## ThatFatGirl (Dec 16, 2006)

T_Devil said:


> Oh god, you're gonna correct my spelling, arent you. Kill me now.
> Seriously, you people make me want to die.



No need for a "you people" T_Dev. That was said with love. I thought all the variations of fetishists were pretty funny... my favorite: fetishits. 

I <3 guys who <3 fat chicks with the respect you've indicated in your posts in this thread, even those with shitty spelling.


----------



## Chimpi (Dec 16, 2006)

Canadian: You have a very matured view on this subject manner. That is the same way I feel about that whole label thing, and as long as you know where you fit, then you're A.O.K. 



Wagimawr said:


> I just keep myself covered: I'm an FA with a fat fetish.



That is a good way of putting it. I'll have to second your definition of fat fetish, and believe that most men who like big women hold that fat fetish strong. Nothing at all wrong with that. 

However, I do not admire fat. I prefer fat. I love fat. I will only accept fat.  Albeit I've got my fat standards and morals, but that is generally how I view myself.


----------



## T_Devil (Dec 16, 2006)

ThatFatGirl said:


> No need for a "you people" T_Dev. That was said with love. I thought all the variations of fetishists were pretty funny... my favorite: fetishits.
> 
> I <3 guys who <3 fat chicks with the respect you've indicated in your posts in this thread, even those with shitty spelling.



It's just such a weird word to spell when you type fast....
and when your typing sucks (like mine does) some words just fall through the cracks.

Sorry about the "_You People_" thing.


----------



## Stealth (Dec 16, 2006)

I should:

a) Stay away from the computer when slightly under the influence and
b) Stay away from posting threads that seem to want to start hell on earth


----------



## Fuzzy Necromancer (Dec 16, 2006)

Stealth said:


> Oh dear!
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, You can get tablets to clear that up and you'll be lettin' them rip left right and center after.



Oh, humorous commentary on mispellings.

That doesn't hurt my self-esteem. What hurts my self esteem was that it took me 30 seconds to figure that one out.



> My appologies, I did not mean to use the term to make it sound a bad thing at all!
> 
> To me FA is Fat Appreciation. I used Fat Fettish to mean someone who doesn't care for the woman, but only the fat- which was on the extreme side but I just wanted to get the point over. Again, my appologies on the bad choice of terminology.


Are you being sarcastic or facetious? Probably you are, and I'm making an idiot of myself, but I tend to be defensive so I don't want to risk making a dumb assumption.


----------



## Tina (Dec 16, 2006)

CurvaceousBBWLover said:


> *Some FAs are fetishists* who care more about the fat on the woman's body than they do about the woman. Others are feeders. Then there are some are guys who just for whatever reason prefer women of size.





T_Devil said:


> Nope. Sorry, nuh uh. I can't buy that and I won't. Here's why:
> That is a generalization of fetisists. To say something that dumb is like saying _"all Feeders want to do is stuff pork rinds in your mouth"._ I know, that stament touches a nerve around here, but it's the truth. If you're gonna paint a picture like that then it's going to be one ugly picture. You can't generalize people like that because not everybody IS like that. You can't pass that kind of judgment on fetishists and not look like some kind of elietist looking down on others.
> 
> I can't buy into that.



TDevil, note that Curvaceous said the word "some" (bolding mine). That is indicative of a person NOT generalizing. You're kind of going off based on not much.


----------



## William (Dec 16, 2006)

Hey T-Devil

I don't give a damn for a man who can spell a word only one way. 

---Mark Twain

William 



T_Devil said:


> It's just such a weird word to spell when you type fast....
> and when your typing sucks (like mine does) some words just fall through the cracks.
> 
> Sorry about the "_You People_" thing.


----------



## NFA (Dec 17, 2006)

First off, feederists are not FA's. End of story. Its something different. This is not the forum to debate the merits of feederism, but it is fair to point out that feederists are NOT FA's and to insist that feederists start showing some respect to FA's and stop trying to co-opt our identity when theirs is seen as too negative. A feeder is fundamentally not an FA. They define their attraction by the acquisition of weight, not by the state of being fat. That is a fundamental and significant difference and unfortunetly confusion on this point has been actively fostered by feederists and those in the media who give them a forum. Fat attraction is simply that. Its not about state changes or growing one's very own BBW. Its just about fat attraction.

Now, I will grant you that some FA's are primarily concerned with physical attraction when seeking a relationship. I'm not a fan of this, but it is what it is. What NEEDS to be noted, however, is that this is not a special failing of FA's. Its a special failing of men. (Yeah, some women, too, but its more of an epidemic with men) Now, I don't think its all men. I hope and believe that its not even most men. But it is a problem with some men. That this single-mindedness extends to men who are attracted to fat women is not the fault of that attraction. This is a very simple defense. Yeah, some men fetishize fat bodies. Just like some men fetishize thin bodies. Its unfair to place a burden on FA's that is excused in other men. Its not a special problem to answer for as an FA.

Being an FA just means that one is physically and aesthetically attracted to fatness. Its a physical attraction and its no morally different than any other attraction. I don't think its fair to act as if we're enlightened to be FA's as if there is something wrong with thin women. Thin women need love, too. What we need to change in our society is the way in which certain attractions are elevated to cultural acceptability while others are reflexively labeled as fetishes. I don't see how being attracted to fat women limits myself in any significant way. Most men are attracted to women in a range of 30lbs, if that. I'm attracted to women in a range of more than 300lbs. And I'm the one who is limiting himself? Please! Everyone should be allowed to find their attraction themselves instead of having it imposed on them by popular culture. All FA's have done is found their true place in spite of cultural conditioning. Its nothing for us to feel unduly proud of or the feel that we are better then men who might genuinely be attracted to thin women. I just think all men should be able to see all possibilities when defining their sexuality. And I don't think its appropriate to equate a lack of sexual attraction with a moral failing. If there is a problem with "thin admirerers", that's it. Its the sense of entitlement some develop where they see fat women as having failed *them*. No FA should entertain the notion of developing a similiar bias. We don't have to be attracted to thin women. We shouldn't feel a special responsibilty to disavow physical interests. But we also shouldn't think that all women (or men) should meet our standards and conform to our preferences.


----------



## Jon Blaze (Dec 17, 2006)

NFA said:


> First off, feederists are not FA's. End of story. Its something different. This is not the forum to debate the merits of feederism, but it is fair to point out that feederists are NOT FA's and to insist that feederists start showing some respect to FA's and stop trying to co-opt our identity when theirs is seen as too negative. A feeder is fundamentally not an FA. They define their attraction by the acquisition of weight, not by the state of being fat. That is a fundamental and significant difference and unfortunetly confusion on this point has been actively fostered by feederists and those in the media who give them a forum. Fat attraction is simply that. Its not about state changes or growing one's very own BBW. Its just about fat attraction.
> 
> Now, I will grant you that some FA's are primarily concerned with physical attraction when seeking a relationship. I'm not a fan of this, but it is what it is. What NEEDS to be noted, however, is that this is not a special failing of FA's. Its a special failing of men. (Yeah, some women, too, but its more of an epidemic with men) Now, I don't think its all men. I hope and believe that its not even most men. But it is a problem with some men. That this single-mindedness extends to men who are attracted to fat women is not the fault of that attraction. This is a very simple defense. Yeah, some men fetishize fat bodies. Just like some men fetishize thin bodies. Its unfair to place a burden on FA's that is excused in other men. Its not a special problem to answer for as an FA.
> 
> Being an FA just means that one is physically and aesthetically attracted to fatness. Its a physical attraction and its no morally different than any other attraction. I don't think its fair to act as if we're enlightened to be FA's as if there is something wrong with thin women. Thin women need love, too. What we need to change in our society is the way in which certain attractions are elevated to cultural acceptability while others are reflexively labeled as fetishes. I don't see how being attracted to fat women limits myself in any significant way. Most men are attracted to women in a range of 30lbs, if that. I'm attracted to women in a range of more than 300lbs. And I'm the one who is limiting himself? Please! Everyone should be allowed to find their attraction themselves instead of having it imposed on them by popular culture. All FA's have done is found their true place in spite of cultural conditioning. Its nothing for us to feel unduly proud of or the feel that we are better then men who might genuinely be attracted to thin women. I just think all men should be able to see all possibilities when defining their sexuality. And I don't think its appropriate to equate a lack of sexual attraction with a moral failing. If there is a problem with "thin admirerers", that's it. Its the sense of entitlement some develop where they see fat women as having failed *them*. No FA should entertain the notion of developing a similiar bias. We don't have to be attracted to thin women. We shouldn't feel a special responsibilty to disavow physical interests. But we also shouldn't think that all women (or men) should meet our standards and conform to our preferences.



I do agree with some of your points. One reason I do not like Fat Admiration being labeled as a fetish, is because society calls it a fetish 90% of the time, but still label their beliefs as preferences. I think it's a pathetic double standard.

My mind is pretty open, but because society and "Western Standards of Beauty" give much disapproval to large women, I find it right to oppose them. I like thin women too, but I don't seek them as much as large women.

My opposition is just one of many reasons why large women are better in my eyes. Does that make me wrong? I'm not trying to be a savior or anything, but I find that it's the right thing to do. Especially considering the fact that this preference was negatively drawn on to me.

On another note:

Are you also saying that fat fetishists virtually don't exist?


----------



## Santaclear (Dec 17, 2006)

NFA said:


> First off, feederists are not FA's. End of story. Its something different. This is not the forum to debate the merits of feederism, but it is fair to point out that feederists are NOT FA's and to insist that feederists start showing some respect to FA's and stop trying to co-opt our identity when theirs is seen as too negative. A feeder is fundamentally not an FA. They define their attraction by the acquisition of weight, not by the state of being fat. That is a fundamental and significant difference and unfortunetly confusion on this point has been actively fostered by feederists and those in the media who give them a forum. Fat attraction is simply that. Its not about state changes or growing one's very own BBW. Its just about fat attraction.



I've seen many feeders here say they're FAs and I don't doubt all of them. There are many gradations in between and I don't see why it would have to be all one and not the other. Here at Dim I proudly identify as an FA but usually I don't identify with any groups - the labels come after. 

I know what you mean about the co-opting but I don't agree with your blanket definitions.


----------



## NFA (Dec 17, 2006)

Santaclear said:


> I've seen many feeders here say they're FAs and I don't doubt all of them. There are many gradations in between and I don't see why it would have to be all one and not the other. Here at Dim I proudly identify as an FA but usually I don't identify with any groups - the labels come after.
> 
> I know what you mean about the co-opting but I don't agree with your blanket definitions.



Well DOUBT all of them. Being a feeder is different and FA's have a right to have that distinction be respected. Being a feeder is inconsistant with being an FA. It is a different interest and the pressence of fat in both identities shouldn't be fodder for a confusion between the two. That's not a "blanket" definition any more than it would be to note that Canadians and Americans come from two different countries. Sure, they are both in North America, but that doesn't mean Canada is the same country as the United States. This isn't a moral judgement against feeders. Its an acknowledgement that feeders are not the same as fat admirers. The differences are fundamental and significant and the similarity is, if you excuse the pun, entirely superficial.


----------



## Wagimawr (Dec 17, 2006)

Ok, the country analogy was a bit weak, but I get what he's trying to say.

NFA's position is that if someone wants a woman to gain weight, then they cannot be focused on the fat, only on the increasing of fat - not on the weight being gained, but on the gaining of the weight.

*eyes cross*

Hmm...mind taking another stab at that, NFA? And furthermore, does that mean that someone cannot simultaneously be an FA and a feeder?


----------



## Santaclear (Dec 17, 2006)

NFA said:


> Well DOUBT all of them. Being a feeder is different and FA's have a right to have that distinction be respected....



LOL I will NOT doubt all of them! While I'm not super passionate about this subject, your contention seems to be that no feeder could possibly also be an FA. While I agree with you that "FAs" and "feeders" are two totally different concepts and should never be confused, I don't think everyone who is a feeder is therefore not an FA and vice versa. It's not like having dual citizenship in the US and Canada. They have a right to label themselves and all labels are to be suspected.


----------



## T_Devil (Dec 17, 2006)

Tina said:


> TDevil, note that Curvaceous said the word "some" (bolding mine). That is indicative of a person NOT generalizing. You're kind of going off based on not much.


I apologized


----------



## metalheadFA (Dec 17, 2006)

Where has this need to label oneself come from... we all label others yet not normally ourselves hence my sardonic screen name. 
I am by definition an FA because I am considerably more attracted to bigger gals than smaller gals that said I also like to fanatasize, note fantasize, about feederism, which as a side note I have no strong feeling one way or the other as long as the most important thing in any relationship it is consensual.
You can thank the media primarily for blurring the lines and creating the stigma because it is one of those things that we are told is wrong because the government sees obesity as the downfall of society despite the fact I imagine the death count attributed to obesity is not even a fraction of the number of dead African children killed by famine.
What I dont understand is the need to beat each other up on terms or we will soon be defecting to sites for guys who like big girls with disproportianetly large asses and blond hair sneering down on the guys who like girls with disproportianatley big asses and brown hair.
It seems like there was quite an organic shift bringing feederism and fat admiration together a long time ago and whilst you can contest the obvious differences there are equally obvious smililarities.
When sidelined by society it is fine to create boundaries about your own sexual preferences so long as your prepaired to join larger communities and seek mutual support rather than name calling.


----------



## Jon Blaze (Dec 17, 2006)

metalheadFA said:


> Where has this need to label oneself come from... we all label others yet not normally ourselves hence my sardonic screen name.
> I am by definition an FA because I am considerably more attracted to bigger gals than smaller gals that said I also like to fanatasize, note fantasize, about feederism, which as a side note I have no strong feeling one way or the other as long as the most important thing in any relationship it is consensual.
> You can thank the media primarily for blurring the lines and creating the stigma because it is one of those things that we are told is wrong because the government sees obesity as the downfall of society despite the fact I imagine the death count attributed to obesity is not even a fraction of the number of dead African children killed by famine.
> What I dont understand is the need to beat each other up on terms or we will soon be defecting to sites for guys who like big girls with disproportianetly large asses and blond hair sneering down on the guys who like girls with disproportianatley big asses and brown hair.
> ...



Exactly!!! These terms exist because we all continuously coalescing into larger, more distinctive groups. It's all about finding a place to fit in.


----------



## babyjeep21 (Dec 17, 2006)

I do not like the idea that a man who finds me attractive is a fetishist. Actually, I find that rather offensive; because, I like to think that I am worthy of attraction without being a so-called "fetish". 

It does not matter that I am fat, tall, blonde, or whatever some random person may find alluring... Those features do not make me who I am.

FA vs Fat Fetishist??? Every woman/man deserves to be with a person who cares for them and looks them in the eye when speaking (not someone who is focused on the boobs or belly, while trying to grope at them during a serious conversation). Forget labels. Just pay attention to how you're treated and don't expect anything less than the best.


----------



## Canadian (Dec 17, 2006)

babyjeep21 said:


> I do not like the idea that a man who finds me attractive is a fetishist. Actually, I find that rather offensive; because, I like to think that I am worthy of attraction without being a so-called "fetish".
> 
> It does not matter that I am fat, tall, blonde, or whatever some random person may find alluring... Those features do not make me who I am.
> 
> FA vs Fat Fetishist??? Every woman/man deserves to be with a person who cares for them and looks them in the eye when speaking (not someone who is focused on the boobs or belly, while trying to grope at them during a serious conversation). Forget labels. Just pay attention to how you're treated and don't expect anything less than the best.



YES!

Exactly what I was saying in my earlier post. Fuck the labels. Weight is just one of many factors that is taken into consideration when deciding if a girl is attractive or not. Just because I prefer a fat girl, it doesn't mean I have a fetish, and I don't need to call myself an FA to explain it.

I prefer girls with straight teeth too, but I've never been referred to as an STA.


----------



## Stealth (Dec 18, 2006)

> I do not like the idea that a man who finds me attractive is a fetishist. Actually, I find that rather offensive; because, I like to think that I am worthy of attraction without being a so-called "fetish".



And again, bingo. Part of the fact is that she doesn't like being labelled, and as you have all proven, nore does anyone


----------



## Tad (Dec 18, 2006)

babyjeep21 said:


> I do not like the idea that a man who finds me attractive is a fetishist. Actually, I find that rather offensive; because, I like to think that I am worthy of attraction without being a so-called "fetish".



But maybe the point is that some people simply find you attractive for who you are, and some people find you attractive because you meet the needs of their fetish. Isn't it worth recognizing that both exist, and understanding the difference between them? 

For what it is worth, I think most FA have a preference, and a minority have a fetish. That is, I think most FA are more attracted to big gals, while there some whose sexuality is totally tied in with fat, not with normal attraction.* I can understand that most women would prefer to get involved with the former rather than the latter. To discuss the difference, to gain understanding of it, to learn to tell the difference, or at least to recognize the shades of grey as one veers into the other, is much more challenging without labels. Now maybe it is more useful to talk about *how* fetishistic someone or some behavior is, rather than using an absolute term, but I think that falls under the scope of using this label.

* I don't have any study proving this, it is just my feeling on the subject after having observed about ten years of web board and chat room behavior.

Regards;

Ed


----------



## xeeb (Dec 18, 2006)

Similiar opinions have probably already beens typed here, but still I wish to type my view.

I must admit I find the whole fetish concept fascinating. I'm not entirely sure if I would take it as a compliment to my physical shape or as an insult to my personality, suppose it would depend on my mood at the time.

But I also think whilst someone may fetishise certain aspects of a person's body they could truly appreciate the person for the person themselves, not just because they have something that is, by a dictionary's reasoning 


> any object or nongenital part of the body that causes a habitual erotic response or fixation


So whilst they may have an erotic response/fixation to, say, arm fat, they could still appreciate an individual for more than their arm fat, it would just so happen the arm fat is their fetish, and as such it is what generally causes sexual desire in them. It may be the only thing that allows them sexual release, but it does not mean they do not care for the person they're with.

Of course it is also possible that they could 'care' for someone who did not fulfill their fetish requirements, which could cause all sorts of problems. There are quite a few probabilities we could explore, but that would just be going round and round in circles. Just because you have a fetish about a particular thing does not make you any less respectful towards the person who happens to carry your fetish around with them. That is down to the individual.

Whilst people label most people who like people who are, in their eyes, unattractive, it becomes a fetish in their eyes, even if you truly just appreciate the human body in all shapes and forms if you have gone with anyone outside the norm it is labelled by some as a fetish. Whilst everyone has preferences in who they wish to be having sexual relations with a few need people who fit their preferences in order to have sexual gratification. It can be detrimental to relationships, sure, especially if the fetish is so strong that should the individual the fetishist is involved with deviates from the ideal they may not be sexually gratified, but it still does not mean they treat the individual with any less respect than someone who merely has a preference.

I'm rambling and in need of sleep, so this may be edited later to make more sense. I've probably repeated and contradicted myself, so apologies for that :blush:


----------



## liz (di-va) (Dec 18, 2006)

Weighin in here (hah!).

I don't think the discussion of labels is totally moot. This website is a collection of self-identified fat folk/fat folk-likers/others, so right off the bat there's a little labeling going on.

But the real reason I don't think it's totally moot, to the extent that anything's definable: I'm not interested in the *rest* of the world defining this.

Left to its own devices, the rest of the world would and does define anyone who likes fat girls as a fetishist (not true--that's a very specific term writ way too generally), anybody who likes fat girls as a feeder (not true), anybody who likes fat man as a freak and a weirdo and a marginalized deviant of some variety...left to its own devices, the rest of the world has such a hard time understanding this that they try to cram it into lots of inappopriate boxes.

It's ridiculous for a lot of a reasons, not the least of which (this is where the Dim squabbling can seem silly to me too) more than half the world is fat! There is a lot of room for subgroups and subsets of every type. We would all seem to get to belong to a pretty big club here. 

Another reason I don't think this discussion is that moot: What are discussions about Dim. the other 1/2 the time that we're not debating labels? How to find each other. "There are no FAs in my town"--"There are no BBWs where I live"--what are we doin there but dealing with labels? "We should come up with a little symbol for people to wear." It's not all that easy.

I am a single fat girl out there dating and I am just as yucked out at the idea of somebody liking me _only_ because of my size as I am by the idea of somebody liking me but only just _putting up_ with my size. Everybody does want to be loved for who they are, _totalment_, body and soul. None this seems to be that navigable, though, without a lil bit of labeling.

Gets sticky when we're all here generalizing and interpolating from our own experiences--all, also, under the enormous pressure of social disapproval, which we have all hopefully found various ways to deal with/triumph over, but I think it has an effect, in all sorts of indefinable ways... Maybe part of the problem too that there are so few people--proportionally--dealing with liking/being fat folk openly or as if it's a positive (Dim + other places) compared to the rest of the fat-hating world that squabbling and confusion can find root...too much pressure. 

Then again, taxonomy? A playground for dissent! Words, words...

...murbleburp....

p.s. I'll tell ya another test: sleep with one of each (FA, feeder, EOE dude, fetishist). Ain't the same! Hee. Sorry. Tired. I'm really wandering off now...


----------



## BigBeautifulMe (Dec 19, 2006)

I'm going to have to agree with NFA on this one. FAs and Feeders are not one in the same. He pinpointed it earlier in another thread where I had posted some comments made by feeders "skeezed me out," and I've finally realized that I feel like an object when I speak to a feeder, rather than a person.

In chat, the first detail they always want to know is height and weight. Then it's onto questions about what I eat, how big my belly is, detailed, specific questions about my fat. None of this is what constitutes me as a person. I imagine it's much like a skinny girl being interrogated about how big her breasts are, etc. It makes me want to say "Stop looking at my fat! Talk to me about who I am!"

When I speak to an FA, there's a different dynamic. They may be attracted to my size, but it's not all they're attracted to. It's as if my size is just one more characteristic that makes me attractive. They want to know about who I am intellectually, what I do, what my interests are, what makes me who I am. It's not all about my appearance, but rather about the total package. 

FAs accept women for who they are, as they are. Feeders want to change them. Can FAs have feeder fantasies? Perhaps. But if it is what drives their relationships with women, that's a horse of an entirely different color.

To use liz's four-guys example, here's how I imagine post-sex commentary would be with all four types:

FA: You are so beautiful - the look in your eyes as I held you was the most amazing thing I've ever seen.

Feeder: Wow. You've gained like, 25 pounds since the last time we had sex. Your belly was so much squishier! I loved that!

EOE: Wow. Who knew fat women could be that hot?

Fetishist: Zzzzzzzzzzz.

To sum up: A fetishist needs fat to get off. A feeder needs gain (or at least the thought of gain) to get off. An FA only needs you, as you are.

That's my two cents.

I'll prepare to be crucified now.


----------



## NFA (Dec 19, 2006)

> You must spread some reputation around before giving it to BigBeautifulMe again.



Man, that's like the third time today.


----------



## Jon Blaze (Dec 19, 2006)

BigBeautifulMe said:


> I'm going to have to agree with NFA on this one. FAs and Feeders are not one in the same. He pinpointed it earlier in another thread where I had posted some comments made by feeders "skeezed me out," and I've finally realized that I feel like an object when I speak to a feeder, rather than a person.
> 
> In chat, the first detail they always want to know is height and weight. Then it's onto questions about what I eat, how big my belly is, detailed, specific questions about my fat. None of this is what constitutes me as a person. I imagine it's much like a skinny girl being interrogated about how big her breasts are, etc. It makes me want to say "Stop looking at my fat! Talk to me about who I am!"
> 
> ...




Ordained is the more proper term.....


----------



## CurvaceousBBWLover (Dec 19, 2006)

I like the way you have used your analogy to demonstrate some of the different attitudes among archetypal FAs, Feeders, Fetishists and EOEs. I think it is more important that you like the person as opposed to how much weight she/he has gained or how much that person has to eat. I think it is much better to like a person as he or she is instead of trying to reconstruct them into your ideal image. 

Many people in our country want to reconstruct another person. I don't think you have to be a fetishist to be like that. And many people are willing to accept another person as she/he is. This phenomenon is not unique to fat admirers.

What I find interesting is how we in the size acceptance community spend so much time on labels like who's a feeder vs. who's an FA, who's supersized vs. who isn't supersized and other things along this line. Does anyone else notice this? 




BigBeautifulMe said:


> I'm going to have to agree with NFA on this one. FAs and Feeders are not one in the same. He pinpointed it earlier in another thread where I had posted some comments made by feeders "skeezed me out," and I've finally realized that I feel like an object when I speak to a feeder, rather than a person.
> 
> In chat, the first detail they always want to know is height and weight. Then it's onto questions about what I eat, how big my belly is, detailed, specific questions about my fat. None of this is what constitutes me as a person. I imagine it's much like a skinny girl being interrogated about how big her breasts are, etc. It makes me want to say "Stop looking at my fat! Talk to me about who I am!"
> 
> ...


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy (Dec 19, 2006)

BigBeautifulMe said:


> FAs and Feeders are not one in the same. He pinpointed it earlier in another thread where I had posted some comments made by feeders "skeezed me out," and I've finally realized that I feel like an object when I speak to a feeder, rather than a person.



When some have talked to me about what I eat or what they want to feed me and how they want to see me gain weight, I start a correllation. I think of guys in yahoo (read a non feeder/fa forum) that message me asking me for pics and descriptions before they are willing to hold a normal conversation with me. In other words, I have to prove my "physically worthy" so they wont "waste their time" speaking to me in a civil way. I find those types arrogant, selfish and disgusting. They are not interested in me as a person whatsover and hope that my self-esteem or need for male attention is so bad that I would be willing to play their game. 
So if a guy, that I didnt know, that is not a feeder, wanted me to start answering questions along the lines of what bra size I am, if I shave my pubes, etc., I would know to be insulted by his lack of respect for me. 
I see it the same way when a man here will message me asking me "where do you carry your weight" , "how much can you eat in one sitting" , "how much weight have you gained recently" before he can even have the common courtesy of some polite chitchat. 
I have also talked to some very nice men here at Dims. A couple have even politely let me know that they are somewhat into feederism. That's okay with me. It's their thing and they did it in a respectful way. 

Rude, unconcerned, pushy men are the same across the board, whether they are feeders or not, imo.


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy (Dec 19, 2006)

CurvaceousBBWLover said:


> What I find interesting is how we in the size acceptance community spend so much time on labels like who's a feeder vs. who's an FA, who's supersized vs. who isn't supersized and other things along this line. Does anyone else notice this?



Yes I noticed it, too. Seems to leave a lot out sometimes even though sometimes the designations are nice to have as a reference.


----------



## NFA (Dec 19, 2006)

CurvaceousBBWLover said:


> What I find interesting is how we in the size acceptance community spend so much time on labels like who's a feeder vs. who's an FA, who's supersized vs. who isn't supersized and other things along this line. Does anyone else notice this?



With regards to Size Acceptance, the issue of FA vs. Feeder is a quite crucial one. A Feeder, by definition, has rejected Size Acceptance. What they advocate is not an acceptance of the size that one is, but a very explicit rejection of one's size and coersive means to attempt to manipulate one's size. Whatever one thinks of the merits of feederism, this is plainly not Size Acceptance and the most fundamental level, so this distinction is genuinely appropriate to observe with regards to Size Acceptance.


----------



## Santaclear (Dec 19, 2006)

NFA said:


> First off, feederists are not FA's. End of story.



Up until this first of your posts on this thread, it seemed we were talking about FA = Fat Admirer. Now, after reading your last few posts it seems you're now talking about FA = Fat Acceptance. Two different concepts.


----------



## CurvaceousBBWLover (Dec 20, 2006)

You are quite right and I have always strongly agreed with you. I find it interesting that you have the mainstream crowd who demands that all women be slim, you have the feeders who demand that all women be stuffed to the extreme, and then in the middle you have people who believe in size acceptance. 

I think it is wrong to influence/manipulate/pressure/coerce another person to either gain or lose weight so they can get a sexual thrill. This is sick. I believe that creating a society that is committed to size acceptance would help free this country from this perverse idea that everyone should be the same weight.




NFA said:


> With regards to Size Acceptance, the issue of FA vs. Feeder is a quite crucial one. A Feeder, by definition, has rejected Size Acceptance. What they advocate is not an acceptance of the size that one is, but a very explicit rejection of one's size and coersive means to attempt to manipulate one's size. Whatever one thinks of the merits of feederism, this is plainly not Size Acceptance and the most fundamental level, so this distinction is genuinely appropriate to observe with regards to Size Acceptance.


----------



## lemmink (Dec 20, 2006)

Well, yeah, it's a bad thing when someone automatically assumes that someone with a fat girlfriend is some kind of twisted psycho... but now someone has to make a distinction between that and being an average feeder - right? Right?

Some of us feeders do try to be nice about it. I'd like to know the last time I told anyone on here that they'd look great with another 15 pounds (unless, of course, they were a feedee angling to hear that). Dammit, we aren't all psychotic.


----------

