# "Feedism" vs. "Feederism"



## lysh (Nov 14, 2008)

I'm not new to this topic but I have noticed that recently several folks here have begun to use the term "feedism" over the term "feederism" when talking about 'Erotic Weight Gain.'

*Is this done intentionally (on purpose)? Why the shift to the term 'feedism'?* (I could guess but I don't want to presume to know)

:bow: LYSH :bow:


----------



## shin_moyseku (Nov 14, 2008)

personally i like the new term, because feederism only tells feeder, feedism also includes feedees and foodees maybe, its just feed-ism.

i like it so much, i dont know if i am totally correct but this is the way i feel.


----------



## bmann0413 (Nov 14, 2008)

Yeah, I've noticed that change too...


----------



## disconnectedsmile (Nov 14, 2008)

when did this happen?
why do we keep changing our affiliations so much here?


----------



## Fuzzy Necromancer (Nov 15, 2008)

Because this is the internet and new popular terminology spreads like a viral 4chan meme? =o

Feederism implies that it's all about the feeder and kinda ignores the feedee, which seems like a rather backwards view of it to me. After all, a feedee can stuff and gain on her own, but a feeder needs somebody to feed. 

Feedism is a more accurate way of describing the fetishes and has less of an assumptive bias.


----------



## mrman1980uk (Nov 15, 2008)

Does it really have to be an "ism" at all? Can one not simply talk of people who rather like it when attractive members of the opposite sex rather overdo the food and put on a little weight? Or would that be entirely too straightforward...?


----------



## LillyBBBW (Nov 15, 2008)

mrman1980uk said:


> Does it really have to be an "ism" at all? Can one not simply talk of people who rather like it when attractive members of the opposite sex rather overdo the food and put on a little weight? Or would that be entirely too straightforward...?



It would take too long to type all of that out. Feedism is much quicker.


----------



## Totmacher (Nov 15, 2008)

Methinks this is the terminological equivalent of a, "backronymn". A couple lazy people - either accidentally or on purpose - shortened the term, "feederism" and now we're all coming up with ways to make it sound legit.


----------



## olwen (Nov 15, 2008)

No, Totmacher, there was a thread discussion a few months back about something to do with feederism, and someone said he preferred the term feedism because he said it was all inclusive. It was the first time I'd heard it. I think maybe it's caught on. I've probably used the term feedism myself since then. I can't remember the thread or the poster tho. Sorry.


----------



## BTB (Nov 15, 2008)

I am waiting for Feedology, when this wonderful tendency becomes either an acadmic science or a religion.


----------



## Fuzzy Necromancer (Nov 15, 2008)

olwen said:


> No, Totmacher, there was a thread discussion a few months back about something to do with feederism, and someone said he preferred the term feedism because he said it was all inclusive. It was the first time I'd heard it. I think maybe it's caught on. I've probably used the term feedism myself since then. I can't remember the thread or the poster tho. Sorry.



Neither can. I have noooooooooooo idea who coined that term.


----------



## olwen (Nov 15, 2008)

Fuzzy Necromancer said:


> Neither can. I have noooooooooooo idea who coined that term.




LOL, ok. It was you then. What was the thread?


----------



## Fuzzy Necromancer (Nov 15, 2008)

Well I definitely used it in the "Who is the 'feedee' of whom you speak?" thread. I might have used it earlier in another one tho.


----------



## chunkylex (Nov 16, 2008)

if you have ever chatted online or read some post , messages, or comments you'd quickly see that it's all about efficiency, most of the Time in the terms of acronyms. Might be a good reason that word was slightly shorten, just for the sake of writing it quicker.:bow:


----------



## Totmacher (Nov 16, 2008)

olwen said:


> No, Totmacher, there was a thread discussion a few months back about something to do with feederism, and someone said he preferred the term feedism because he said it was all inclusive. It was the first time I'd heard it. I think maybe it's caught on. I've probably used the term feedism myself since then. I can't remember the thread or the poster tho. Sorry.



Just because the term's been around for a few months doesn't mean it wasn't coined at some time. I stand by my belief the term's been around before it had a meaning.


----------



## olwen (Nov 16, 2008)

Totmacher said:


> Just because the term's been around for a few months doesn't mean it wasn't coined at some time. I stand by my belief the term's been around before it had a meaning.



Fair enough.


----------



## lysh (Nov 17, 2008)

mrman1980uk said:


> Does it really have to be an "ism" at all? Can one not simply talk of people who rather like it when attractive members of the opposite sex rather overdo the food and put on a little weight? Or would that be entirely too straightforward...?



"_people who rather like it when attractive members of the opposite sex_"


*
'cept that people who are into the same sex also sometimes enjoy the same thing..... * 



chunkylex said:


> you'd quickly see that it's all about efficiency, most of the Time in the terms of acronyms. Might be a good reason that word was slightly shorten, just for the sake of writing it quicker.



*I'd like to think the change in terms was more intentional rather than just due to lazyness. E.g. As Fuzzy says "Feederism implies that it's all about the feeder and kinda ignores the feedee" while feedism is less assumptive.*

  I still wonder how a change in terminology like this can be adopted by the group en masse. Should it be voted on? Or just by its usage seen to have been adpoted? And I wonder if those who use the "other main site" (Fantasy Feeder) would take on a similiar change in terminology so easily?


----------



## Tad (Nov 17, 2008)

Fuzzy Necromancer said:


> Feederism implies that it's all about the feeder and kinda ignores the feedee, which seems like a rather backwards view of it to me. After all, a feedee can stuff and gain on her own, but a feeder needs somebody to feed.
> 
> Feedism is a more accurate way of describing the fetishes and has less of an assumptive bias.





olwen said:


> No, Totmacher, there was a thread discussion a few months back about something to do with feederism, and someone said he preferred the term feedism because he said it was all inclusive. It was the first time I'd heard it. I think maybe it's caught on. I've probably used the term feedism myself since then. I can't remember the thread or the poster tho. Sorry.



Yah, what they said. I don't remember who proposed it, but I thought that it was a better term than feederism. I'm still not totally enamoured with it, as I think for a lot of people interested in feedism there is not so much of a 'feed' component, but it is the best term we've had yet IMO.


----------



## olwen (Nov 17, 2008)

lysh said:


> ....*  I still wonder how a change in terminology like this can be adopted by the group en masse. Should it be voted on? Or just by its usage seen to have been adpoted?* And I wonder if those who use the "other main site" (Fantasy Feeder) would take on a similiar change in terminology so easily?



The same way any word gets changed/added/dropped from any language. Languages evolve and/or die out. I'm sure that 500 years from now the English language will be quite different from what it is now, assuming it survives that much longer. There is actually a branch of linguistics that deals with just that, but I forget what it's called at the moment.


----------



## exile in thighville (Nov 17, 2008)

worst thread


----------



## Fuzzy Necromancer (Nov 18, 2008)

I don't know that all languages do that. The English language is particularly idiosyncratic, patchwork, and promiscuious. If it wasn't for British imperialism, I doubt anybody would have bothered to learn it.

Icelandic language spoken today would be perfectly intelligible to an individual of that region from centuries ago.


----------



## lysh (Nov 18, 2008)

exile in thighville said:


> worst thread





(dare I ask? ...)

 ...... because ......... ?


----------



## olwen (Nov 19, 2008)

Fuzzy Necromancer said:


> I don't know that all languages do that. The English language is particularly idiosyncratic, patchwork, and promiscuious. If it wasn't for British imperialism, I doubt anybody would have bothered to learn it.
> 
> Icelandic language spoken today would be perfectly intelligible to an individual of that region from centuries ago.



I think you just argued my point. I just can't imagine that any language, even one's spoken in relative isolation, wouldn't evolve. Technology brings new words, new understanding of the world around you brings new words. There are many living languages besides english that are quite different from their younger selves, but still recognizable. They've evolved.


----------



## Totmacher (Nov 19, 2008)

olwen said:


> I think you just argued my point. I just can't imagine that any language, even one's spoken in relative isolation, wouldn't evolve. Technology brings new words, new understanding of the world around you brings new words. There are many living languages besides english that are quite different from their younger selves, but still recognizable. They've evolved.



You're speaking about vocabulary. In the english language pronounciation, grammar, and graphology _in addition_ to vocabulary change at a rate that, on the surface, appears quite rapid even when compared to the growth of science, technology, and philosophy over the same period.


----------



## olwen (Nov 19, 2008)

Totmacher said:


> You're speaking about vocabulary. In the english language pronounciation, grammar, and graphology _in addition_ to vocabulary change at a rate that, on the surface, appears quite rapid even when compared to the growth of science, technology, and philosophy over the same period.



You're absolutely right, but just to be clear, I wasn't just thinking about modern day science when I posted before. Anything that humans invent or discover to make a task easier is technology. I was actually wondering about how something like the invention of soap would have changed a language, like does it change the meaning of "clean?" Was there a different form of the word "clean" before soap? Like that kind of thing.


----------



## lysh (Nov 19, 2008)

I think I agree... this is another failed thread.  No-one seems to want to discuss what I asked or care about the potential change in terms or adoption of a new term for this.

oh well. I tried.

....as you were....


----------



## olwen (Nov 19, 2008)

lysh said:


> I think I agree... this is another failed thread.  No-one seems to want to discuss what I asked or care about the potential change in terms or adoption of a new term for this.
> 
> oh well. I tried.
> 
> ....as you were....



::hangs head in shame:: Would it help to say using any more new words would probably just confuse the issue more than it already is for people?


----------



## Ample Pie (Jun 25, 2013)

Dan and tot tend to be muckrakers.

Fuzzy coined the term.

I like "feedism."


----------

