# Being 'Filled'...psychology of being an FFA? Or gay FA?



## Fat Molly (Aug 26, 2010)

In my trawling of the internet and continual pursuit of truth, I ran across this website.



Upon it, I ran across this rather interesting notion that seemed to evoke FFA/gay FAness.

_
Sexual fantasies, whether thoughts or feelings, often arise as images of satisfaction when, because of other circumstances, we are feeling deprived, ineffectual, weary, unrecognized, or alone. 

The experience of genital arousal points to a yearning for an intoxicating existential merger with an other to hide the unwanted reality of your own brokenness, so that you can experience the ecstasy of transcending the unknown or of seeing or feeling seen (common male fantasies) or of being *filled* (a common female fantasy). 

Same-sex attraction fantasies can reverse these roles: a man can desire to be *filled* with the strength of a father (who in reality was weak, or absent, or cruel); a woman can desire to see, or be seen by, a mother (who in reality was cruel or neglectful or smothering).

The combinations can be almost infinite, and they all point to a certain lack of unconditional childhood recognition, guidance, or acceptance that resonates with a current lackthat is, deprivationof recognition, guidance, acceptance, resources, or time._

I wonder what you make of this from a spiritual or psychological standpoint, and also from the perspective of a person who has a vested interest in fat. 

Is our collective desire to be fat or to watch others become fat something...well...that has to do with a certain 'filling'? 

And what do you make of the 'lack of unconditional childhood recognition...' etc...would you say that your childhood could be described as such? 

Detailed answers, please.


----------



## Sasquatch! (Aug 26, 2010)

Can I ask a question first....?

Do you live under a bridge and does your diet mainly consist of goats?


----------



## Wanderer (Aug 26, 2010)

Sasquatch! said:


> Can I ask a question first....?
> 
> Do you live under a bridge and does your diet mainly consist of goats?



Now, now, it's a reasonable question... so far.

To be honest, Moll, I find the theory a bit too simplistic, and smacking of Freud. Attempting to relate all of anything to "a lack of unconditional childhood acceptance" is a risky idea at best. (Heck, my own mother made sure to let me know her love had limits... and I'm into bondage (with the right woman).)

It's an interesting theory, but it has some holes.


----------



## Fat Molly (Aug 26, 2010)

Gosh darn, Sasquatch, I'm not a troll. Read my other posts. Though few in number so far, I am sure they'll provide some perspective.

Now that you mention it...yes, it does sound Freudian. I'm not a psychology person, though; my interests lie more in philosophy and literature. 

But, I'm still interested if other people find a corroboration between their experience and what is expressed in the selection I've posted. More opinions, please?


----------



## Paquito (Aug 26, 2010)

Idk brah, thinking about my childhood neglect and shit doesn't make me horny.


----------



## Sasquatch! (Aug 26, 2010)

*pulls Feathered and Sequined Troll-Hunter Hat off hastily*

*shifty eyes*


----------



## TheMildlyStrangeone (Aug 26, 2010)

Catholic Healing Psychology 

http://www.chastitysf.com/q_distract.htm


Sexual Fantasies

Sexual fantasies, whether thoughts or feelings, often arise as images of satisfaction when, because of other circumstances, we are feeling deprived, ineffectual, weary, unrecognized, or alone. The experience of genital arousal points to a yearning for an intoxicating existential merger with an other to hide the unwanted reality of your own brokenness, so that you can experience the ecstasy of transcending the unknown or of seeing or feeling seen (common male fantasies) or of being filled (a common female fantasy). Same-sex attraction fantasies can reverse these roles: a man can desire to be filled with the strength of a father (who in reality was weak, or absent, or cruel); a woman can desire to see, or be seen by, a mother (who in reality was cruel or neglectful or smothering). The combinations can be almost infinite, and they all point to a certain lack of unconditional childhood recognition, guidance, or acceptance that resonates with a current lackthat is, deprivationof recognition, guidance, acceptance, resources, or time.

Sexual fantasies can also derive from memories of past sexual activityvoluntary or inflicted abusivelythat now carry feelings of guilt or regret or even anger. In this context, men can have fantasies of raping, and women (and some men) can have fantasies of being raped.


----------



## TheMildlyStrangeone (Aug 26, 2010)

And to actually address the post....

No, I do not believe that all fetishes, fantasy and other sexual desires arise from a Freudian perception of fulfillment of parental dearth. There may be a plethora of explanations for what we desire but they aren't wholly attributable to shortcomings of parental guidance.


----------



## Amaranthine (Aug 26, 2010)

TheMildlyStrangeone said:


> And to actually address the post....
> 
> No, I do not believe that all fetishes, fantasy and other sexual desires arise from a Freudian perception of fulfillment of parental dearth. There may be a plethora of explanations for what we desire but they aren't wholly attributable to shortcomings of parental guidance.



Fetishes and sexual desires are largely unexplained- most of it is subconscious, which is difficult to interpret and explore. Treatment-wise, for fetishes/desires you don't want, it's a bit ridiculous. No therapy really works (and who's totally willing to give up something so enjoyable?) so treatment for men is often hormone treatment that suppresses sex drive. Though I totally might be wrong- I only know what the internet tells me. But I can see how it would be nearly impossible to eradicate something like that or even have the desire to.

With all that considered from professionals, I feel as if it's nearly impossible to figure out what caused some of the stuff. It's just there, so enjoy it. Freud's theory seems like AN explanation, but definitely not the only one, like you said. It's something that would be really interesting to look into more.


----------



## Esther (Aug 26, 2010)

Paquito said:


> Idk brah, thinking about my childhood neglect and shit doesn't make me horny.



Hahahahaha


----------



## Lady Bella UK (Aug 26, 2010)

TheMildlyStrangeone said:


> Catholic Healing Psychology
> 
> http://www.chastitysf.com/q_distract.htm
> 
> ...




I accept that in certain circumstances, learned responses or invocations of sexual desire are couple with experiences in life that are not typically associated with sexual behaviour, but the above is, in my earnest opinion, _absolute_ twaddle.

Identical twins brought up in exactly the same environment can often grow up to have completely different ideas of what sexually evocotive material is. This is very interesting as twins have identical genetics and a very similar upbringing! However, even identical twins get different levels of hormones/nutrients in vitrio so even identical twins are never exactally identical...

Anyway I am rapidly going off topic - from the research I have read the jury is still out there, even on the dimension of how much it is an inbuilt brain pattern or a complete learned response. There is an interesting theory that if you have a slight sexual interest in something as a young child/teen and indulge in it during an important "window of sexual development" that it becomes the sexual norm for an individual.

*removes Psych nerd hat*

B xXx


----------



## Lady Bella UK (Aug 26, 2010)

Amaranthine said:


> Fetishes and sexual desires are largely unexplained- most of it is subconscious, which is difficult to interpret and explore. Treatment-wise, for fetishes/desires you don't want, it's a bit ridiculous. No therapy really works (and who's totally willing to give up something so enjoyable?) so treatment for men is often hormone treatment that suppresses sex drive. Though I totally might be wrong- I only know what the internet tells me. But I can see how it would be nearly impossible to eradicate something like that or even have the desire to.



Very well said 

Sexuality is very inbuilt and ingrained indeed...it made me cry reading about the old "treatments" they used to try and cure homosexuality in the 1950s. People would be electric shocked again and again if they became aroused to homoerotic material, and yet, even though the pain intensity would be increased until the individual could barely handle it it would not stop them from these thoughts.

B :kiss2: xXx


----------



## Durin (Aug 26, 2010)

The fact is I don't think we have any idea why certain images/things are sexual triggers. Frankly i doubt there will be a any kind of unified idea. 

What is normal really? No body is normal.


----------



## Amaranthine (Aug 26, 2010)

That's true- normal is very difficult to define and always different to different people. It's all relative xD

But, one thing I've always wondered- any studies of fetishes or sexual desire are often male focused- fetishes in particular are pretty male dominated and female occurrences just make for even more confusion on the topic. 

So, my question is, are things like that REALLY more common in males, or are females just less open about it? Or both. There are definitely differences between the genders, but I still can't help but wonder why.


----------



## Sasquatch! (Aug 26, 2010)

Amaranthine said:


> That's true- normal is very difficult to define and always different to different people. It's all relative xD
> 
> But, one thing I've always wondered- any studies of fetishes or sexual desire are often male focused- fetishes in particular are pretty male dominated and female occurrences just make for even more confusion on the topic.
> 
> So, my question is, are things like that REALLY more common in males, or are females just less open about it? Or both. There are definitely differences between the genders, but I still can't help but wonder why.



I propose an alternate hypothesis:

"All women will make out with Sasquatch! Given the chance."


----------



## Fat Molly (Aug 26, 2010)

TheMildlyStrangeone said:


> Catholic Healing Psychology
> 
> http://www.chastitysf.com/q_distract.htm
> 
> ...



That's exactly it.

I don't know why the link...which I did at least attempt to post...didn't show up in the initial post. *shrug* I've lost my knack for HTML. 

Anyhow, I'm very pleased at the amount of discussion this thread is generating. Here are a number of other hypotheses...that I've read about or derived via my own observation...what do you think?

-Is our obsession with fat something to do with latent desire for motherhood? In other words, is the process of becoming larger as one becomes more and more pregnant the source of our sexual attraction? 

-Is it something to do with the contrast of idleness and plenty? Like, long fingernails used to be attractive since only the rich would be able to grow them because they were a sign of not having to work. Fat could be seen as something that indicates that you've got it made and don't need to work...or something along those lines. Would you acknowledge this as a possibility?

-Could it be derived from the primal, bestial reasoning that fatness, in the wild, indicates that you are a good hunter and provider? Or, along the same lines, from that urge to eat until satiated because one never knew when one's next meal would be coming along? A combination of both these reasons?

-What about fat equals fertility and femininity? Should I, as a heterosexual female, question my sexual preference because of my aesthetic and tactile preference for a fat mate? Does this indicate that I should, in reality, be a lesbian? (This one is less serious, because I sure as heck know that I'd much prefer a 'key' in my 'lock'...and not have to deal with another 'lock' in the bedroom.)

-Is it because we somehow associate fatness with food, and somehow associate bigger with better, because we're looking at other fatties with a pseudo-cannibalistic (?!) desire to 'devour' them? (Argh! This sounds really off the wall...)

Thanks for being patient. Go ahead and answer whatever you feel like answering; this is, I hope, a very open discussion.


----------



## Fat Molly (Aug 26, 2010)

Oh, and @Amaranthine...

"are things like that REALLY more common in males, or are females just less open about it? "

I'm not sure. I propose a close examination of said studies. Notice WHO is conducting the studies. Are they men? Are they women? Compare the conduction with the studies. Too often studies are biased...even just marginally...and therefore at least partially flawed. Then there is the question of subjectivity, the largeness of the survey/study pool...I'm no scientist, but I do know that a lot of stuff is really hard to test, and often the selection is really less random than claimed at the end.

In any case, I do go along with there being general primary differences between the genders (though these can be blurred due to genetics and who knows what else), though I cannot give you an answer. 

@Sasquatch...sure, let's go with that. *considers trying to type something in Queen's English but decides that knowledge of phonetics really sucks, it being based primarily on Agatha Christie films and Henry Higgins.*


----------



## Tad (Aug 26, 2010)

Amaranthine said:


> That's true- normal is very difficult to define and always different to different people. It's all relative xD
> 
> But, one thing I've always wondered- any studies of fetishes or sexual desire are often male focused- fetishes in particular are pretty male dominated and female occurrences just make for even more confusion on the topic.
> 
> So, my question is, are things like that REALLY more common in males, or are females just less open about it? Or both. There are definitely differences between the genders, but I still can't help but wonder why.



Amaranthine, in most areas, men seem to vary more widely than women...perhaps the averaging effect of two x-chromosones for women, versus just one for men (and the Y chromosone doesn't pull its weight overall, from what I've read it mostly just programs some basic sex stuff, leaving more functionality and general stuff to the X)? So it wouldn't surprise me, given that fetishes are the extreme ends of likes, that more men have actual fetishes. Just a suspicion, not positive, can't quote you a ton of research.


----------



## Venom (Aug 26, 2010)

One issue with these types of studies is lack of females willing to participate. Sexual arousal gets measured during some of the studies, and for men its simple they just have some bands put on them to measure when they get an erection to find out what turns them on. For women this awkward looking device is inserted and it has a light and and an eye to measure when they start producing lubrication (the light reflects off of vaginal walls). It is not the greatest experience for women and many back out of the studies or are so uncomfortable that they do not get aroused in situations where they normally would.


----------



## Fat Molly (Aug 26, 2010)

To follow up on Tad's suggestion...

Well, there's a physical factor, too. Guys can't look down without being aware of the presence of their weiner unless they're at a place of blissful plumpness where they can't because of their big belly.  

Point is, they've just got easier access (at least it seems to me) to the sex organs, more visual cue-time to prompt them into sexual exploration, they're actually touching it quite often (to pee and such), and all that PLUS a possibly more lively sex-drive...maybe more time to get bored with just plain old sexual satisfaction? And therefore more sexual energy to devote to creative fantasies etc.?

Just a maybe.

@Venom: Good theory! Makes total sense. So that's another 'random' factor that is skewed/disproportionate.


----------



## Amaranthine (Aug 26, 2010)

All those theories do make a lot of sense- there's just so many factors contributing. I can't say I ever thought about the role that the chromosomes play, or how that arousal is measured. It's all definitely interesting. 

And of course...my next question (apologies, I'm inquisitive,) does someone with an exclusive fetish (can only be aroused in the presence of it) experience sexual satisfaction to a different degree than is average? I mean, I know that EVERYONE has to experience it differently, but is there a major difference between the effects of normal arousal, and fetish-based? I feel like that would be very difficult to discern, especially as first hand accounts would be probably the only way to tell if there were any difference, and finding a control group would be difficult because everyone has their preferences. 

It's just something that's always intrigued me.


----------



## Lady Bella UK (Aug 26, 2010)

Fat Molly said:


> Point is, they've just got easier access (at least it seems to me) to the sex organs, more visual cue-time to prompt them into sexual exploration, they're actually touching it quite often (to pee and such), and all that PLUS a possibly more lively sex-drive...maybe more time to get bored with just plain old sexual satisfaction? And therefore more sexual energy to devote to creative fantasies etc.?



All respect to you (because I believe all opinions deserve respect) but I don't think that is it at all.

The main reason for a higher sex drive/response in men is due to a much higher frequency of testosterone; There are studies to suggest that more sexually driven women might have higher levels of testosterone.

Male and female sexuality is differently hardwired into; different areas of the brain are acive during sex between men and women. It is fascinating stuff to see how truely different we are when we are making love! 

B :kiss2:


----------



## Lady Bella UK (Aug 26, 2010)

Venom said:


> One issue with these types of studies is lack of females willing to participate. Sexual arousal gets measured during some of the studies, and for men its simple they just have some bands put on them to measure when they get an erection to find out what turns them on. For women this awkward looking device is inserted and it has a light and and an eye to measure when they start producing lubrication (the light reflects off of vaginal walls). It is not the greatest experience for women and many back out of the studies or are so uncomfortable that they do not get aroused in situations where they normally would.



Very true - I've seen pictures *shudder*


----------



## Lady Bella UK (Aug 26, 2010)

Fat Molly said:


> I'm not sure. I propose a close examination of said studies. Notice WHO is conducting the studies. Are they men? Are they women? Compare the conduction with the studies. Too often studies are biased...even just marginally...and therefore at least partially flawed. Then there is the question of subjectivity, the largeness of the survey/study pool...I'm no scientist, but I do know that a lot of stuff is really hard to test, and often the selection is really less random than claimed at the end.



This is indeed the problem that rues Psychologists and experimenters all over the world  No matter how controlled a study on human beings is, we are still human beings and are very random and unpredictable. Double blind experiments help reduce bias (where the experimenter doesn't know the test group from the control group of participants)

B x


----------



## Tad (Aug 26, 2010)

Venom said:


> One issue with these types of studies is lack of females willing to participate. Sexual arousal gets measured during some of the studies, and for men its simple they just have some bands put on them to measure when they get an erection to find out what turns them on. For women this awkward looking device is inserted and it has a light and and an eye to measure when they start producing lubrication (the light reflects off of vaginal walls). It is not the greatest experience for women and many back out of the studies or are so uncomfortable that they do not get aroused in situations where they normally would.



Also, 'lubrication' may not be all that accurate an indication of arousal in women, according to one study I saw some months ago. They compared physical measurements to what women reported feeling (and they may have had a brain scan component too?), and lubrication seemed to correlate more with "this situation could get sexual" than "I'm really turned on." Obviously the former would include the latter, but it seemed to include things that women did not find to be a mental turn-on. The folks doing the study theorized that sometimes lubrication could be sort of defensive, the body going "OK, whether I really want it or not, sex could be happening, better to not get all ripped up by it."

Obviously I have no first hand experience.....just saying that measuring arousal in women could be even more difficult than getting subjects to use awkward inserts.


----------



## MasterShake (Aug 26, 2010)

Paquito said:


> Idk brah, thinking about my childhood neglect and shit doesn't make me horny.



Then explain why thinking of your childhood neglect makes ME horny!


----------



## Fat Molly (Aug 26, 2010)

@MasterShake: 0.0

@ Everyone else: Keep on talkin'. I'm actively reading and thinking about all this, just don't have anything to say right now. I'm very pleased for all the depth of your responses.


----------



## Venom (Aug 26, 2010)

Tad said:


> Also, 'lubrication' may not be all that accurate an indication of arousal in women, according to one study I saw some months ago. They compared physical measurements to what women reported feeling (and they may have had a brain scan component too?), and lubrication seemed to correlate more with "this situation could get sexual" than "I'm really turned on." Obviously the former would include the latter, but it seemed to include things that women did not find to be a mental turn-on. The folks doing the study theorized that sometimes lubrication could be sort of defensive, the body going "OK, whether I really want it or not, sex could be happening, better to not get all ripped up by it."
> 
> Obviously I have no first hand experience.....just saying that measuring arousal in women could be even more difficult than getting subjects to use awkward inserts.



That is a really good point that not all women react the same way physically when aroused. Also probably with that is one of the most common sexual dysfunctions that women seek treatment for is being unable to produce adequate lubrication. If some of the women in the studies have that problem there may not be enough to show that they are aroused.


----------



## Buffetbelly (Aug 26, 2010)

*OK I think we are somewhere in the vicinity of the lower left corner of this map.*


----------



## Fat Molly (Aug 26, 2010)

Wow.

I had no idea there was so much in the way of fetishes. 

Wow...


Got to ask, what does nose growth have to do with anything? All I can think of is Pinocchio...and I'm certainly not aroused by Pinocchio.


----------



## Buffetbelly (Aug 26, 2010)

This map is from the book _Deviant Desires_. I assume the author has something about nose growth. The author herself has a gunshot and balloon popping fetish. Don't ask me to explain, just read the book. 

http://www.amazon.com/Deviant-Desires-Incredibly-Strange-Sex/dp/1890451037

I had an FFA girlfriend who besides being a feeder also had a hiccup fetish. She would go wild if I got hiccups as a result of feeding sessions and it made my fat jiggle. I had to call her on the phone every time I got the hiccups. Can't say it ever did anything for me on my side of it....


----------



## Sasquatch! (Aug 26, 2010)

Why I seem to be positively normal.


----------



## Fat Molly (Aug 26, 2010)

Hiccup fetish! 

That's actually a rather cute one. Never heard of it. 

Thanks for the link, too, BB.


----------



## BigChaz (Aug 26, 2010)

Fat Molly said:


> Hiccup fetish!
> 
> That's actually a rather cute one. Never heard of it.
> 
> Thanks for the link, too, BB.



It's cute until you imagine some gross, hairy, sweaty guy furiously jacking off to your hiccups.


----------



## Paquito (Aug 26, 2010)

Fat Molly said:


> Got to ask, what does nose growth have to do with anything? All I can think of is Pinocchio...and I'm certainly not aroused by Pinocchio.



I'm sure there are plenty of people who think that fat couldn't possibly be in a fetish and aren't aroused by that, but I'm pretty sure you wouldn't want them judging you for it like that.


----------



## FishCharming (Aug 26, 2010)

BigChaz said:


> It's cute until you imagine some gross, hairy, sweaty guy furiously jacking off to your hiccups.



thanks for outing me dude!


----------



## Fat Molly (Aug 26, 2010)

Venom said:


> One issue with these types of studies is lack of females willing to participate. Sexual arousal gets measured during some of the studies, and for men its simple they just have some bands put on them to measure when they get an erection to find out what turns them on. For women this awkward looking device is inserted and it has a light and and an eye to measure when they start producing lubrication (the light reflects off of vaginal walls). It is not the greatest experience for women and many back out of the studies or are so uncomfortable that they do not get aroused in situations where they normally would.





Paquito said:


> I'm sure there are plenty of people who think that fat couldn't possibly be in a fetish and aren't aroused by that, but I'm pretty sure you wouldn't want them judging you for it like that.



I didn't mean to sound condescending, I was merely expressing curiosity and the fact that I did not understand. I apologize.


----------



## Fat Molly (Aug 26, 2010)

BigChaz said:


> It's cute until you imagine some gross, hairy, sweaty guy furiously jacking off to your hiccups.



A. Because I do not put hiccup videos of myself on the internet, I'm invulnerable on that standpoint.

B. If I did put hiccup videos up, I would do it with the full knowledge that what I am doing could POSSIBLY be something that people would jack off to. In fact, I myself acknowledge that whatever I could put up anywhere on the internet, be it something innocuous like singing or talking about my dead dog, could conceivably be jack-off material for somebody. It's the internet. People do what they like, on their end. 

C. If the guy I make love to in the future isn't 'gross, hairy, sweaty guy' at some point in his life, I'll be wondering what sort of alien I married. I don't know what you'd define as 'gross' (a large number of people consider fatties gross, do recall!) but I'm sure your 'gross' is sombody's 'super cute!' And also, people naturally get dirty. That's why we have an epidermis, to keep bad things out of the rest of our organs. And also, being hairy is certainly a natural state of being, as is also being not hairy. I myself am odd in preferring a guy with moderate abdominal hair. So hairy doesn't scare me either. 

All judgmentalism can be explained away with simple reasoning.

SO. Back to the main subject, perhaps?


----------



## CastingPearls (Aug 26, 2010)

Buffetbelly said:


> *OK I think we are somewhere in the vicinity of the lower left corner of this map.*


Jeebus.

I'm all over the friggin map on this one......<dazed>

Huh? Oh...........................nevermind.


----------



## BigChaz (Aug 26, 2010)

Fat Molly said:


> A. Because I do not put hiccup videos of myself on the internet, I'm invulnerable on that standpoint.
> 
> B. If I did put hiccup videos up, I would do it with the full knowledge that what I am doing could POSSIBLY be something that people would jack off to. In fact, I myself acknowledge that whatever I could put up anywhere on the internet, be it something innocuous like singing or talking about my dead dog, could conceivably be jack-off material for somebody. It's the internet. People do what they like, on their end.
> 
> ...



I judge this post of yours a gigantic cop-out.

Next topic?

Also, don't complain when you start hiccuping in line at the bank or something and some guy starts masturbating while making eye contact with you.


----------



## Amandy (Aug 26, 2010)

So I don't know how much you want to muse and speculate, but its all bullshit until you do some kind of study on a sufficient amount of FFAs to extrapolate the appropriate amount of data.

I'll start - my parents were/are wonderful, supportive people and I've never felt like I needed a man to complete me because I wasn't given enough "filling" or whatevs. I like fat guys because they're cute as all hell and turn me on and that's about it.

So please add one hash mark to the nay column on your tally.


----------



## Amaranthine (Aug 26, 2010)

Amandy said:


> So I don't know how much you want to muse and speculate, but its all bullshit until you do some kind of study on a sufficient amount of FFAs to extrapolate the appropriate amount of data.
> 
> I'll start - my parents were/are wonderful, supportive people and I've never felt like I needed a man to complete me because I wasn't given enough "filling" or whatevs. I like fat guys because they're cute as all hell and turn me on and that's about it.
> 
> So please add one hash mark to the nay column on your tally.



I had totally supporting parents when I was younger too. And I feel the same way- I don't think my desires come from an attempt to compensate for my childhood. 

Though, the fact that I was always teased/felt alone when I was in school may contribute to the fact that I LOVE the protective aspect of being with a bigger guy. But that's just a fringe benefit ^^

And, as interesting as it'd be to have an FFA study- I don't think it'd be that clear cut and it'd be very hard to do. While we have some similarities, there are huge differences- including in what we like and how much we like it (Is the preference for fat guys optional, preferred, or exclusive?) Some may have a strong preference for bigger guys, others may NEED a bigger guy to feel sexually satisfied. Others might like stuffing or feeding. There's a lot of variety, but it wouldn't be nearly as awesome if we were all the same :happy:


----------



## Fat Molly (Aug 27, 2010)

BigChaz said:


> I judge this post of yours a gigantic cop-out.
> 
> Next topic?
> 
> Also, don't complain when you start hiccuping in line at the bank or something and some guy starts masturbating while making eye contact with you.



All right, now that you have explained the context--yes, I understand how that would be definitely disturbing. However, it would be clear at that point that if a bloke thinks it is acceptable to masturbate in public, and moreover within the scope of sight of his innocent 'victim'...and MOREOVER thinks it acceptable to make eye contact with the 'victim'...it's fairly obvious that he has a mental disorder.

It's a difference of setting. People access the internet from a private space. It is, however, a public form of communication. There are many people who participate publicly, and there are many people who do not participate, just watch. If a person gets a sexual rush or has another reaction based on something he/she sees or reads on the internet, that's their business in the private sphere, not ours as participants in the public sphere of the content-providers. 

You are unfortunately confused as to these subtle distinctions. 

Think of reading. If you get a sexual kick out of Jane Austen...how many Jane Eyre fantasies have been wrought because of her?...it really isn't her business to get offended. It's done in private. Her book is what's public. 

It doesn't matter how people interpret you or your work. But you can't object, and really have no basis on a moral or practical standpoint to object, unless they directly voice their opinions or responses in public. THEN one can, and probably should, respond, especially if they are responding in a way that seems totally wrong and ignorant.

I'd say that with this addendum, my response is far from a cop out. 


My desire to get back on topic, however, is totally not irrelevant, either. So, shall we?


----------



## Fat Molly (Aug 27, 2010)

Amandy said:


> So I don't know how much you want to muse and speculate, but its all bullshit until you do some kind of study on a sufficient amount of FFAs to extrapolate the appropriate amount of data.
> 
> I'll start - my parents were/are wonderful, supportive people and I've never felt like I needed a man to complete me because I wasn't given enough "filling" or whatevs. I like fat guys because they're cute as all hell and turn me on and that's about it.
> 
> So please add one hash mark to the nay column on your tally.



Cool. That's what I figured I would get from a lot of you. 

My parents were...supportive in their own way. Unfortunately, I have never felt like you feel, hence my reason for all this questioning.



Amaranthine said:


> I had totally supporting parents when I was younger too. And I feel the same way- I don't think my desires come from an attempt to compensate for my childhood.
> 
> Though, the fact that I was always teased/felt alone when I was in school may contribute to the fact that I LOVE the protective aspect of being with a bigger guy. But that's just a fringe benefit ^^
> 
> And, as interesting as it'd be to have an FFA study- I don't think it'd be that clear cut and it'd be very hard to do. While we have some similarities, there are huge differences- including in what we like and how much we like it (Is the preference for fat guys optional, preferred, or exclusive?) Some may have a strong preference for bigger guys, others may NEED a bigger guy to feel sexually satisfied. Others might like stuffing or feeding. There's a lot of variety, but it wouldn't be nearly as awesome if we were all the same :happy:



Good for you, I'm glad that you're another FFA with strong parents. 

It wouldn't be practical to have an FFA study, I totally agree. The logistics of carrying out such a procedure seem overwhelming. (I know my preference for fat guys is preferred, not exclusive, for instance.) 

Good point about the sameness, of course.


----------



## BigChaz (Aug 27, 2010)

Fat Molly said:


> All right, now that you have explained the context--yes, I understand how that would be definitely disturbing. However, it would be clear at that point that if a bloke thinks it is acceptable to masturbate in public, and moreover within the scope of sight of his innocent 'victim'...and MOREOVER thinks it acceptable to make eye contact with the 'victim'...it's fairly obvious that he has a mental disorder.
> 
> It's a difference of setting. People access the internet from a private space. It is, however, a public form of communication. There are many people who participate publicly, and there are many people who do not participate, just watch. If a person gets a sexual rush or has another reaction based on something he/she sees or reads on the internet, that's their business in the private sphere, not ours as participants in the public sphere of the content-providers.
> 
> ...



Honestly, I am just enjoying you writing tons of text to discuss the issue of sneeze-jackers. Everything you have said is pretty much common sense to anyone who isn't in fifth grade.

Back to the main topic!


----------



## butch (Aug 27, 2010)

In Devinat Desires, Gates mentions a book called Female Fetishes. Its really good, so if you can get books from a college library, you should be able to get a copy of it.


----------



## Fat Molly (Aug 27, 2010)

BigChaz said:


> Honestly, I am just enjoying you writing tons of text to discuss the issue of sneeze-jackers. Everything you have said is pretty much common sense to anyone who isn't in fifth grade.
> 
> Back to the main topic!



I'm a philosophy student. I react to questions of many parts with many answers, with extrapolations. It's an attempt to clarify the vague. Plus, I do think it's a many-sided issue that, actually, is interesting.

Haven't read Deviant Desires or Female Fetishes, and I do have a big college library at my disposal, so I'll take a look at those.

Just to restate the new ideas that I'd like to propose discussion of...


-Is our obsession with fat something to do with latent desire for motherhood? In other words, is the process of becoming larger as one becomes more and more pregnant the source of our sexual attraction?

(This is something my ex specifically mentioned as a possibility. But there is a difference, it seems obvious, between getting fatter and having a baby grow inside.)

-Is it something to do with the contrast of idleness and plenty? Like, long fingernails used to be attractive since only the rich would be able to grow them because they were a sign of not having to work. Fat could be seen as something that indicates that you've got it made and don't need to work...or something along those lines. Would you acknowledge this as a possibility?

(I would say it is a POSSIBILITY...for some people...but at least not from my own subjective standpoint. Dress is usually a better indicator of socioeconomic level in today's society. And while there is appeal to a nice rotund guy in a suit, button-down, or tight t-shirt...it's more a matter of LET'S GET THAT THING OFF HIM!  Lol.)

-Could it be derived from the primal, bestial reasoning that fatness, in the wild, indicates that you are a good hunter and provider? Or, along the same lines, from that urge to eat until satiated because one never knew when one's next meal would be coming along? A combination of both these reasons?

(I have no idea about this. It's a possibility...just, what do you think?)

-What about fat equals fertility and femininity? Should I, as a heterosexual female, question my sexual preference because of my aesthetic and tactile preference for a fat mate? Does this indicate that I should, in reality, be a lesbian? 

(This one is less serious, because I sure as heck know that I'd much prefer a 'key' in my 'lock'...and not have to deal with another 'lock' in the bedroom. Though it has worried me a little, at times. I admit that I look at fat women just as much as I look at fat men, though I don't visualize females ever in my fantasies, and I don't think they turn me on...except if I'm imagining that I'm just as curvy and sexy as they are...)

-Is it because we somehow associate fatness with food, and somehow associate bigger with better, because we're looking at other fatties with a pseudo-cannibalistic (?!) desire to 'devour' them? 

(Argh! This sounds really off the wall...but I do wonder why licking, nibbling, and sucking on fat seems to be totally natural to me.)


----------



## CastingPearls (Aug 27, 2010)

Sometimes a cigar is only a cigar. Perhaps, you (and I) lick, nibble and suck on fat simply because it feels good.


----------



## Buffetbelly (Aug 27, 2010)

Sasquatch! said:


> Why I seem to be positively normal.



Lacking a kink doesn't make you normal! It just makes you vanilla. Big difference.


----------



## Amandy (Aug 27, 2010)

Fat Molly said:


> Think of reading. If you get a sexual kick out of Jane Austen...how many Jane Eyre fantasies have been wrought because of her?...it really isn't her business to get offended. It's done in private. Her book is what's public.



I'm not sure what you meant here, but Jane Austen and Jane Eyre are NOT the same - not author, not genre, not era - and definitely not the same romantic fantasy. I love Jane Austen, but we can't give her credit for every book written by a female prior to the 20th century.

p.s. when I read Pride and Prejudice, I picture Mr. Darcy on the tubby side


----------



## Hole (Aug 27, 2010)

I like my vagina being filled. Excellent study. Everything makes sense to me now. Next,please.

- Hole


----------



## Fat Molly (Aug 28, 2010)

Amandy said:


> I'm not sure what you meant here, but Jane Austen and Jane Eyre are NOT the same - not author, not genre, not era - and definitely not the same romantic fantasy. I love Jane Austen, but we can't give her credit for every book written by a female prior to the 20th century.
> 
> p.s. when I read Pride and Prejudice, I picture Mr. Darcy on the tubby side



GAH. My mistake. I just got my authors crossed. I know this. Jane Eyre = Charlotte Bronte. Jane Austen = Pride and Prejudice, Sense and Sensibility, etc. Just the Jane association. Good catch on your part. As for Mr. Darcy, I imagined him just stocky. But that's because I watched the beautiful BBC version before I read the book.

@Casting Pearls: That seems more and more probable.


----------



## butch (Aug 28, 2010)

What is interesting about some of these specualtions and questions is that they seem predicated on the FA being thin. For those of us who are fat FAs, I don't think we make the same assumptions about what fatness signifies, or why it is desirable, then thin F(F)As might. Do you all think that there is a big difference between why fat FFAs like fat male partners, and why thin FFAs like fat male partners?


----------



## FishCharming (Aug 28, 2010)

Hole said:


> I like my vagina being filled. Excellent study. Everything makes sense to me now. Next,please.
> 
> - Hole



are you accepting volunteers from the audience? *Raises Hand*


----------



## Sasquatch! (Aug 28, 2010)

Buffetbelly said:


> Lacking a kink doesn't make you normal! It just makes you vanilla. Big difference.



Or could just be mine aren't on there


----------



## CastingPearls (Aug 28, 2010)

butch said:


> What is interesting about some of these specualtions and questions is that they seem predicated on the FA being thin. For those of us who are fat FAs, I don't think we make the same assumptions about what fatness signifies, or why it is desirable, then thin F(F)As might. Do you all think that there is a big difference between why fat FFAs like fat male partners, and why thin FFAs like fat male partners?


I can say that in my case, as a BBW/FFA --I'm from a fat family..goes back generations...the thin ones are an anomoly. Big is like home. If I like the odd thin or average person, I think it speaks more about me being a bit more openminded about the whole package.


----------



## JenFromOC (Aug 30, 2010)

I just like big guys. Not really sure why it has to be explained by how my parents treated me or if there was some trauma in my childhood. I prefer not to think of it too deeply because honestly, that would probably take 100% of the enjoyment out of my preference. Like, I didn't even read this thread in detail....I just want to love on a fat guy.


----------



## Wanderer (Aug 30, 2010)

Fat Molly said:


> I'm a philosophy student. I react to questions of many parts with many answers, with extrapolations. It's an attempt to clarify the vague. Plus, I do think it's a many-sided issue that, actually, is interesting.
> 
> Haven't read Deviant Desires or Female Fetishes, and I do have a big college library at my disposal, so I'll take a look at those.
> 
> ...



Very much so. There _are_ people who get turned on by pregnant women (and fictional pregnant men), but that seems to be a more life-centered fetish; it's the burgeoning life that makes them more atractive, rather than their size. (Pregnancy fetishes don't react to fat stomachs much, if at all.)



> -Is it something to do with the contrast of idleness and plenty? Like, long fingernails used to be attractive since only the rich would be able to grow them because they were a sign of not having to work. Fat could be seen as something that indicates that you've got it made and don't need to work...or something along those lines. Would you acknowledge this as a possibility?



Well, it was originally a sign of plenty. In the days before refrigeration, you had to either eat the food or throw it out -- and throwing it out would be wasteful (rather than waist-ful), so those who were the best providers tended to be fat. Thus, it may be part of the fetish; an instinctive desire for a good provider.



> (I would say it is a POSSIBILITY...for some people...but at least not from my own subjective standpoint. Dress is usually a better indicator of socioeconomic level in today's society. And while there is appeal to a nice rotund guy in a suit, button-down, or tight t-shirt...it's more a matter of LET'S GET THAT THING OFF HIM!  Lol.)
> 
> -Could it be derived from the primal, bestial reasoning that fatness, in the wild, indicates that you are a good hunter and provider? Or, along the same lines, from that urge to eat until satiated because one never knew when one's next meal would be coming along? A combination of both these reasons?



Covered above.



> (I have no idea about this. It's a possibility...just, what do you think?)
> 
> -What about fat equals fertility and femininity? Should I, as a heterosexual female, question my sexual preference because of my aesthetic and tactile preference for a fat mate? Does this indicate that I should, in reality, be a lesbian?



Oh, heavens... no. The whole "fat men are feminine" idea is based on comparing them to the old "earth mother" idea, which really doesn't have much basis in reality (as far as I'm concerned, anyway). That's not to say there isn't a _little_ cross-gender attraction in some cases -- moob fetishists come to mind -- but it isn't so much a matter of wanting a different gender as appreciating some of the obvious characteristics of that gender. (Heck, nobody ever seems to argue that gay men who like their partner femme are really straight...) 



> (This one is less serious, because I sure as heck know that I'd much prefer a 'key' in my 'lock'...and not have to deal with another 'lock' in the bedroom. Though it has worried me a little, at times. I admit that I look at fat women just as much as I look at fat men, though I don't visualize females ever in my fantasies, and I don't think they turn me on...except if I'm imagining that I'm just as curvy and sexy as they are...)
> 
> -Is it because we somehow associate fatness with food, and somehow associate bigger with better, because we're looking at other fatties with a pseudo-cannibalistic (?!) desire to 'devour' them?
> 
> (Argh! This sounds really off the wall...but I do wonder why licking, nibbling, and sucking on fat seems to be totally natural to me.)



HA!  Sorry, it just struck me as funny. No, you're not literally trying to eat your partner -- well, not in _that_ way, at least.  It has more to do with a combination of our suppressed grooming instincts and the texture of fat -- you're just having an intensely pleasurable physical interaction, and the mouth is one of the most sensitive parts of the body.


----------



## Sasquatch! (Aug 30, 2010)

Wanderer said:


> Very much so. There _are_ people who get turned on by pregnant women (and fictional pregnant men), but that seems to be a more life-centered fetish; it's the burgeoning life that makes them more attractive, rather than their size. (Pregnancy fetishes don't react to fat stomachs much, if at all.)



It's called maiesophilia, thank you very much.


----------



## FishCharming (Aug 30, 2010)

Sasquatch! said:


> It's called maiesophilia, thank you very much.



pregnancy sex is hot! :blush:


----------

