# An attraction to fatness should be considered...



## olwen (Oct 20, 2008)

Okay folks, I know we've had this discussion in various ways in numerous threads, but I couldn't find a poll about it, so I thought I'd start one. I want to get a general sense of what the Dims community thinks about this, and why we all feel the way we do. 

I feel the attraction to fatness should be considered a sexuality if only because there are some aspects of (sexual) attraction that may only be specific to FAs. Plus there are some things a fat person can offer sexually that a thin person just can't (Belly sex anyone). And fortunately or unfortunately we have our own fat specific (sexual) jargon. One could also make the comparison to the GBLTQ community in that there are aspects of sexuality that are specific to that community. And we tend to think of same sex coupling as a sexuality. No?

I think all that taken together make a good case for an attraction to fatness to be a sexuality. 

But that's just me. What does everyone else think?


----------



## Chimpi (Oct 21, 2008)

Why can it not be all of those things and more?
Everyone has to admit that his or her experience with being a "fat admirer" might be quite different from others' thoughts or opinions on it. I consider it an orientation - no, a requirement, to be specific [so that others understand] - whereas some people consider it just a preference. Both of these categories say that we/they are sexually attracted to the fat figure and both at least _want_ a fat person in their lives (or so I can presume).
However at the same time there are those that believe it's just a fetish, a sexual before-thought that is dealt with by means of sexual activity, individual sexual stimulation or fantasies based upon fat.

There are so many different possibilities; that pretty much relates to almost anything in life. Why should this subject be any different?

I voted for "no big deal."


----------



## B68 (Oct 21, 2008)

I agree it's a sexuality. As an absolute FA i think BBW=Woman or Woman=BBW. So i don't make a big deal of it. It's a one way preference. And somewere in this sexuality are some fetishes. Though i tend to see fetishes as natural sexuality as well.


----------



## Emma (Oct 21, 2008)

I'm not sure. I believe it depends on the person admiring the fat. For some it is just a preference, for others a fetish.


----------



## B68 (Oct 21, 2008)

CurvyEm said:


> I'm not sure. I believe it depends on the person admiring the fat. For some it is just a preference, for others a fetish.



Ok. I understand your view. 

But it's about FA's. Admiring is much stronger than having a preference. Not all FA's admire in the same degree or in the same way, but we can't have a happy love life with a slim person. I think that defines being an FA.

And being an FA is natural, just as being gay is, or being a BBW or BHM. There's no way you can call it a fetish. A fetish is a contribution. Most people who have a fetish can live without if they have to. Or they can addapt the fetish to circumstances.


----------



## babyjeep21 (Oct 21, 2008)

I've always thought of FAs as just having a preference for bigger women. In my mind, the acts that are done with those women determine what is and is not a fetish.

I think that attraction is based on preference. Fetishes are based on the needs you have/acts you perform with the person you are attracted to.

Do you get your jollies off by feeding someone? Fetish.
Do you get your jollies off by having someone sit on your chest? Fetish.
Do you need to asphyxiate to get off? That's a fetish! 
Is it a fetish just because you enjoy being with someone who is big and fluffy? I don't think so.

I wouldn't necessarily say it's sexual (like you're saying the GLBT community is)... My gay friends want nothing to do with the opposite sex. There is nothing about them that remotely turns them on. However, plenty of FAs can say that they've seen a pretty skinny girl and tried dating her.

What about the word orientation? If you want to compare the fat community to the GLBT community. It would be a good word to include. The attraction to a particular person may not be choice or preference, it could just be a natural biological desire. Nothing wrong with that.


----------



## LoveBHMS (Oct 21, 2008)

I agree with Em. I think it's partly the degree to which somebody needs a partner of a certain size to become sexually aroused, and also a matter of the affects that a fat person has on one's sexuality. 

Also it seems that there can be a question of the involvment of sexuality in the attraction. In other words, are you somebody who might merely find a fat person aesthetically appealing or would you see a fat person as a part of your sexual orientation where fat person=potential sexual interest.

I also do not see the word 'fetish' as a negative thing so I think saying one has a 'fat fetish' is fine. There is a hot HOT fat guy at my job. Everyone knows I'm into fat guys and I was giggling with one of the other women about a cute thing that happened when the hot fat guy's belly knocked something over. The other woman said "Your fetish is so cute. It must be great to be able to get turned on by something as simple as a guy's beer gut knocking something over." It made total sense to me that she used the word fetish and I was not offended at all.


----------



## olwen (Oct 21, 2008)

Thanks everybody for your responses so far. I'm honestly surprised so many have voted so far. Obviously, I didn't think of the word "*Orientation*." I wish I had. I did however make preference a choice because that is a word FAs have used often. 

I'm not so sure tho what exactly the difference is between an orientation and a preference. But to try to define it, is it something like: a preference can exist within an orientation? So for example, a person can't help but to be attracted to fat people, but sometimes they like fat blondes and other times fat redheads. For those of you who chose orientation, does this make sense? Am I on the right track or is that too simplistic?


----------



## babyjeep21 (Oct 21, 2008)

olwen said:


> Thanks everybody for your responses so far. I'm honestly surprised so many have voted so far. Obviously, I didn't think of the word "*Orientation*." I wish I had. I did however make preference a choice because that is a word FAs have used often.
> 
> I'm not so sure tho what exactly the difference is between an orientation and a preference. But to try to define it, is it something like: a preference can exist within an orientation? So for example, a person can't help but to be attracted to fat people, but sometimes they like fat blondes and other times fat redheads. For those of you who chose orientation, does this make sense? Am I on the right track or is that too simplistic?



My understanding is that...

Having a preference means you're more attracted to one trait than another. As in, a woman may prefer a man who is her height, but that doesn't mean it will stop her from dating someone who is shorter than she is. Her sexual attraction isn't necessarily hindered by the height difference.

Having an orientation means that something inside you is clearly attracted to one and only one thing. A gay man may find a woman pretty, but that doesn't make him sexually attracted to her. His sexual orientation is for another male.

I have met plenty of FAs who have absolutely no interest in a skinny woman. They just aren't turned on by them.

That is what I meant by "orientation".


----------



## Santaclear (Oct 21, 2008)

I don't think it matters much what you call it, except from the standpoint that most people wouldn't want to be considered "a fetish." That's why I voted "no big deal."

And calling it "a fetish" is a much harder sell all around. 

Truthfully I think _all_ sex is "a fetish." The more you think about it, the less it makes sense. After awhile, who needs sense?


----------



## superodalisque (Oct 21, 2008)

i think it depends on the person and how they manifest their interest. so i don't think there is a blanket answer.


----------



## olwen (Oct 21, 2008)

babyjeep21 said:


> My understanding is that...
> 
> Having a preference means you're more attracted to one trait than another. As in, a woman may prefer a man who is her height, but that doesn't mean it will stop her from dating someone who is shorter than she is. Her sexual attraction isn't necessarily hindered by the height difference.
> 
> ...



Thanks for the explanation. Only now, I have to wonder what is the difference between an orientation and a sexuality. Sigh. I'll have to give it some thought.


----------



## babyjeep21 (Oct 21, 2008)

olwen said:


> Thanks for the explanation. Only now, I have to wonder what is the difference between an orientation and a sexuality. Sigh. I'll have to give it some thought.



Good luck on that one! I really don't think it matters... I was just trying to explain the way I look at the difference between preference and orientation.

...and I am by no means an expert.


----------



## olwen (Oct 21, 2008)

Santaclear said:


> I don't think it matters much what you call it, except from the standpoint that most people wouldn't want to be considered "a fetish." That's why I voted "no big deal."
> 
> And calling it "a fetish" is a much harder sell all around.
> 
> Truthfully I think _all_ sex is "a fetish." The more you think about it, the less it makes sense. After awhile, who needs sense?



You're right, most people wouldn't want to be labeled as a fetish. A fetishist perhaps, but not a fetish. But unfortunately, not so long ago, I considered myself some guy's fetish even tho I hated that idea. I just accepted that as a reality. I'm sure a lot of us have at one time or another. I think, without the ballast of a healthy relationship, or the knowledge of an alternative, this is how we tend to lean. It's unfortunate. 



superodalisque said:


> i think it depends on the person and how they manifest their interest. so i don't think there is a blanket answer.



You're right too. It does seem to depend on a person's level of desire. Somehow, tho, that strikes me as odd. I feel as tho there should be more uniformity. Don't get me wrong, plurality is good, but I think perhaps, the expectation or hope that others will be exactly like you (the universal you), or the hope that you could be like everybody else sometimes makes for a confusing dialog. I feel like we are often navigating choppy waters. Having some sort of loose classification system would make understanding (a general understanding of FAs of fat folks and vice versa) each other a lot easier. Maybe quite a few conflicts and misunderstandings would be avoided. I'm not talking about anything specific, I just mean in a general sense.

...I just want an easier way for us all to understand each other. Know what I mean?


----------



## olwen (Oct 21, 2008)

babyjeep21 said:


> Good luck on that one! I really don't think it matters... I was just trying to explain the way I look at the difference between preference and orientation.
> 
> ...and I am by no means an expert.



 No worries. I liked your explanation. :happy: ...I don't know about other people, but this kind of stuff matters to me...


----------



## Emma (Oct 22, 2008)

B68 said:


> Ok. I understand your view.
> 
> But it's about FA's. Admiring is much stronger than having a preference. Not all FA's admire in the same degree or in the same way, but we can't have a happy love life with a slim person. I think that defines being an FA.
> 
> And being an FA is natural, just as being gay is, or being a BBW or BHM. There's no way you can call it a fetish. A fetish is a contribution. Most people who have a fetish can live without if they have to. Or they can addapt the fetish to circumstances.



Most people with a fetish find it hard to be sexually stimulated without it, if at all. I believe people can live without a preference. 

I've met loads of people into fat. My ex had a fat fetish and was obsessed with everything about a FAT body. My current boyfriend has a preference for fat women, like one would have a preference for hair colour.


----------



## No-No-Badkitty (Oct 22, 2008)

I voted preference, because, being fat is like being tall, thin, blonde, brunette etc. And honestly, I wouldn't want it (being fat) to be classified as anything but a characteristic.
Yes, I do think it could be a fetish (if the person *wanted* it to be) but to me, being a fetish, would classify me in the same category as women's shoes, whips and chains, women dressing in school girl uniforms, and quite honestly as a person, I wouldn not want to be JUST a fetish. Nor would I want to BE with someone that I was just a fetish too. 
As for an "sexuality". Fat is not a category of "sex". Sex being male or female and any combination there of.


----------



## Tad (Oct 22, 2008)

I answered 'not sure' (although maybe I should have said 'not a big deal'). Because I think it can be a preference or a fetish, and possibly a sexuality.



CurvyEm said:


> Most people with a fetish find it hard to be sexually stimulated without it, if at all. I believe people can live without a preference.
> 
> I've met loads of people into fat. My ex had a fat fetish and was obsessed with everything about a FAT body. My current boyfriend has a preference for fat women, like one would have a preference for hair colour.



Thanks Em for providing such a good example of preference versus fetish. Pretty clearly there are lots of guys who prefer fat women and women who prefer fat guys, but there are also some who have a fetish for the fat.

There seem to be a small number who are attracted to fat members of either gender, but not to thin people of either gender. That maybe classifies as a sexuality? (else I suppose you'd call them bisexuals with a fat fetish, or something like that).


----------



## LoveBHMS (Oct 22, 2008)

I do think it is, or can be, a sexual issue, but it's also undeniabley true that human sexuality is a complex matter. 

A straight male or female can suddenly be aroused by somebody of the same sex. Somebody who was "never into younger men" can suddenly realized "Oh wow...I have a huge crush on (younger person). 

I'm NOT talking about a situation where you overlook a physical characteristic because you like somebody, as in "I'm not typically into thin guys but ____ is so smart and funny I like him anyway" but rather when an unexpected crush or sexual arousal happens. I consider myself an FFA, but I can, and have been sexually attracted to thin men; it is rare but it does happen. One reason I do identify as an FFA is that when I do find myself sexually attracted to somebody thin, I specifically take notice of it. I mean I actually think "oh, it's funny that I find ______ attractive since he's thin."


----------



## altered states (Oct 22, 2008)

As in, don't knock it til you've tried it.

But seriously folks, I think it's a fetish, though I only know myself (and barely at that). I've been assured by many on these boards that there are guys for which it is a preference, and don't get into the fetishy stuff, going gaga over measurements, feeding/weight gain, stuckage, etc like I do. So I guess it depends on the individual FAs. Also I believe there are degrees of fetishism. Some fetishists absolutely need their fetish to get off; others just prefer it. 

So, NOTA.

(Easy to talk yourself in circles on this topic - I guess that's why it's never gotten old.)


----------



## g-squared (Oct 22, 2008)

I basically voted for "no big deal" because i dont think it makes me any different than someone who thinks whatever else is attractive. I havent exactly advertised the fact that i think fat girls are the sexiest, but I make no effort to try and hide it either.


----------



## mediaboy (Oct 22, 2008)

I'm sure to some people it is all of these things and more and shouldn't really be a big deal.

If you look at the text book definition for fetish it is clearly something difference than a sexual preference.


----------



## viracocha (Oct 22, 2008)

Fatness is an example of each of the categories. It can be described by some as an irrational devotion to something, a difference in reproductive or gender roles (arguable), or a predisposition to favor something. Although, it's importance is relative to the person you're talking to. How much someone has staked of their identity in the notion of "fatness", I think, often predicts how they'll categorize themselves. 

For me, I describe fatness as a sexuality or even preference: not much of my identity revolves around being an FFA, but it does influence my perception of the world and how I behave. But for people that incorporate fat into every aspect of their lives, it describes who they are. If some people think that is irrational, then perhaps they should take a look at their own vices and obsessions. I think that people should generally understand that values, standards, and norms are completely relative, and refrain from objectifying others.

Just my humble, little old opinion... ;P


----------



## olwen (Oct 22, 2008)

All the responses thus far are really interesting. The more we talk about this the more confusing it becomes tho, but everyone has made really good and valid points....

I'm starting to think that maybe it would help to say there are degrees of attraction. There is a scale, from:

_No big deal/It's irrelevant_ - it doesn't make a difference to me one way or the other what size my partner is and I don't identify as an FA, to 

_Preference_ - I like fat but I don't need it, and I don't much identify as an FA, to 

_Orientation _ - Nothing else turns me on, and I identify as an FA, to 

_Fetish-like _- Not only do fat people turn me on, but I can only enjoy a fat partner in a certain way, and I very much identify as an FA, to 

_Fetish (Double Plus) _ - I can only enjoy a fat partner as a feeder/gainer, and anything else is lacking. 

I know this might seem reductive, but this exercise has helped me a great deal. I never thought of an attraction to fat this way. It just seemed to be sort of black and white for me till now, you know...either you like fat or you don't whether or not you have any extra fetishes. Period. But I see now that's limiting. Any level of attraction to fatness can't be bad right? There really is no right answer.


----------



## Chimpi (Oct 23, 2008)

olwen said:


> There really is no right answer.



Correct.


----------



## stan_der_man (Oct 23, 2008)

olwen said:


> There really is no right answer.





Chimpi said:


> olwen said:
> 
> 
> > There really is no right answer.
> ...


I agree!
..........


----------



## garbled (Oct 23, 2008)

For me its a preference, like liking redheads or liking a man with a hairy chest(or not) I think anything becomes a fetish if it becomes the only criteria for choosing a partner, for me it would go something like intelligence,similar outlook and interests, curvy and cuddly all part of it not one thing and one thing alone.


----------



## William (Oct 23, 2008)

Hi 

I have always read that Women seldom have Fetishes, that would invalidate the possibility of Fat Admiration being a Fetish.

William 





olwen said:


> Okay folks, I know we've had this discussion in various ways in numerous threads, but I couldn't find a poll about it, so I thought I'd start one. I want to get a general sense of what the Dims community thinks about this, and why we all feel the way we do.
> 
> I feel the attraction to fatness should be considered a sexuality if only because there are some aspects of (sexual) attraction that may only be specific to FAs. Plus there are some things a fat person can offer sexually that a thin person just can't (Belly sex anyone). And fortunately or unfortunately we have our own fat specific (sexual) jargon. One could also make the comparison to the GBLTQ community in that there are aspects of sexuality that are specific to that community. And we tend to think of same sex coupling as a sexuality. No?
> 
> ...


----------



## babyjeep21 (Oct 23, 2008)

William said:


> Hi
> 
> I have always read that Women seldom have Fetishes, that would invalidate the possibility of Fat Admiration being a Fetish.
> 
> William



Plenty of women have fetishes. And even if we didn't, how on earth could that possibly invalidate fat admiration as a fetish?

Now, I personally don't feel that it is a fetish. But your statement logically doesn't make sense to me.


----------



## LoveBHMS (Oct 23, 2008)

William said:


> Hi
> 
> I have always read that Women seldom have Fetishes, that would invalidate the possibility of Fat Admiration being a Fetish.
> 
> William



Hi

This is a load of nonsense. Humans are sexual beings, and women are human. There is zero logic behind the notion that an totally common and normal aspect of human sexuality would exist in only in males.

Not sure where you come up with some of this stuff.

L.


----------



## Lady at Large (Oct 23, 2008)

Back in the day I would have said that it is a fetish plain and simple, now I am more in the idea that it is a preference, maybe next year I will think it is an orientation.


----------



## Tad (Oct 23, 2008)

olwen said:


> I'm starting to think that maybe it would help to say there are degrees of attraction. There is a scale, from:
> 
> _No big deal/It's irrelevant_ - it doesn't make a difference to me one way or the other what size my partner is and I don't identify as an FA, to
> 
> ...



Personally I don't think it is a single scale. That is, I think you can have varying degrees of preference for a fat partner, with or without varying degrees of a fat fetish. And Fat as a sexual orientation is probably another thing again.

Or to put it another way, I think that there is a qualitative difference between these things, not solely a quantitative one. Kind of like one can be a gourmet, and one can like eating a lot, and one can be both, or neither. 

All just IMO.

-Ed


----------



## thatgirl08 (Oct 23, 2008)

The way I look at it is that preference is more like an umbrella term in which fetish and sexuality could sort of fall into. Like, for those who fetishize fat and for those who fat is a necessity, it's still a preference. So, everyone who is attracted to fat has a preference for it, but then within that group they may think it's a necessity or they may have a related fetish, but that is not necessarily true of everyone with that preference. So, I think if you're just looking at attraction to fat in general terms, it's just a preference.

I'm not really sure if any of that made sense or not.


----------



## William (Oct 23, 2008)

I do not think that it is a Fetish either.

What I did not consider is how many women here consider themselves to have a fetish even if the American Psychological Association (APA) says otherwise about women. I was thinking that if the APA was right then most of the female members of Dimensions would automatically answer no to fetish. 

I now realize that Dimension is a sample or subset of society 

William





babyjeep21 said:


> Plenty of women have fetishes. And even if we didn't, how on earth could that possibly invalidate fat admiration as a fetish?
> 
> Now, I personally don't feel that it is a fetish. But your statement logically doesn't make sense to me.


----------



## olwen (Oct 23, 2008)

William, 

You must remember that women are not encouraged to express their sexuality. I say this over and over again for a reason. That doesn't mean women don't fetishize anything, only that we probably don't talk about it much. I have a fetish that has nothing to do with fat. There are millions of women who are into what I'm into. What would the APA say about that? Plus men have this tendency to believe that women are strange creatures from another planet. It amazes me how difficult it is for some men to be able to relate to women. What does this have to do with the APA? Think about it.


----------



## James (Oct 23, 2008)

Its an 'orientation' or even a 'sexuality' for FAs like me I think...

You cant really expect a gay man to be sexually attracted to a woman. You cant expect an FA like me to be sexually attracted to a thin woman... ergo.. its an orientation.


----------



## Victim (Oct 23, 2008)

An attraction to fatness should be considered...

Normal.


----------



## William (Oct 23, 2008)

Excellent point!!!!

William 




Victim said:


> An attraction to fatness should be considered...
> 
> Normal.


----------



## William (Oct 23, 2008)

I guess that you are right despite all of the documentation and published material that says otherwise.

William




olwen said:


> William,
> 
> You must remember that women are not encouraged to express their sexuality. I say this over and over again for a reason. That doesn't mean women don't fetishize anything, only that we probably don't talk about it much. I have a fetish that has nothing to do with fat. There are millions of women who are into what I'm into. What would the APA say about that? Plus men have this tendency to believe that women are strange creatures from another planet. It amazes me how difficult it is for some men to be able to relate to women. What does this have to do with the APA? Think about it.


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy (Oct 23, 2008)

Lol..............


----------



## Chimpi (Oct 23, 2008)

William said:


> I guess that you are right despite all of the documentation and published material that says otherwise.
> 
> William



According to doctors and most health studies, being fat in and of itself and everything related to it is severely unhealthy...


----------



## William (Oct 23, 2008)

Hi Chimpi

The claim that I was quoting was not passing judgment on people with Fetishes or any other group of People. It is a simple statistic similar to the demographics that show there are more Fat Men than Women.

William



Chimpi said:


> According to doctors and most health studies, being fat in and of itself and everything related to it is severely unhealthy...


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy (Oct 23, 2008)

It just doesn't seem fair to BHMs, or men in general, to say that they are the only ones with a fetish potential..........

I would love to read those published studies myself, William, if you had some links. They could be fascinating.


----------



## babyjeep21 (Oct 23, 2008)

Green Eyed Fairy said:


> It just doesn't seem fair to BHMs, or men in general, to say that they are the only ones with a fetish potential..........
> 
> I would love to read those published studies myself, William, if you had some links. They could be fascinating.



GEF, I couldn't agree with you more.

William, you keep addressing "documentation and published material." I would really like to see some evidence or empirical data. I'm curious to see who is putting this information out there.


----------



## William (Oct 23, 2008)

Maybe it is because men are visual????


........Inanimate object fetishes can be categorized into two types: form fetishes and media fetishes. In a form fetish, the object and its shape are important, such as high-heeled shoes. In a media fetish, the material of the object is important, such as silk or leather. Inanimate object fetishists often collect the object of their favor. In some cases, the fetishism is severe enough to inspire the fetishist to acquire objects of his desire through theft or assault. Fetishists smell, rub or handle these objects while masturbating or ask their sex partners to wear the objects; male fetishists may be unable to get erections without the presence of the objects. *Nearly all fetishists are male, though some women also exhibit fetishism*.......

Psychology Today
http://www.psychologytoday.com/conditions/fetishism.html

There are also some studies on when Females replace the Inanimate object in a person's Fetish.

William




Green Eyed Fairy said:


> It just doesn't seem fair to BHMs, or men in general, to say that they are the only ones with a fetish potential..........
> 
> I would love to read those published studies myself, William, if you had some links. They could be fascinating.


----------



## LoveBHMS (Oct 23, 2008)

Green Eyed Fairy said:


> It just doesn't seem fair to BHMs, or men in general, to say that they are the only ones with a fetish potential..........
> 
> I would love to read those published studies myself, William, if you had some links. They could be fascinating.



It also doesn't seem fair to women in general to assert that they can't have fetish potential.

I don't believe for a second that "all fetishists are male." I _might_ believe that only males are allowed/encouraged to admit to being fetishists or even that there is a greater social penalty for females to admit to, or even engage in fetish related behaviour. I see it as almost no different from saying that women are not interested in certain types of careers or activities because they don't mesh with traditionally accepted female attributes.


----------



## babyjeep21 (Oct 23, 2008)

LoveBHMS said:


> It also doesn't seem fair to women in general to assert that they can't have fetish potential.
> 
> I don't believe for a second that "all fetishists are male." I _might_ believe that only males are allowed/encouraged to admit to being fetishists or even that there is a greater social penalty for females to admit to, or even engage in fetish related behaviour. I see it as almost no different from saying that women are not interested in certain types of careers or activities because they don't mesh with traditionally accepted female attributes.



I totally agree with you... It's just like masturbation.

Most women will say "oh no, I've never done that" because we've been taught that it is shameful to please ourselves and admit it.

God forbid women enjoy ANYTHING! We're just here to reproduce and be the local T&A.


----------



## Dr. P Marshall (Oct 24, 2008)

William said:


> Maybe it is because men are visual????



AAGGGHHH!!! Here's another line that if I hear again, I'm going to take a hostage, seriously. This is not an attack on you William, I know this is all "common knowledge". But here is what I personally think. I think too many of the fools who study this stuff (psychologists, etc) are MEN. And if their research is like the branches of research I used to work in (public policy), let me tell you, you can very easily prove whatever you want to if you word a questionnaire right. (And there are specialists in survey methodology who devote their careers to just that btw). For God's sake, there'd be no FEMALE fat admirers if women weren't visual. Unless we just stumbled around not looking and grabbing at men randomly to see who was soft.  Also, as many have pointed out, women just don't talk about it as much. 

But what do I know, I thought I was a female fetishist, and I now understand that I am obviously just a figment of all of your imaginations.

I voted no big deal, because I actually think it depends on the FA in question. That's not meant to be a cop out, it's just that I've read enough things written by other FAs male and female around here to know that some seem to experience being an FA in a very similar way to me and some of them are having a _very_ different experience, yet we're all self identified fat admirers(even the ones who don't like the term, since they are after all, here at Dimensions).


----------



## William (Oct 24, 2008)

Hi Dr. P

Well for a person like myself who does not think that attraction to Fat is a Fetish the facts that I quoted would be meaningless in regards to most FAs and FFAs. I think that the enemies of Fat People and their supporters would love for Fat Attraction to be labeled a Fetish to create one more obstacle for Fat Acceptance to fight.

William






Dr. P Marshall said:


> AAGGGHHH!!! Here's another line that if I hear again, I'm going to take a hostage, seriously. This is not an attack on you William, I know this is all "common knowledge". But here is what I personally think. I think too many of the fools who study this stuff (psychologists, etc) are MEN. And if their research is like the branches of research I used to work in (public policy), let me tell you, you can very easily prove whatever you want to if you word a questionnaire right. (And there are specialists in survey methodology who devote their careers to just that btw). For God's sake, there'd be no FEMALE fat admirers if women weren't visual. Unless we just stumbled around not looking and grabbing at men randomly to see who was soft.  Also, as many have pointed out, women just don't talk about it as much.
> 
> But what do I know, I thought I was a female fetishist, and I now understand that I am obviously just a figment of all of your imaginations.
> 
> I voted no big deal, because I actually think it depends on the FA in question. That's not meant to be a cop out, it's just that I've read enough things written by other FAs male and female around here to know that some seem to experience being an FA in a very similar way to me and some of them are having a _very_ different experience, yet we're all self identified fat admirers(even the ones who don't like the term, since they are after all, here at Dimensions).


----------



## butch (Oct 24, 2008)

The fact that we're debating the idea of fetish and whether women can have them all goes back to the fact that our psychological understanding of sexuality is still heavily indebted to Freud, and he was incredibly misogynist when it came to viewing women's sexuality. The fact that we still even treat the word 'fetish' as if it has some objective, scientific basis is ill-founded. It is a concept based on the belief that all 'good' sex is the sex that white straight men are having, and anything else is 'deviant.' 

If we stick to the psychoanalytic textbook understanding of fetish, then pretty much all non-penis penetrating vagina sex is a fetish. I don't have any investment in whether someone describes their fat sexual beliefs/behaviors/desires as a fetish, an orientation, etc. The only thing I do mind is when the choice of certain labels furthers fat stigma, and that is the only reason I don't care for fetish and fat sexuality to be linked, even as I chose 'sexuality' as the label that most closely describes my perspective.

I don't view my queerness any different than I view my fat-based sexuality, in terms of attractions, practices, etc. Fat structures every aspect of my sexual being, even in the moments where my fat is not involved in the action or desire at hand, because I am a fat person and I always am sexual as a fat person, and all the involves on the physical level. Until the day comes that I can morph into a thin body and have great missionary sex with some skinny guy, then I'll always consider fat a 'sexuality.'


----------



## olwen (Oct 24, 2008)

William said:


> Hi Chimpi
> 
> The claim that I was quoting was not passing judgment on people with Fetishes or any other group of People. It is a simple statistic similar to the demographics that show there are more Fat Men than Women.
> 
> William





Green Eyed Fairy said:


> It just doesn't seem fair to BHMs, or men in general, to say that they are the only ones with a fetish potential..........
> 
> I would love to read those published studies myself, William, if you had some links. They could be fascinating.





babyjeep21 said:


> GEF, I couldn't agree with you more.
> 
> William, you keep addressing "documentation and published material." I would really like to see some evidence or empirical data. I'm curious to see who is putting this information out there.





William said:


> Maybe it is because men are visual????
> 
> 
> ........Inanimate object fetishes can be categorized into two types: form fetishes and media fetishes. In a form fetish, the object and its shape are important, such as high-heeled shoes. In a media fetish, the material of the object is important, such as silk or leather. Inanimate object fetishists often collect the object of their favor. In some cases, the fetishism is severe enough to inspire the fetishist to acquire objects of his desire through theft or assault. Fetishists smell, rub or handle these objects while masturbating or ask their sex partners to wear the objects; male fetishists may be unable to get erections without the presence of the objects. *Nearly all fetishists are male, though some women also exhibit fetishism*.......
> ...





LoveBHMS said:


> It also doesn't seem fair to women in general to assert that they can't have fetish potential.
> 
> I don't believe for a second that "all fetishists are male." I _might_ believe that only males are allowed/encouraged to admit to being fetishists or even that there is a greater social penalty for females to admit to, or even engage in fetish related behaviour. I see it as almost no different from saying that women are not interested in certain types of careers or activities because they don't mesh with traditionally accepted female attributes.



I've heard that statistic too about men tending to be fetishists. Don't ask me where, I couldn't tell you. Nearly all of them???? I doubt it. Like Dr P. says, how the statistics were compiled matters just as much as the results. What did they consider as a fetish? Panties and shoes. That sounds like normal acceptable sexual behavior to me. ::shrugs:: If men displayed themselves in a way that was more sexually suggestive for the benefit of women (not other men), I'm sure the reported numbers would balance out. I think maybe that statistic says more about our cultural expectations than it does about actual desire. Also, the DSM-IV's definition is rather vague. A far cry from what's in that article.


----------



## olwen (Oct 24, 2008)

butch said:


> The fact that we're debating the idea of fetish and whether women can have them all goes back to the fact that our psychological understanding of sexuality is still heavily indebted to Freud, and he was incredibly misogynist when it came to viewing women's sexuality. The fact that we still even treat the word 'fetish' as if it has some objective, scientific basis is ill-founded. It is a concept based on the belief that all 'good' sex is the sex that white straight men are having, and anything else is 'deviant.'
> 
> If we stick to the psychoanalytic textbook understanding of fetish, then pretty much all non-penis penetrating vagina sex is a fetish. I don't have any investment in whether someone describes their fat sexual beliefs/behaviors/desires as a fetish, an orientation, etc. The only thing I do mind is when the choice of certain labels furthers fat stigma, and that is the only reason I don't care for fetish and fat sexuality to be linked, even as I chose 'sexuality' as the label that most closely describes my perspective.
> 
> I don't view my queerness any different than I view my fat-based sexuality, in terms of attractions, practices, etc. Fat structures every aspect of my sexual being, even in the moments where my fat is not involved in the action or desire at hand, because I am a fat person and I always am sexual as a fat person, and all the involves on the physical level. Until the day comes that I can morph into a thin body and have great missionary sex with some skinny guy, then I'll always consider fat a 'sexuality.'



:bow::bow::bow:


----------



## viracocha (Oct 24, 2008)

Dr. P Marshall said:


> For God's sake, there'd be no FEMALE fat admirers if women weren't visual. Unless we just stumbled around not looking and grabbing at men randomly to see who was soft.



I'd be willing to test women's stimulation levels from vision and touch. You know, for the sake of science and stuff...


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy (Oct 25, 2008)

Dr. P Marshall said:


> AAGGGHHH!!! Here's another line that if I hear again, I'm going to take a hostage, seriously. This is not an attack on you William, I know this is all "common knowledge". But here is what I personally think. * I think too many of the fools who study this stuff (psychologists, etc) are MEN. * And if their research is like the branches of research I used to work in (public policy), let me tell you, you can very easily prove whatever you want to if you word a questionnaire right. (And there are specialists in survey methodology who devote their careers to just that btw). For God's sake, there'd be no FEMALE fat admirers if women weren't visual. Unless we just stumbled around not looking and grabbing at men randomly to see who was soft.  Also, as many have pointed out, women just don't talk about it as much.
> 
> But what do I know, I thought I was a female fetishist, and I now understand that I am obviously just a figment of all of your imaginations.
> 
> I voted no big deal, because I actually think it depends on the FA in question. That's not meant to be a cop out, it's just that I've read enough things written by other FAs male and female around here to know that some seem to experience being an FA in a very similar way to me and some of them are having a _very_ different experience, yet we're all self identified fat admirers(even the ones who don't like the term, since they are after all, here at Dimensions).



Lol, I wonder that, too. This reminds me of that "study" I read about one time that states they could find "no valid reason for women to have an orgasm as part of reproduction". Like a woman actually WANTING to f*ck doesn't help with the reproductive process.......:doh:

And yeah, I'm not a scientist and I didn't conduct a study but still managed to figure THAT one out......


----------



## mossystate (Oct 25, 2008)

Hey...we all know that women are only visual when it comes to home decor...shoes...sparkly gems...pretty flowers in lovely vases...makeup...the cutesy-wootsy of a baby's face...Sarah Palins glasses ................................


.........NEVER the curve of a mans ass ( speaking my native language of Hetero...YMMV )....or seeing a pair of sturdy thighs/legs and knowing exactly how she might play ' lets pretend I am a Scout and I need to start a fire '...or watching a man walk down the street, thinking that he should get on his knees and do as he is told...or just...looks at a man...men...lots and lots of men...picking his body apart....and have lots and lots of thoughts......

.....but...hell....considering that it was not all THAT long ago that carbolic acid was poured on the clitorises of female fans of masturbation...ummmmm...folks MIGHT want to reconsider some of these fairy tales. Oh...and...just because some women do not like most/all/some of what many men like...does not make them less of anything...last time I checked, the male take/s on things is not the only game in town, even though women have been judged through those particular glasses.

Now...I think I shall mosey on over to the HOT BOY THREAD.


----------



## Dr. P Marshall (Oct 25, 2008)

Dammit people, I was trying to keep my post count at 666 for as long as possible, but I am out of rep and butch made my point much better than I did.



butch said:


> The fact that we're debating the idea of fetish and whether women can have them all goes back to the fact that our psychological understanding of sexuality is still heavily indebted to Freud, and he was incredibly misogynist when it came to viewing women's sexuality.



This is actually what I meant. I wasn't actually picking on male psychologists, but I do think that there is too much emphasis on the male side of sexuality and I agree it's largely Freud's fault. Given the time and place and society he lived in, I imagine most of the women he studied were upper class ladies kept virginal until their arranged marriages for social status could go through. Nothing guarantees a lack of pure sex drive quite like arranged marriages IMO.



viracocha said:


> I'd be willing to test women's stimulation levels from vision and touch. You know, for the sake of science and stuff...


Yes, yes, let's get on this right away. Where do we apply for a grant? 



Green Eyed Fairy said:


> Lol, I wonder that, too. This reminds me of that "study" I read about one time that states they could find "no valid reason for women to have an orgasm as part of reproduction". Like a woman actually WANTING to f*ck doesn't help with the reproductive process.......:doh:
> 
> And yeah, I'm not a scientist and I didn't conduct a study but still managed to figure THAT one out......



See? That's the thing, everything relating to women is supposed to have some evolutionary reason (and these arguments don't just get made about sex, it comes up a lot about occupations too) but men are supposed to enjoy, advance, desire(sexually and in terms of achievements). It is a bit annoying.



mossystate said:


> Now...I think I shall mosey on over to the HOT BOY THREAD.



By that you mean, you're going to close your eyes and run your hands over the screen right? I was just thinking about the HOT BOY THREAD as well as the threads I've seen where FAs ask BBW if they like thin men/athletic men etc. It seems most of the members of this board realize women choose men based at least somewhat on appearance too, so why is science so far behind? 

Oh, and when I said I would take a hostage, I meant a sex slave. Oops....I've said too much.....again......


----------



## Fascinita (Oct 25, 2008)

OT:

Men are Oedipal.  

Didn't Oedipus put out his eyes? I wonder what that means?!  (hehe).

Carl A. Strated, an important pupil of Freud, might have the answers. But I don't think he ever got around to writing what he knew.


----------



## Fascinita (Oct 25, 2008)

Dr. P Marshall said:


> Nothing guarantees a lack of pure sex drive quite like arranged marriages IMO.



This is a Western conceit, couldmaybe... or a misunderstanding. 

Many people in arranged marriages--in Indian culture, for instance--report falling passionately in love with their better halves. It's documented. 

I'm sure, though, that there are as many bad arranged marriages as unarranged.


----------



## Fascinita (Oct 25, 2008)

mossystate said:


> .........NEVER the curve of a mans ass ( speaking my native language of Hetero...YMMV )....or seeing a pair of sturdy thighs/legs and knowing exactly how she might play ' lets pretend I am a Scout and I need to start a fire '...or watching a man walk down the street, thinking that he should get on his knees and do as he is told...or just...looks at a man...men...lots and lots of men...picking his body apart....and have lots and lots of thoughts......



Or see a pack of shirtless, shorted, smooth-skinned 22-year-old dudes running past you, sweat pouring down their backs because it's so hot and humid.... 

No woman would ever notice that because she'd be thinking about soft kitty cat fur and the price of miniskirts and fluffy marshmallows and bunnies and gossip and stuff. Or she'd be busy rehearsing the speech she is going to give at the annual Feminazi Convention the next day.


----------



## Dr. P Marshall (Oct 25, 2008)

Fascinita said:


> This is a Western conceit, couldmaybe... or a misunderstanding.
> 
> Many people in arranged marriages--in Indian culture, for instance--report falling passionately in love with their better halves. It's documented.
> 
> I'm sure, though, that there are as many bad arranged marriages as unarranged.



I'm sure it happens, but statistically, what do you think will really lead to a large group of women having passionate, fulfilling sex lives? When they choose their own partner based on their own attraction(emotional or physical) or when they are forced to marry someone? It is also possible that "falling in love" means something very different to a woman who has only known one man and has had no previous relationships or choice, or opportunity to explore her own thoughts and feelings and desires regarding men. If you live with someone day after day a certain fondness and mutual dependence does develop, but is that love and would you know the difference with no basis of comparison? 

I'm not saying that there has never been an arranged marriage that works out well, but I think it is always more likely to lead to less fulfillment for the majority of women involved in such relationships and I have long thought that that was where the concepts of "feminine frigidity" and things like that originated.


----------



## B68 (Oct 25, 2008)

mossystate said:


> Hey...we all know that women are only visual when it comes to home decor...shoes...sparkly gems...pretty flowers in lovely vases...makeup...the cutesy-wootsy of a baby's face...Sarah Palins glasses ................................
> 
> 
> .........NEVER the curve of a mans ass ( speaking my native language of Hetero...YMMV )....or seeing a pair of sturdy thighs/legs and knowing exactly how she might play ' lets pretend I am a Scout and I need to start a fire '...or watching a man walk down the street, thinking that he should get on his knees and do as he is told...or just...looks at a man...men...lots and lots of men...picking his body apart....and have lots and lots of thoughts......
> ...



Can you... fly a broom...? Hush, woman! 

Seriously, i love to be looked at in the same way i look at women. If the game isn't fair and a woman isn't supposed to have her fantasy about men, what pride and joy is there for me? If a woman doesn't pick me out of the hot boy line up, it isn't cool, but it's only fair.

Without a fair game there's no complete satisfaction for either of us.


----------



## mossystate (Oct 25, 2008)

B68 said:


> Can you... fly a broom...? Hush, woman!



Come closer... I will show you what I can do with my broom...closer.


----------



## Fascinita (Oct 25, 2008)

Dr. P Marshall said:


> I'm sure it happens, but statistically, what do you think will really lead to a large group of women having passionate, fulfilling sex lives? When they choose their own partner based on their own attraction(emotional or physical) or when they are forced to marry someone? It is also possible that "falling in love" means something very different to a woman who has only known one man and has had no previous relationships or choice, or opportunity to explore her own thoughts and feelings and desires regarding men. If you live with someone day after day a certain fondness and mutual dependence does develop, but is that love and would you know the difference with no basis of comparison?



I think this is awfully condescending. You're working from the assumption that not being "forced" to marry someone is preferable. Everything else you say seems to be colored by that light-- from the doubting-Thomas quotations marks around 'falling in love' to the idea that women in "forced" marriages can't explore their own thoughts and feelings and desires. I know you mean well but, not having lived in a culture where arranged marriages are norm (and where perhaps not nearly as many people feel "forced" into marriage as you imagine), I don't think we can say with certainty that the Western romantic ideal of falling in love and finding one's soul mate (and even Western ideas of free will, which seem to be informing your criticism) are preferable, generally speaking. We don't always have the last word on what works and doesn't work in human relations. We need to be outraged at individual and systematic violence and abuse, but we also need to be careful that we don't proceed from our most biased assumptions...



> I'm not saying that there has never been an arranged marriage that works out well, but I think it is always more likely to lead to less fulfillment for the majority of women involved in such relationships and I have long thought that that was where the concepts of "feminine frigidity" and things like that originated.



I'm not sure. I thought the concept of feminine frigidity was a concept of Western medicine based on outdated humoral and remnants of scholastic gynecological theories. That's about all I know about that. I wouldn't feel comfortable pegging that on arranged marriage. Nor am I comfortable saying that people in arranged marriages have less fulfillment than others. It's just too problematic. For starters, how do you even measure "fulfillment" cross-culturally, when it must be almost entirely dependent on any number of localized factors, and deeply embedded in cultural values.


----------



## olwen (Oct 26, 2008)

Dr. P Marshall said:


> I'm sure it happens, but statistically, what do you think will really lead to a large group of women having passionate, fulfilling sex lives? When they choose their own partner based on their own attraction(emotional or physical) or when they are forced to marry someone? It is also possible that "falling in love" means something very different to a woman who has only known one man and has had no previous relationships or choice, or opportunity to explore her own thoughts and feelings and desires regarding men. If you live with someone day after day a certain fondness and mutual dependence does develop, but is that love and would you know the difference with no basis of comparison?
> 
> I'm not saying that there has never been an arranged marriage that works out well, but I think it is always more likely to lead to less fulfillment for the majority of women involved in such relationships and *I have long thought that that was where the concepts of "feminine frigidity" and things like that originated*.



You know, I've wondered about the origins of that idea too. I just figured it came from the reality of middle class women needing to marry, any available bachelor in good financial standing in order to advance economically, and upper class women who need to stay at the economic level their accustomed to, in a world where women just weren't allowed to have meaningful and fulfilling jobs. Or rather, in a world where the only meaning and fulfillment a woman was supposed to get out of life was to be a wife and mother. They married men they didn't love, didn't like, and certainly weren't attracted to and saw marital sex as an unpleasant duty as a result. It's kind of hard to fake it when you don't really like the guy you're sleeping with. I'd probably just lay there too. 

...but then those marriages were probably arranged too, so then, I just never thought of it in the way you did.


----------



## olwen (Oct 26, 2008)

Fascinita said:


> I think this is awfully condescending. You're working from the assumption that not being "forced" to marry someone is preferable. Everything else you say seems to be colored by that light-- from the doubting-Thomas quotations marks around 'falling in love' to the idea that women in "forced" marriages can't explore their own thoughts and feelings and desires. I know you mean well but, not having lived in a culture where arranged marriages are norm (and where perhaps not nearly as many people feel "forced" into marriage as you imagine), I don't think we can say with certainty that the Western romantic ideal of falling in love and finding one's soul mate (and even Western ideas of free will, which seem to be informing your criticism) are preferable, generally speaking. We don't always have the last word on what works and doesn't work in human relations. We need to be outraged at individual and systematic violence and abuse, but we also need to be careful that we don't proceed from our most biased assumptions...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure. I thought the concept of feminine frigidity was a concept of Western medicine based on outdated humoral and remnants of scholastic gynecological theories. That's about all I know about that. I wouldn't feel comfortable pegging that on arranged marriage. Nor am I comfortable saying that people in arranged marriages have less fulfillment than others. It's just too problematic. For starters, how do you even measure "fulfillment" cross-culturally, when it must be almost entirely dependent on any number of localized factors, and deeply embedded in cultural values.



After this exchange between you two, I'm now wondering whose idea of arranged marriage are you debating? Western or eastern? I'd think every culture has examples of that. 

In some African societies from every region, women are expected to marry as soon as they are of reproductive age and in some cases women and only women are paired off when they are still infants. The men who are twenty, thirty, fifty years older than them claim them and wait for them to become marriageble age. There are many oral works (working songs, lullabies, marriage songs and rituals, ect) that mothers sing to daughters warning them of their wifely duties. Songs that teach them to grin and bear it. A woman who is paired off with a kind man who she will love and be attracted to is lucky indeed. If a girl runs off before she is married, her family pays a heavy dowry regardless so there is a lot of pressure to marry whether they want to or not. Furthermore, these societies are set up so that should the woman decide to leave she gets nothing. Nada, and her children can even be taken from her by her husband's family if they think her children will be valuable to them. A big aspect of feminist activism in those regions is getting fair divorce laws passed, and sanctioned by the governing religious bodies.

I have quite a few Indian friends who were born in India but raised here and who refuse to be in arranged marriages. They respect that aspect of their culture, but they refuse to do it.

The Victorian age is over and done with, but they did have arranged marriages too and I think part of the impetus for the first wave of feminism came from the frustration and unfulfilled wishes of women who were not happy being married. Charlotte Perkins Gilman fell into a deep depression upon her first marriage to a man she didn't like, but whom she was expected to marry. Her state of mind improved greatly when she married a second time to a man she adored. Jane Austin and Charlotte Bronte wrote about the impending unhappiness they tried desperately to avoid from the thought of marriage to men that were not to their liking. My point is there are many examples of the uneasiness about the idea of arranged marriage in western society.

While it's true that there is no doubt people in arranged marriage can grow to love each other and be happy, and we could be displaying a bit of western arrogance about our ideas of romantic love, but, I still think the assessment of possible unhappiness in an arranged marriage is a valid one with many many examples throughout the centuries from both cultures to back it up.

ETA: The idea that women's opinions about anything are meaningless is so pervasive that it's not hard to imagine that men over time simply didn't think to just ask women how they felt and instead just assumed that something must be wrong with them, thus, "female frigidity."


----------



## stevenbbwlvr (Oct 26, 2008)

It's hilarious. I'm sure some other folks on here know it.

Her opinion of sites like this isn't positive, though. She thinks (if I recall correctly) that it indicates an exclusive focus on her body type, instead of her as a whole person.

My own view is: romance starts with physical attraction. We are not, after all Heloise and Abelard. I've had relationships that failed because the attraction wasn't there, though I liked everything else about them.


----------



## olwen (Oct 26, 2008)

stevenbbwlvr said:


> It's hilarious. I'm sure some other folks on here know it.
> 
> Her opinion of sites like this isn't positive, though. She thinks (if I recall correctly) that it indicates an exclusive focus on her body type, instead of her as a whole person.
> 
> My own view is: romance starts with physical attraction. We are not, after all Heloise and Abelard. I've had relationships that failed because the attraction wasn't there, though I liked everything else about them.



Ha, she's spent too much time on curvage and fat-forums.


----------



## Hole (Oct 26, 2008)

Being attracted to a fat person is not a fetish. It's a pref. Just like how some of us like dark eyes or blue eyes. 

Feederism is a fetish to me.


----------



## Fascinita (Oct 26, 2008)

olwen said:


> After this exchange between you two, I'm now wondering whose idea of arranged marriage are you debating? Western or eastern? I'd think every culture has examples of that.
> 
> In some African societies from every region, women are expected to marry as soon as they are of reproductive age and in some cases women and only women are paired off when they are still infants. The men who are twenty, thirty, fifty years older than them claim them and wait for them to become marriageble age. There are many oral works (working songs, lullabies, marriage songs and rituals, ect) that mothers sing to daughters warning them of their wifely duties. Songs that teach them to grin and bear it. A woman who is paired off with a kind man who she will love and be attracted to is lucky indeed. If a girl runs off before she is married, her family pays a heavy dowry regardless so there is a lot of pressure to marry whether they want to or not. Furthermore, these societies are set up so that should the woman decide to leave she gets nothing. Nada, and her children can even be taken from her by her husband's family if they think her children will be valuable to them. A big aspect of feminist activism in those regions is getting fair divorce laws passed, and sanctioned by the governing religious bodies.
> 
> ...



Olwen, excellent points in your response: I think it is important to try to read an institution like arranged marriage across cultures, just as it's important to acknowledge that our own functional ideas of what marriage "should be" are just as problematic as anyone else's. There is just as much misogyny and violence against women in our culture, with its emphasis on individuation and personal freedom in romantic love and mating, as in cultures where mating and marriage are imagined under a different rubric.

For me, an argument against domestic abuse grounded in a valuation of one idea of love over another turns out to be the wrong way to go about resisting domestic abuse. Violence against women and children is wrong, wherever it is found and however it manifests itself. 

Sorry to have derailed your thread, O. I got a little sloppy.


----------



## Fascinita (Oct 26, 2008)

stevenbbwlvr said:


> My own view is: romance starts with physical attraction. We are not, after all Heloise and Abelard. I've had relationships that failed because the attraction wasn't there, though I liked everything else about them.



Steven, by making a distinction between "we" and "Heloise and Abelard," in support of your idea that romance _only_ starts with physical attraction, you seem to be suggesting that H&A were not human (not "we.") I think that's obviously not true. And I think many people's romances start based on passion that's not based on appearances. Look on any personals website and you'll find a surplus of people looking for love who assert that "looks don't matter."

I don't think we have to say that all romance starts one way or the other. It's too reductionist. Romance starts however it starts. Clearly human beings are capable of finding it through any number of approaches.


----------



## olwen (Oct 26, 2008)

Fascinita said:


> Olwen, excellent points in your response: I think it is important to try to read an institution like arranged marriage across cultures, just as it's important to acknowledge that our own functional ideas of what marriage "should be" are just as problematic as anyone else's. There is just as much misogyny and violence against women in our culture, with its emphasis on individuation and personal freedom in romantic love and mating, as in cultures where mating and marriage are imagined under a different rubric.
> 
> For me, an argument against domestic abuse grounded in a valuation of one idea of love over another turns out to be the wrong way to go about resisting domestic abuse. Violence against women and children is wrong, wherever it is found and however it manifests itself.
> 
> Sorry to have derailed your thread, O. I got a little sloppy.



No harm done. It's been interesting reading.


To the general reader: I am surprised soooo many people so far have chosen "preference" but I feel like I shouldn't be. I'd take that to mean there are a lot of people who would date both thin people and fat people. That's probably a good thing....


----------



## bmann0413 (Oct 26, 2008)

Chimpi said:


> Why can it not be all of those things and more?
> Everyone has to admit that his or her experience with being a "fat admirer" might be quite different from others' thoughts or opinions on it. I consider it an orientation - no, a requirement, to be specific [so that others understand] - whereas some people consider it just a preference. Both of these categories say that we/they are sexually attracted to the fat figure and both at least _want_ a fat person in their lives (or so I can presume).
> However at the same time there are those that believe it's just a fetish, a sexual before-thought that is dealt with by means of sexual activity, individual sexual stimulation or fantasies based upon fat.
> 
> ...



I voted no big deal as well. Everyone is really entitled to their own opinion.


----------



## olwen (Oct 26, 2008)

chillaxin, thanks for chiming in. I likeyour assessment. I never thought of kinks as things one *does.* Just stuff one is into. Like one can have a fetish within a kink, if that makes sense....


----------



## Durin (Oct 28, 2008)

I think Sexuality is the best description of "FA" ness.

For me anyway it is a whole lot more than a simple preference. I don't really see it as a Fetish per se but I am not offended by the term.

I think male/female FA's have a unique sexuall experience and therfore sexuality is the best descriptor.

:bow:


----------



## babyjeep21 (Oct 28, 2008)

Durin said:


> I think Sexuality is the best description of "FA" ness.
> 
> For me anyway it is a whole lot more than a simple preference. I don't really see it as a Fetish per se but I am not offended by the term.
> 
> ...



I don't know what I think about it being a "unique sexual experience".

I think an FA gets the same sexual feelings from being with a fat person as a non-fa gets from being with a slender person.

Cause they're both with someone who appeals to their personal attraction. Right? 

So... How does that make it unique?


----------



## olwen (Oct 28, 2008)

Babyjeep, that's a good question. 

...I think in a perfect world it ought to amount to that, but there's a lot of extra "stuff" that an FA has to deal with that someone who's with a slim person doesn't. Seems to me like all that extra stuff ads another level of "something" to it all.

...I've seen the way the men I've slept with reacted to the sight of me naked. To say that reaction is strong is an understatement. I have wondered if I'd get the same reaction if I were skinny and the guy were not an FA. I just don't have anything to compare it to. 

But since so many people chose "preference", there are probably A LOT of people who agree with you.


----------



## LoveBHMS (Oct 28, 2008)

I totally agree with Jeepy's comments.

I don't see anything unique about my being sexually aroused by fat guys. I mean it's different from the majority but I'm not _differently_ attracted/aroused by fat guys then others are by skinny guys.


----------



## 1300 Class (Oct 28, 2008)

Personally, I believe its a preference.


----------



## Santaclear (Oct 29, 2008)

I think that FA-ness is only unique in the way that all experiences are unique. We don't have a monopoly on uniqueness. Within any preference or experience there's a whole spectrum.


----------



## Mathias (Oct 29, 2008)

I've always viewed it as a preference.


----------



## chunkeymonkey (Oct 31, 2008)

I have thought about this long and hard and find myself on the fence with this one. 
If someone has only had eyes for Fatness and never strays I see it as a preference.
If you like Fat and skinny well I will put you in...... A hole and a heart beat will do.
If you are with oe want to be with a Fat person and have intentions on Fatteneing them up I slide more to the fettish side.
I also seem to lean more to the fettish side when a guy tell me he gets all hot over my body before making contact with my eyes. 

I struggle with Fettish VS preference depending on the person and how he or she makes you feel. If all you are is a sexual object and a means to get off, I see it as fettish.

If the person see's you as a whole package and can accept change good or bad I see it as a preference.

I dont know I think I am still on the fence......


----------



## Forgotten_Futures (Nov 1, 2008)

I was toggling between the top 3 and eventually had to go with "I don't know", because I can honestly think of ways it satisfies any one of the three but only each one at a given time.

A "fetish" is truly defined as something a given person NEEDS in order to be aroused. It's not a like, a preference, it's a burning desire. For some (perhaps many) on this site, Fat Attraction _is_ a fetish.

In some ways, considering it a fetish would also put it in line for being a sexuality. BUT, while I think nature plays a role by planting the seeds - in other words, tweaking your brain structure/genetics to pre-dispose you to an enhanced interest in fat rather than thin - nurture is an extremely big (pun not intended) part of the attraction, and that's not a sexuality because a sexuality is the way you're wired. You can't be trained out of a, or into, a sexuality.

On the other hand, we have people on the site who can and/or have had meaningful relationships with thin/skinny/slender people. For them, it's not a requisite. It's a nice addition to an otherwise great person. Given its existence, we're happier of course - I'd take a nice squishy young woman over a skinny one, all other things being equal.

So, no, there is no blanket case. More like a basket case = P


----------



## BurningMyWingsAway (Nov 1, 2008)

I want a guy who loves me and thinks I'm beautiful and attractive with all of my fat, but not obsessed with my fat. Is that wrong?


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy (Nov 1, 2008)

An attraction to fatness should be considered.......quite necessary for someone my size


----------



## olwen (Nov 1, 2008)

chunkeymonkey said:


> I have thought about this long and hard and find myself on the fence with this one.
> If someone has only had eyes for Fatness and never strays I see it as a preference.
> If you like Fat and skinny well I will put you in...... A hole and a heart beat will do.
> If you are with oe want to be with a Fat person and have intentions on Fatteneing them up I slide more to the fettish side.
> ...



The think tho that as far as your fetish definitions are concerned is that inconsiderate FAs aren't the only ones who do that. Any man can stare a woman up and down and linger on her boobs and not look at her face while he talks to her. I wouldn't consider that fetish behavior. I'd just consider it asshole behavior. I just think that because thin is in the realm of the normal in our society we don't really consider it fetish behavior. The fact that we might want to associate that level of objectification with men who are attracted to fat women is telling. I think it might say more about how we see ourselves as women than it does about how we see FAs.


----------



## olwen (Nov 1, 2008)

Green Eyed Fairy said:


> An attraction to fatness should be considered.......quite necessary for someone my size



HA. Exactly.


----------



## olwen (Nov 1, 2008)

Forgotten_Futures said:


> I was toggling between the top 3 and eventually had to go with "I don't know", because I can honestly think of ways it satisfies any one of the three but only each one at a given time.
> 
> A "fetish" is truly defined as something a given person NEEDS in order to be aroused. It's not a like, a preference, it's a burning desire. For some (perhaps many) on this site, Fat Attraction _is_ a fetish.
> 
> ...




I have to question this. What about when GLBTQ people say they are wired that way? Would nurture have to do with that. I honestly don't think it does. What about people who say they are wired to like fatness? What then?


----------



## stevenbbwlvr (Nov 4, 2008)

Fascinita said:


> Steven, by making a distinction between "we" and "Heloise and Abelard," in support of your idea that romance _only_ starts with physical attraction, you seem to be suggesting that H&A were not human (not "we.") I think that's obviously not true. And I think many people's romances start based on passion that's not based on appearances. Look on any personals website and you'll find a surplus of people looking for love who assert that "looks don't matter."
> 
> I don't think we have to say that all romance starts one way or the other. It's too reductionist. Romance starts however it starts. Clearly human beings are capable of finding it through any number of approaches.



It always has started with physical attaction for me. It has happened more than once that I've had sex with someone, with no notion of it being anything but an opportunity for me to bust a nut...and I wound up in a relationship.

I did not mean to suggest that H&A weren't human; but the one was a eunuch, and the other a nun. Neither includes me (barring some horrid industrial accident) or most of the folks around here, eh?


----------



## Shosh (Nov 4, 2008)

stevenbbwlvr said:


> It always has started with physical attaction for me. It has happened more than once that I've had sex with someone, with no notion of it being anything but an opportunity for me to bust a nut...and I wound up in a relationship.
> 
> I did not mean to suggest that H&A weren't human; but the one was a eunuch, and the other a nun. Neither includes me (barring some horrid industrial accident) or most of the folks around here, eh?



So eloquently put as ever.:bow:


----------



## Forgotten_Futures (Nov 5, 2008)

olwen said:


> I have to question this. What about when GLBTQ people say they are wired that way? Would nurture have to do with that. I honestly don't think it does. What about people who say they are wired to like fatness? What then?



You misunderstood my statement - a sexuality IS being wired that way. The GLBT crowd is all sexualities (although there are proven cases of people faking it, though those are mostly girls faking lez)

As far as wired to like fatness... then that is candidate for sexuality, I suppose.

Either way, the point remains that it's not JUST a fetish, or JUST a sexuality, or JUST a preference. = P


----------



## Your Plump Princess (Nov 5, 2008)

It all would depend.
Like others have said. If your "Wired" That way. It's a Sexuality.
If you prefer them compared to thinner folk, but love/lust for either. Then I think it's a preference.

And With the preference comes the "Fetish" Option. Since basically anything that gets ya going is a "Fetish".. 


So.. It's all three.


----------



## stevenbbwlvr (Nov 5, 2008)

Forgotten_Futures said:


> You misunderstood my statement - a sexuality IS being wired that way. The GLBT crowd is all sexualities (although there are proven cases of people faking it, though those are mostly girls faking lez)
> 
> As far as wired to like fatness... then that is candidate for sexuality, I suppose.
> 
> Either way, the point remains that it's not JUST a fetish, or JUST a sexuality, or JUST a preference. = P



Trying to analyze why what 'trips your trigger' does...is wading into a quagmire.

Reminds me of one of my favorite Nancy Friday quotes:

"Zing! The sexual thrill of a lifetime is set off by Rover."


----------



## olwen (Nov 5, 2008)

Forgotten_Futures said:


> You misunderstood my statement - a sexuality IS being wired that way. The GLBT crowd is all sexualities (although there are proven cases of people faking it, though those are mostly girls faking lez)
> 
> As far as wired to like fatness... then that is candidate for sexuality, I suppose.
> 
> Either way, the point remains that it's not JUST a fetish, or JUST a sexuality, or JUST a preference. = P



The thing I wonder about is, what if you're wired for it but don't realize it until later in life? What if you never found fatness attractive, not because you hate it, but just because you were never around it, but then you meet someone fat who floats your boat in every other way too. I think what I'm trying to say is that, if you end up liking fatness that you *must* be wired for it in some way. Then it becomes more than just a preference. But what? 



Your Plump Princess said:


> It all would depend.
> Like others have said. If your "Wired" That way. It's a Sexuality.
> If you prefer them compared to thinner folk, but love/lust for either. Then I think it's a preference.
> 
> ...



I don't agree that everything that gets you going is a fetish. How can a preference be nearly the same as a fetish?


----------



## Forgotten_Futures (Nov 6, 2008)

olwen said:


> The thing I wonder about is, what if you're wired for it but don't realize it until later in life? What if you never found fatness attractive, not because you hate it, but just because you were never around it, but then you meet someone fat who floats your boat in every other way too. I think what I'm trying to say is that, if you end up liking fatness that you *must* be wired for it in some way. Then it becomes more than just a preference. But what?



I guess I understand what you're saying, but I don't really see how this could be much of an issue in our world...

It's hard to leave the house without running into a fat person at least once.

Now, in a psuedo-Hitlerian reality where fatness literally does not occur, such a thought experiment would have considerably more operating space...


----------



## Super Fan (Nov 6, 2008)

Hey the choice (A Preference) was the only one in italics -- subliminally guiding us to that one!! 

The fat preference for me started before I was sexual. One of my first memories was when I was a toddler following a +500 pound girl down a Grocery isle. I remembered her huge leg rolls jiggling as she walked. She turned around and started to talk to me and I remember how awe struck I was at her incredible size. I always was super attracted to super size everything, I like fat cats, the biggest pumpkin, building, fish, I usually liked the biggest whatever.

Then, when I became sexual, female fat became the focus of excitement, but it is way more than just the fat, it is everything having to do with the lifestyle of supersize women that also became extremely attractive to me. 

I could consider my preference a fetish or a sexuality, because I don't find girls under about 240 sexually attractive to me.


----------



## Super Fan (Nov 6, 2008)

Forgotten Futures --"Now, in a psuedo-Hitlerian reality where fatness literally does not occur, such a thought experiment would have considerably more operating space..."

So would Nazi leader Hermann Goring be thin in this psuedo-Hitlerian experiment of yours?? Would National Socialism (Nazi) work economically and would they win their world war in your thought experiment??

The actual answer is that psuedo-Socialism or National Socialism would fail in any reality because liberty, freedom & individuality work much better than totalitarianism. Fatness would occur, more or less, in all realities cause it is an important part of our DNA make up.


----------



## Forgotten_Futures (Nov 6, 2008)

Super Fan said:


> Forgotten Futures --"Now, in a psuedo-Hitlerian reality where fatness literally does not occur, such a thought experiment would have considerably more operating space..."
> 
> So would Nazi leader Hermann Goring be thin in this psuedo-Hitlerian experiment of yours?? Would National Socialism (Nazi) work economically and would they win their world war in your thought experiment??
> 
> The actual answer is that psuedo-Socialism or National Socialism would fail in any reality because liberty, freedom & individuality work much better than totalitarianism. Fatness would occur, more or less, in all realities cause it is an important part of our DNA make up.



I know, but thought experiments are wonderful in the sense that they can and frequently do say, "shove reality, this is how things are working: "

All I meant was, imagine a world where being thin is enforced to the point where those who aren't are made to "dissappear" - how could you possibly know (if) you were wired to like fat people if you never got exposure to them?

Consider my (as yet unfinished) story The Cursed Queens. In that society, the proposed status quo (for women) is fatness - while skinny women are not actually put to death, they are ostracized to the point of having little to no contact with the non-skinny population and must go to extremely backward ends to maintain this. In such a world, a person might go a whole lifetime without having the chance to acknowledge an interest in skinny women.


----------



## olwen (Nov 6, 2008)

Super Fan said:


> Hey the choice (A Preference) was the only one in italics -- subliminally guiding us to that one!!
> 
> The fat preference for me started before I was sexual. One of my first memories was when I was a toddler following a +500 pound girl down a Grocery isle. I remembered her huge leg rolls jiggling as she walked. She turned around and started to talk to me and I remember how awe struck I was at her incredible size. I always was super attracted to super size everything, I like fat cats, the biggest pumpkin, building, fish, I usually liked the biggest whatever.
> 
> ...



I weight more than 240. I am a whole person, not a fetish. We just don't talk about people having a thin fetish so why do we keep insisting that fatness is one? And what is this lifestyle you are referring to? I hear this sometimes - that being fat is a lifestyle choice, but I'm just not sure what that means and I can only imagine that might apply in some meaningful way to someone who's trying to gain. Can you elaborate on this?



Forgotten_Futures said:


> I know, but thought experiments are wonderful in the sense that they can and frequently do say, "shove reality, this is how things are working: "
> 
> *All I meant was, imagine a world where being thin is enforced to the point where those who aren't are made to "dissappear" - *how could you possibly know (if) you were wired to like fat people if you never got exposure to them?
> 
> Consider my (as yet unfinished) story The Cursed Queens. In that society, the proposed status quo (for women) is fatness - while skinny women are not actually put to death, they are ostracized to the point of having little to no contact with the non-skinny population and must go to extremely backward ends to maintain this. In such a world, a person might go a whole lifetime without having the chance to acknowledge an interest in skinny women.



That part of your post struck me as a bit odd. Not because it is unfathomnable, but because for the most part, if you are a certain size you *do* become invisible. People pretend they don't see you, go out of their way to ignore you, or make you feel small. You're not represented in the media except as the butt of someone's joke...surely this sentiment has been expressed in this forum somewhere sometime...


----------



## stevenbbwlvr (Nov 7, 2008)

...something objectively viewed as "abnormal," Like, when I have some charming BBW lady, in my daydreams, pee all over my balls and penis.

Ifr you like dark haired, slender ladies with multiple tattoes, is that a "FETISH"? Who'd even suggest it?

The idea is: being full figured is abnormal; therefore, a taste for a woman who looks like that is a jaded "fetish." 

Nonsense.

Even if it was, I feel no necessity to apologize for what I like.


----------



## Super Fan (Nov 7, 2008)

Forgotten Futures  All I meant was how could you possibly know (if) you were wired to like fat people if you never got exposure to them?

Yea forgotten Futures I thought about that, in parts of Africa, were indigenous people lived for decades in desperate poverty and food is rare, I could suppose there are FA men, living there, who never saw the object of their ultimate desire, what a nightmare.

I did grow up in a society where I was taught that dating fat women was socially forbidden. I was in the closet and my first girlfriend, that I had sex with, was 54 and 114 pounds. The only way I could get sexually excited, about her, was to think about a 420 pound girl that I knew, she was my forbidden desire. Those were the bad old days. 

Now going one step further, what if I never saw a fat woman? You know what it would be kind of like  now say in 2011 there is a new kind of fashion trend featuring strings of white popper beads tied into nylons to form 3D patterns on a girl's body. A Guy existing today, who had that particular fetish, would have a sex life without that particular fetish. Then the guy would see his ultra sexual object in 2011. His eyes would pop and he would be sexually entranced by it, making everything he thought was sexy, prior to that point insignificant. In this case from 2011 on, that guy could not have sex with a girl who did not wear Popper Beaded Nylons to bed!


----------



## mossystate (Nov 7, 2008)

Super Fan said:


> Forgotten Futures  All I meant was how could you possibly know (if) you were wired to like fat people if you never got exposure to them?
> 
> *Yea forgotten Futures I thought about that, in parts of Africa, were indigenous people lived for decades in desperate poverty and food is rare, I could suppose there are FA men, living there, who never saw the object of their ultimate desire, what a nightmare.*
> 
> ...





I'm thinkin' the nightmare would be the....ummmm...you know...........starving.


As for the rest of this post.... sounds like you should tap the brakes a little.


----------



## Super Fan (Nov 7, 2008)

Olwen said  I weight more than 240. I am a whole person, not a fetish. We just don't talk about people having a thin fetish so why do we keep insisting that fatness is one? And what is this lifestyle you are referring to? I hear this sometimes - that being fat is a lifestyle choice, but I'm just not sure what that means and I can only imagine that might apply in some meaningful way to someone who's trying to gain. Can you elaborate on this?

Yea, I wrote that sentence wrong  It should have been: I consider my preference for fat women, a fetish, a sexuality and also my preference for a relationship. Your right about that, the attraction for fat is not just a fetish, but an overriding lifetime preference. A fetish is when you have sex about an object like: hair, clothes, shoes, or something like that, but there are foot fetish people who sexually obsess about feet. 

I find the fattest pear shaped women the most exciting, not because I know or have a relationship with them, but because of their particular fatness, so in that way I think it is a fetish. I have dated extremely fat women that I found to be ultimately sexually exciting, but because of our incompatible personalities, things did not work out, so it is not just the fat that makes a love relationship, but I find fat a super important ingredient.

You are right that life is a compromise and love does not center on just one ingredient.

The lifestyle thing comes about because there are many things that +400 pound women need to do differently than thin girls. Things like getting a car big enough to comfortably transport her, making sure chairs are wide enough, renting a scooter in a mall or Theme Park or helping her with things like shopping in stores were the isles are too small for her, or helping her do other things that she finds difficult because of her size.


----------



## Super Fan (Nov 7, 2008)

Mossystate said:  I'm thinkin' the nightmare would be the....ummmm...you know...........starving.
As for the rest of this post.... sounds like you should tap the brakes a little.

Yea Mossystate: Starving is #1 then no 401K, and then lack of lovers that are potentially attractive to that FA. Your right, about using breaks, I was in a big hurry and ran over the curb a bunch of times, but, then again, I like reckless posts.


----------



## olwen (Nov 7, 2008)

Super Fan said:


> _Hey the choice (A Preference) was the only one in italics -- subliminally guiding us to that one!! _
> 
> The fat preference for me started before I was sexual. One of my first memories was when I was a toddler following a +500 pound girl down a Grocery isle. I remembered her huge leg rolls jiggling as she walked. She turned around and started to talk to me and I remember how awe struck I was at her incredible size. I always was super attracted to super size everything, I like fat cats, the biggest pumpkin, building, fish, I usually liked the biggest whatever.
> 
> ...



I swear I didn't do that on purpose. I noticed it after I'd already posted it and I couldn't change it.


----------



## olwen (Nov 7, 2008)

Super Fan said:


> Olwen said  I weight more than 240. I am a whole person, not a fetish. We just don't talk about people having a thin fetish so why do we keep insisting that fatness is one? And what is this lifestyle you are referring to? I hear this sometimes - that being fat is a lifestyle choice, but I'm just not sure what that means and I can only imagine that might apply in some meaningful way to someone who's trying to gain. Can you elaborate on this?
> 
> Yea, I wrote that sentence wrong  It should have been: I consider my preference for fat women, a fetish, a sexuality and also my preference for a relationship. Your right about that, the attraction for fat is not just a fetish, but an overriding lifetime preference. A fetish is when you have sex about an object like: hair, clothes, shoes, or something like that, but there are foot fetish people who sexually obsess about feet.
> 
> ...



These things tho are necessities, not mere choices.


----------



## Forgotten_Futures (Nov 8, 2008)

Super Fan said:


> Forgotten Futures  All I meant was how could you possibly know (if) you were wired to like fat people if you never got exposure to them?
> 
> Yea forgotten Futures I thought about that, in parts of Africa, were indigenous people lived for decades in desperate poverty and food is rare, I could suppose there are FA men, living there, who never saw the object of their ultimate desire, what a nightmare.
> 
> ...





mossystate said:


> I'm thinkin' the nightmare would be the....ummmm...you know...........starving.
> 
> 
> As for the rest of this post.... sounds like you should tap the brakes a little.



Oh, I definitely get where he's coming from. He's forcing me to admit that the fetish/preference exists whether or not you know about it. I suppose that's true.

I, too, was raised in a culture that tends to depict even chubby people as "less than good". My mother is also a bit of a fat phobe. It turns out I didn't truly acknowledge my interest in fatness until shortly after my 16th birthday, when I began fishing around the internet and one thing lead to another, the way only internet searches and hyperlinks can. Prior to that I... felt something, certainly. I just didn't know what it was.

I guess the question that begs is whether or not something has to be known to be real. Interestingly enough, this is a very hot debate topic in philosophy = P


----------



## Blockierer (Nov 8, 2008)

I am attracted exclusively to fat women, that means I have absolutely no interests in skinny chicks. And I love my fetish, preference, orientation or whatever you call it. I think it's unimportant how it is called. Fat admiration is a normal behavior in a society where most of the population is not skinny.
:bow:


----------



## Szombathy (Nov 8, 2008)

I don't like the negative connotations of the word "fetish", but one problem with words like "preference", "sexuality", or "orientation" is that they imply a kind of exclusivity. Obviously many of us do have an exclusive interest in BBW or BHM, but what of those of us who don't? I don't necessarily prefer fat women all the time to the exclusion of thin women, so I don't necessarily view that as a "preference" or sexuality. So I'm ultimately unsure if the right term exists.

It seems that fat admiration (a great term) operates differently for different people. Thus the need for diverse terminology.


----------



## olwen (Nov 8, 2008)

Szombathy said:


> I don't like the negative connotations of the word "fetish", but one problem with words like "preference", "sexuality", or "orientation" is that they imply a kind of exclusivity. Obviously many of us do have an exclusive interest in BBW or BHM, but what of those of us who don't? I don't necessarily prefer fat women all the time to the exclusion of thin women, so I don't necessarily view that as a "preference" or sexuality. So I'm ultimately unsure if the right term exists.
> 
> It seems that fat admiration (a great term) operates differently for different people. Thus the need for diverse terminology.



This is a good question. I've been thinking about that lately, and I think if you don't give two flying frigs about the size of the person you're with then you're just "open" and these kinds of labels are just irrelevant. I wish more people were like that because then it would expand the pool of people who would be excited to be with a fat person and us fatties wouldn't be so anxious about sex, dating, and relationships.


----------



## kioewen (Nov 9, 2008)

Szombathy said:


> I don't like the negative connotations of the word "fetish", but one problem with words like "preference", "sexuality", or "orientation" is that they imply a kind of exclusivity.


In fact, that is precisely why the word "preference" is the best one, because it does _not_ imply exclusivity. To say that one _prefers_ something does not mean that it is the onyl thing that's acceptable -- merely that it is favoured.

I'm not surprised that "preference" is clearly winning in this poll. It is by far the most accurate term.

To call it a "sexuality" or "orientation" is a wild distortion, and "fetish" is absurd, unless heterosexuality itself is a "fetish."


----------



## stevenbbwlvr (Nov 10, 2008)

Forgotten_Futures said:


> I know, but thought experiments are wonderful in the sense that they can and frequently do say, "shove reality, this is how things are working: "
> 
> All I meant was, imagine a world where being thin is enforced to the point where those who aren't are made to "dissappear" - how could you possibly know (if) you were wired to like fat people if you never got exposure to them?
> 
> Consider my (as yet unfinished) story The Cursed Queens. In that society, the proposed status quo (for women) is fatness - while skinny women are not actually put to death, they are ostracized to the point of having little to no contact with the non-skinny population and must go to extremely backward ends to maintain this. In such a world, a person might go a whole lifetime without having the chance to acknowledge an interest in skinny women.




It was called "The Crooked Man." It's about a future society where heteros are the "queers."

Oh, and the latter part of Joe Haldeman's "The Forever War." And, Anthony Burgess's "The Wanting Seed."

From the latter: "It's sapiens to be homo."


----------



## Victim (Nov 10, 2008)

The BHMFFAConnection.com has an anthology coming out. The story I submitted involves a government plot to make a very dangerous treatment for obesity mandatory.


----------



## Durin (Nov 10, 2008)

> In fact, that is precisely why the word "preference" is the best one, because it does not imply exclusivity. To say that one prefers something does not mean that it is the onyl thing that's acceptable -- merely that it is favoured.
> 
> I'm not surprised that "preference" is clearly winning in this poll. It is by far the most accurate term.
> 
> To call it a "sexuality" or "orientation" is a wild distortion, and "fetish" is absurd, unless heterosexuality itself is a "fetish."



This is where I am honestly confused. My Experience of being an FA imply's exclusivity. For me it is not a preference. Without the FAT there is no attraction for me.

I think preference is an easy way of thinking it. For FA's like me I just don't believe it is accurate.

I would call it a sexuality because FA's male and female have a unique experience that other's don't have.


----------



## Forgotten_Futures (Nov 10, 2008)

Durin said:


> This is where I am honestly confused. My Experience of being an FA imply's exclusivity. For me it is not a preference. Without the FAT there is no attraction for me.
> 
> I think preference is an easy way of thinking it. For FA's like me I just don't believe it is accurate.
> 
> I would call it a sexuality because FA's male and female have a unique experience that other's don't have.



So it's a rectangle, but it can also be a square.


----------

