# So you're not into feederism?



## Emma (Apr 13, 2007)

This is something I've been wondering about for a little while. Dimensions isn't about feederism I know. Dimensions is about discussions about all sorts of things. From clothing and cooking, to hardcore weight fantasy. 

This question is directed at those who DON'T enjoy stuff to do with feederism. Why exactly do you come on *THIS* board. If you don't enjoy it, and it offends you, why do you feel the need to answer posts to do with it claiming to be against it and then pull the poster to bits? 

Surely if you don't enjoy it you should just avoid the board? It makes sense to me. I don't enjoy political discussion so I don't really go on 'Hyde Park'. There are a few posters (I won't name names for the sake of not causing arguments) who pipe up in threads here, try to belittle people for posting about what they like and just generally bringing the place down. I'd really just like to ask what their purpose is? Thats all really.


----------



## elle camino (Apr 13, 2007)




----------



## MisticalMisty (Apr 13, 2007)

elle camino said:


>



And your point with that is?


----------



## elle camino (Apr 13, 2007)

it's not 'weight gain fantasy issues'. if it were, i'd understand the 'why even read this forum?' sentiment of the OP. 
as it is, and hell maybe it's an editorial oversight (conrad?), it says 'weight gain _and _fantasy issues'. meaning to the reader: this board is for weight gain related things and other fantasy type stuff.
pretty simple.


i'm not advocating posting just to disparage, which is why i don't personally do that. i'm just saying. it's right there in the title.


----------



## Emma (Apr 13, 2007)

MisticalMisty said:


> And your point with that is?



I absolutly have NO idea.


----------



## elle camino (Apr 13, 2007)

maybe read my post, then.


----------



## Emma (Apr 13, 2007)

elle camino said:


> it's not 'weight gain fantasy issues'. if it were, i'd understand the 'why even read this forum?' sentiment of the OP.
> as it is, and hell maybe it's an editorial oversight (conrad?), it says 'weight gain _and _fantasy issues'. meaning to the reader: this board is for weight gain related things and other fantasy type stuff.
> pretty simple.
> 
> ...



Indeed, I totally get what you're saying now. Maybe I didn't make myself clear enough either. I'm asking people why they come along to *this* board to repeat over and over how they don't agree with what people are saying on this board.


----------



## Emma (Apr 13, 2007)

elle camino said:


> maybe read my post, then.



If you would care to check the times that they were both posted you would probably realise that when I posted *MY* reply, yours hadn't been posted. It was ONLY after I posted mine that yours showed up.


----------



## elle camino (Apr 13, 2007)

i guess because a messageboard is a forum for discussion, and if someone has strong opinions on a topic like WG, posting them on a forum where people talk about WG is a logical step. 
again, not advocating argumentative posts with no point. just saying.


----------



## MisticalMisty (Apr 13, 2007)

CurvyEm said:


> Indeed, I totally get what you're saying now. Maybe I didn't make myself clear enough either. I'm asking people why they come along to *this* board to repeat over and over how they don't agree with what people are saying on this board.


I was trying to find the thread you started sometime last year about the same thing but couldn't find it. I believe in that thread Conrad mentioned the purpose of the Weight Board..etc.

Em, I think some people feel the need to comment on everything whether they agree with it or not. Some people like to raise hackles. It's sad, but it's going to happen with this being such a large community.

I agree though. If you aren't into feeding..etc, don't go into a thread that is SPECIFICALLY about it. Ugh.


----------



## Emma (Apr 13, 2007)

elle camino said:


> i guess because a messageboard is a forum for discussion, and if someone has strong opinions on a topic like WG, posting them on a forum where people talk about WG is a logical step.
> again, not advocating argumentative posts with no point. just saying.



Yes, it is a forum for discussion but unless you were a troll you wouldn't go to a board where they discuss say, body peircing, and say you were totally against it and be rude to people. If you were against if you'd probably roll your eyes and find something better to do, no?


----------



## Emma (Apr 13, 2007)

MisticalMisty said:


> I was trying to find the thread you started sometime last year about the same thing but couldn't find it. I believe in that thread Conrad mentioned the purpose of the Weight Board..etc.
> 
> Em, I think some people feel the need to comment on everything whether they agree with it or not. Some people like to raise hackles. It's sad, but it's going to happen with this being such a large community.
> 
> I agree though. If you aren't into feeding..etc, don't go into a thread that is SPECIFICALLY about it. Ugh.



Yeah, I do remember posting something similer a while back then going on a big mission to get the weight board sorted which worked for quite some time. Everyone just wrote off the naysayers and got on with the way the board was intended and for quite some time that worked. I've just noticed recently it seems to be slipping back to the old ways. Where people will start a topic then lots of people will jump on them telling them how wrong it is.


----------



## elle camino (Apr 13, 2007)

CurvyEm said:


> Yes, it is a forum for discussion but unless you were a troll you wouldn't go to a board where they discuss say, body peircing, and say you were totally against it and be rude to people. If you were against if you'd probably roll your eyes and find something better to do, no?


which is why i said i wasn't defending pointless, disparaging posts. 
however, it WOULD make sense if someone were to go on a body mod forum and ask questions like 'why do people get piercings/tattoos? do they hurt? do you think it's worth the pain and expense?'. i think that a lot of the posts that people on this board who identify as feeder/ees take offense to, all lumped in with the ones which are NOT constructive and which ARE argumentative, fall into the general category of curiosity and confusion and are automatically misconstrued as having some kind of malicious intent.

in short: both sides could benefit from a chill pill.


----------



## Emma (Apr 13, 2007)

elle camino said:


> which is why i said i wasn't defending pointless, disparaging posts.
> however, it WOULD make sense if someone were to go on a body mod forum and ask questions like 'why do people get piercings/tattoos? do they hurt? do you think it's worth the pain and expense?'. i think that a lot of the posts that people on this board who identify as feeder/ees take offense to, all lumped in with the ones which are NOT constructive and which ARE argumentative, fall into the general category of curiosity and confusion and are automatically misconstrued as having some kind of malicious intent.
> 
> in short: both sides could benefit from a chill pill.



I actually really agree. I would have no problems with someone asking questions.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Apr 13, 2007)

I love how every post has to come with a disclaimer. If someone says, "I like brunettes!" they always have to add a 12 point description about how they also like charm, witt, intelligence, bla bla bla.


----------



## Spanky (Apr 13, 2007)

elle camino said:


> in short: both sides could benefit from a chill pill.



You guys are all so nice, even when you're not making totally nice.  

Here you go, on me!


----------



## MsGreenLantern (Apr 13, 2007)

I have noticed negativity too...but at the same time, a lot of the threads ask questions that pose the possibility of for or against. Its not okay to yell or force your opinion on someone, but it is okay, when asked, to state an opinion well explained. 

I myself am not interested in living the lifestyle, but I still find it interesting to read about it.


----------



## Emma (Apr 13, 2007)

LillyBBBW said:


> I love how every post has to come with a disclaimer. If someone says, "I like brunettes!" they always have to add a 12 point description about how they also like charm, witt, intelligence, bla bla bla.



lol oh I know. 

1: "What is your fav body type?"
2: "wellllll I am totally for personality" 

lol Ok well go to the GSOH board


----------



## lemmink (Apr 13, 2007)

I think there's degrees of weight gain fanasies as well. Some people are just here because they fantasise about someone gaining about 10-50 pounds, or are all about consensual, milder fantasies. They're probably going to object pretty quickly about people who have fantasies about more hardcore shiznit involving immobility and feeder/feedee relationships with strong dominant/submissive elements. 

Some people might find it a leetle difficult to believe the fact that their fantasy (I want my wife to put on a couple of pounds, eg.) is linked on the sexual spectrum with people whose fantasies involve blowing up folks with feeding tubes, etc. Others may enjoy their fantasies but find it reprehensible when people actually put them into practise...

I don't know, I'm just speculating. Some things that come up on this board make me twitch a helluvalot, and I'm actually in a feeder-style relationship IRL.


----------



## crazygrad (Apr 13, 2007)

Em, If you're really curious about why someone who isn't into WG would ocme to this board, I can give you a little info as to why I do.

I'm not into weight gain. I'm not really opposed to it, though my post in another thread may give that impression. Frankly, I don't care if someone is gaining for erotic or other pleasure if they choose to do it and understand the potential effects of their actions. If you like it, want to do, aren't being forced to do it- have fun. I seldom (until recently) visited this board, unless a thread title jumped out at for some reason (a funny line, reference to something or someone I was familiar with, or something).

That said, I have a friend here who is into gaining, and wants to continue gaining despite the real, serious medical problems she is experiencing. These problems are related to and exacerbated by her weight. Every few weeks, she calls me and asks for some sort of practical help because her mobility and activity is restricted. She was fairly small when she started (around 175) and I was maybe 270 and she asked me frequently about problems/concerns/issues/challenges I had as a fat woman. Despite or because of my description, she decided to gain and now is approaching being housebound. She wants to continue gaining but has no apparent interest in improving her mobility, managing her diabetes, blood pressure, cholesterol, or the other problems she is experiencing.
So I occasionally check out this board to get better insight into weight gain issues. Sometimes what I see or read leads me to respond, but ordinarily, I don't come to this board.


----------



## LoveBHMS (Apr 13, 2007)

which allow me to actually read Elle's posts and interpret them. It's like having a secret decoder ring.

What she meant was that this is a _discussion_ board on which to _discuss_ both weight gain _and_ fantasy issues. Discuss does not necessarily mean "cheerleader" or have a board that is all "I think WG rocks" "Me too!" but also where posters can read about or question WG and fantasy issues surrounding WG. One need not agree with or participate gaining/feeding to post comments or questions.

How'd I do, EC??


----------



## elle camino (Apr 13, 2007)

top drawer.



my last two cents: threads and threads and threads of people agreeing with each other amounts to a circle jerk, and it's boring. anyone who's confident in their preferences enough to air them in such a public way as posting them on a prominent messageboard, shouldn't be scared of explaining them. 
lovesBHMS, it's safe to assume you love BHMs. does it ruin your day when another woman says she prefers skinny guys and doesn't see the appeal of a fat guy?


also thanks for the pill, spank.


----------



## Emma (Apr 13, 2007)

elle camino said:


> top drawer.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah, that would be boring. But what is also boring is someone posting about what they like and having people jump on them with either sarcastic, nasty or horrible posts. I'm all for healthy discussion. What I'm not for is people being afraid to post for fear of ridicule.


----------



## elle camino (Apr 13, 2007)

CurvyEm said:


> I'm all for healthy discussion. What I'm not for is people being afraid to post for fear of ridicule.


word............


----------



## LoveBHMS (Apr 13, 2007)

elle camino said:


> top drawer.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Actually, if I'm in the mood, I will even discuss my preference for BHM's, discuss the merits of BHMS, admit that I'm not even sure why I love them, answer questions about whether I also like smaller men, discuss if I think it's a fetish or a preference, etc.

OTOH, if a woman says "I don't like fat guys" I may just say "Hey, cool, chaucun a son gout" which in French means "To each his own." Or I may even say "Cool! More fat guys for me and more skinny guys for you since we won't be going after the same pool of men."


----------



## Jack Skellington (Apr 13, 2007)

As I've stated many times, I post out of spite.


----------



## Red (Apr 14, 2007)

lemmink said:


> I think there's degrees of weight gain fanasies as well. Some people are just here because they fantasise about someone gaining about 10-50 pounds, or are all about consensual, milder fantasies. They're probably going to object pretty quickly about people who have fantasies about more hardcore shiznit involving immobility and feeder/feedee relationships with strong dominant/submissive elements.
> 
> Some people might find it a leetle difficult to believe the fact that their fantasy (I want my wife to put on a couple of pounds, eg.) is linked on the sexual spectrum with people whose fantasies involve blowing up folks with feeding tubes, etc. Others may enjoy their fantasies but find it reprehensible when people actually put them into practise...
> 
> I don't know, I'm just speculating. Some things that come up on this board make me twitch a helluvalot, and I'm actually in a feeder-style relationship IRL.






Yep, what she said. Well put, little wise Lemmink!


----------



## furious styles (Apr 14, 2007)

cage fight !

YOUR KING DEMANDS IT


----------



## ripley (Apr 14, 2007)

I hope I don't scare anyone with my opinions...but the board is here and open to the public, so no one is safe from hearing them.


----------



## Miss Vickie (Apr 14, 2007)

MisticalMisty said:


> Em, I think some people feel the need to comment on everything whether they agree with it or not. Some people like to raise hackles. It's sad, but it's going to happen with this being such a large community.
> 
> I agree though. If you aren't into feeding..etc, don't go into a thread that is SPECIFICALLY about it. Ugh.



Indeed. Which is why I wonder why people love coming to the WLS board and thrashing those of us who have had WLS. Rather than a "to each his or her own" attitude, I've gotten told that my doctor is a butcher and that I'll be dead in six months -- or hyperbole to that effect.

I don't hang out here all the time, and hardly ever post, because I have similar feelings to crazygrad. However, I come visit from time to time because I've been part of Dimensions for ten years, part of size acceptance for longer than that, and have lived in a fat body (though less fat now) for over 40 years. And yeah, I like to talk about sex, too.  Mostly, though, it's because my friends post here and I like to read what they write; but I don't really feel the need to share my feelings about feeding because I figured you guys don't really give a rat's ass what I think. 



elle camino said:


> in short: both sides could benefit from a chill pill.



I'd rep you but it won't let me. But consider yourself repped at least in spirit.


----------



## fatgirl33 (Apr 14, 2007)

CurvyEm said:


> I don't enjoy political discussion so I don't really go on 'Hyde Park'.



I completely understand where you're coming from. Although I agree, if everyone just agrees with one another it gets dull pretty fast, personally I also avoid Hyde Park because, more or less, I realize that most of the folks posting points of view there have already made up their minds and nothing anyone posts is going to change them.

I'm all in favour of weight gain and feeder-type behaviour, if it matters, BTW!  

Brenda


----------



## OfftoOtherPlaces (Apr 14, 2007)

elle camino said:


> threads and threads and threads of people agreeing with each other amounts to a circle jerk, and it's boring.



Hey, a circle jerk doesn't sound boring... maybe we could do it on a mountain top with, you know, music and some robes... it would be sexy.

Oh wait. Nevermind.


----------



## Waxwing (Apr 15, 2007)

I enjoy the weight board. I'm not into feederism, but I do find it interesting, and enjoy tossing my babbling into the mix. People who just come here to insult are beyond me. Everyone has their own individual kink. That's what makes life interesting.


----------



## out.of.habit (Apr 15, 2007)

Waxwing said:


> I enjoy the weight board. I'm not into feederism, but I do find it interesting, and enjoy tossing my babbling into the mix. People who just come here to insult are beyond me. Everyone has their own individual kink. That's what makes life interesting.



Took the words right out of my... keyboard?


----------



## Waxwing (Apr 15, 2007)

out.of.habit said:


> Took the words right out of my... keyboard?



Bet you didn't know I was in your keyboard. I'm looking up at you RIGHT NOW.


----------



## out.of.habit (Apr 15, 2007)

Waxwing said:


> Bet you didn't know I was in your keyboard. I'm looking up at you RIGHT NOW.



*tap tap* Hey- you okay in there? *tap* Are you stuck? *tap tap tap* Need a snack?

/hijacking


----------



## Waxwing (Apr 15, 2007)

out.of.habit said:


> *tap tap* Hey- you okay in there? *tap* Are you stuck? *tap tap tap* Need a snack?
> 
> /hijacking



Yeah, if you're up, I could use a sandwich. And a margarita.


----------



## love dubh (Apr 15, 2007)

To steal Soupy's method, whenever someone persists in thinking that I *must* be a feedee, because, after all, why would a slim gal be here (I love the conversation! What? Don't look at me like that!), I tell them that yes, I want to gain a bajilliony pounds.

Other than that...Hi, my name is love dubh, and I have fantasy issues. xD


----------



## Totmacher (Apr 15, 2007)

I have a real issue with people who have major feeding-related guilt issues. I think that a lot of our drama comes from people who are locked in a subconscious, "feeding makes me happy, but the possible consequences make me sad." loop and have decided us who've been spared that particular mental malfunction should pay.


----------



## MadeFA (Apr 15, 2007)

Like everything in the world, feeding/weight gain has its good sides and bad sides. People who want to argue for or against something are fine, and wonderful, and mature but the problem is that when people just start arguing from their end (ie. I don't like feederism, so I will align all my arguments to show that it is wrong) and then refuse to accept that other's can also make logical arguments against your stance. People that do this are immature.... I can't stand these people, so I just don't bother responding to their ignorance (not just on the feeding theme, all things in life). 

So Em, I just ignore most of this stuff and do not let it bother me. No one has started with neutral claims that have resulted in feederism being totally bad/evil... people have only back tracked starting with the notion that it is wrong, and finding claims that go along with it.

Guess it's just my philosophy education.


----------



## Russ2d (Apr 16, 2007)

I agree completely Curvyem (I often ask the same question),

The purpose of the weightgain board is for a positive discussion about weightgain and the fantasies related to it... it is not for weightgain and "fantasy" as in anything else you can think of, like say, I hate both feeders and men who don't support women losing weight.

The board is something of a failure because despite all the babble about people innocently expressing their opinions the truth is there are more than a few that jump all over anyone expressing their desire, support, and/or experiences with weightgain/feederism, among other things as well.

People who post here almost always dilute their messages for fear of getting attacked.

How many times have we read the word "offensive, offended" as in, I am, on this "discussion" board? How many times has someone's post been twisted like say, "I love women getting fatter" and then receiving responses like "so you want her to explode and die!"

Let's can all the BS about the virtue of differing opinions when the truth is the weightgain board is plagued by a silly clique of ranting posters who shouldn't be here since they are so "offended" by the subject and those that post.


----------



## TheSadeianLinguist (Apr 16, 2007)

It is not, and has never been, a board STRICTLY for discussing weight gain. Guess what, Russ? I hate to surprise you, but just because someone is into feeding or weight gain doesn't mean they all have the same beliefs as you. It certainly doesn't mean they can't disagree with you when you say a woman's self-esteem is contingent on a heterosexual relationship.

You know who was respected and liked and never minced words? UncannyBruceman. Yep, openly a feeder, and openly disucssed getting his girlfriend fatter. And he was a cool guy who respected women and their choices. So let's can that shit of, "ANYONE who likes women getting fatter is a demonized victim." Pretty much everyone likes Fuzzy, Edx, and all those guys into gaining. And they are not shy about telling you. No, people don't like assholes. Guys into gaining who still respect women? Most of us are just fine with that.



Russ2d said:


> I agree completely Curvyem (I often ask the same question),
> 
> The purpose of the weightgain board is for a positive discussion about weightgain and the fantasies related to it... it is not for weightgain and "fantasy" as in anything else you can think of, like say, I hate both feeders and men who don't support women losing weight.
> 
> ...


----------



## GratefulFA (Apr 16, 2007)

Hi,

I am thinking of journeying into chat again after an absence of about 9 years.

In those days people used to migrate to weight gain chat and the weight board in big numbers because they found more tolerance there of all types of people.

It was hillerious: wherever on the net the eccentrics of weightgain would gather, everyone else would follow until the majority wanted to throw the weight gain people out!

I don't know how it is these days but I am about to find out. : )

GFA


----------



## Waxwing (Apr 16, 2007)

Russ2d said:


> Let's can all the BS about the virtue of differing opinions when the truth is the weightgain board is plagued by a silly clique of ranting posters who shouldn't be here since they are so "offended" by the subject and those that post.


 
This seems a little melodramatic. Sure there are people who have a negative reaction to feederism, but I've noticed that even those who disagree with it are for the most part open and polite about what they believe. And even if they did rant, so what? It's a message board. On the internet. It's for the free exchange of ideas, hotheaded or not. 

There are plenty of people who are into feederism to balance out those who aren't. 

I've been reading and posting on the weight board, and while I've noticed people disagreeing with the practice, I haven't noticed attacking going on.

Thought about this for a moment more and am adding: I think that what the rants are often regarding are statements which seem disrespectful of women. And I don't think that by any stretch feederism is automatically disrespectful. But if someone, who happens to be a feeder, says something which offends women (regardless of their feelings on feederism), they're going to shout pretty loudly. Maybe that drowns everything else out. Hope that makes sense.


----------



## SamanthaNY (Apr 16, 2007)

> I am thinking of journeying into chat again after an absence of about 9 years.
> In those days people used to migrate to weight gain chat and the weight board in big numbers because they found more tolerance there of all types of people.
> It was hillerious: wherever on the net the eccentrics of weightgain would gather, everyone else would follow until the majority wanted to throw the weight gain people out!
> I don't know how it is these days but I am about to find out. : )
> GFA


I was around back then (though I don't remember your name specifically) - we didn't go into the feeder rooms because they were "more tolerant" - we went there because it's where _people _were. And at the time, there was rarely any feeder discussion (honestly, you can't talk about it 24/7). We weren't "following" any specific group around, we just wanted people to chat with. It just became the room to go to, where everyone hung out. There was nothing nefarious in it. And it still happens... from time to time the rooms shift. No one can really explain why. 

For those who were seeking true feeder discussion, it was unfortunate, I admit the non-feeder/ees water down the mix too much to sustain on-topic discussion. But - no one was/is purposely trying to pursue or oppress the feeder/ees. We just want to chat.


----------



## ripley (Apr 16, 2007)

Russ2d said:


> I agree completely Curvyem (I often ask the same question),
> 
> The purpose of the *weightgain board* is for a positive discussion about *weightgain *and the fantasies related to it... it is not for *weightgain* and "fantasy" as in anything else you can think of, like say, I hate both feeders and men who don't support women losing weight.
> 
> ...



The name is Weight Board....not Weightgain Board. I'm fat, sometimes I gain weight (didn't get here by magic), sometimes I have sexual fantasies, yet am not a feeder/feedee. I still think I fit here, and will continue to post here as the notion takes me...unless and until Conrad tells me I can't.

You want a spot where you can talk fat fantasies, gaining fantasies without censure? Then I'd recommend starting a thread with a caveat in the opening post about it being for fantasy and not for other views/opinions. I think you'll find people would respect that.


----------



## mrman1980uk (Apr 16, 2007)

elle camino said:


> it's not 'weight gain fantasy issues'. if it were, i'd understand the 'why even read this forum?' sentiment of the OP.
> as it is, and hell maybe it's an editorial oversight (conrad?), it says 'weight gain _and _fantasy issues'. meaning to the reader: this board is for weight gain related things and other fantasy type stuff.



Surely, though, the context tells us what _sort_ of fantasy issues are involved: namely, those related to weight gain. A board entitled the "weight board" would hardly be the place to discuss Tolkien novels, would it? 

It does not simply say "weight gain fantasy issues", because it is not _just_ fantasies relating to weight-gain that are to be discussed here: the reality of weight-gain is also a topic for discussion.


----------



## Waxwing (Apr 16, 2007)

mrman1980uk said:


> A board entitled the "weight board" would hardly be the place to discuss Tolkien novels, would it?
> .



I don't know, those Uruk Hai tend to pack on the pounds during the winter. 

*slinks away*


----------



## SamanthaNY (Apr 16, 2007)

mrman1980uk said:


> are to be discussed here



dis·cuss /d&#618;&#712;sk&#652;s/ Pronunciation Key - Pronunciation[di-skuhs] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
verb (used with object)
1.	to consider or examine by argument, comment, etc.; talk over or write about, esp. to explore solutions; debate: to discuss the proposed law on taxes.
2.	Civil Law.
a.	to collect a debt from (the person primarily liable) before proceeding against the person secondarily liable.
b.	to execute against the movable property of (a debtor) before proceeding against the debtor's immovable property, as land.
*3.	Rare. to consume (food or drink) enthusiastically.*

Heh, just thought that last part was funny.


----------



## alienlanes (Apr 16, 2007)

Waxwing said:


> I don't know, those Uruk Hai tend to pack on the pounds during the winter.
> 
> *slinks away*



What we really need to know is how many calories are in a loaf of lembas bread.


----------



## mrman1980uk (Apr 16, 2007)

lemmink said:


> I think there's degrees of weight gain fanasies as well. Some people are just here because they fantasise about someone gaining about 10-50 pounds, or are all about consensual, milder fantasies. They're probably going to object pretty quickly about people who have fantasies about more hardcore shiznit involving immobility and feeder/feedee relationships with strong dominant/submissive elements.



I am in your aforementioned category, but I don't _object_ to people having more extreme fantasies. Really, people can fantasise about anything they like; and very often, people cannot help what they fantasise about. I come to the boards to read about (and sometimes post about) what I am interested in. If I see something that doesn't interest me, I don't look at it. Really, I daresay that there'd be a great deal more in the way of holding hands and singing and dancing and bunnies and flowers and rainbows and marshmallows here if a few more people did the same...



> Some people might find it a leetle difficult to believe the fact that their fantasy (I want my wife to put on a couple of pounds, eg.) is linked on the sexual spectrum with people whose fantasies involve blowing up folks with feeding tubes, etc. Others may enjoy their fantasies but find it reprehensible when people actually put them into practise...



It is only linked in the trivial sense that the orientation of being attracted to women is linked to the sexual preferences of serial rapists. (Note: I do not mean to equate those who fantasise about, or engage in, more extreme forms of feederism with serial rapists. The point was made about the relevance of the connexion between the two: even on the assumption that there is something questionable about the latter, there is no need for anybody to feel uncomfortable in consequence of such a trivial link). 



> I don't know, I'm just speculating. Some things that come up on this board make me twitch a helluvalot, and I'm actually in a feeder-style relationship IRL.



You lucky man, you!


----------



## Waxwing (Apr 16, 2007)

SlackerFA said:


> What we really need to know is how many calories are in a loaf of lembas bread.



It's probably pretty light, being Elvish, but Cram is LOADED with empty calories.

oh my god I'm such a nerd. I actually just scared myself.


----------



## mrman1980uk (Apr 16, 2007)

My goodness, it's QuickDraw McWeightBoard on the fast forum responses...


----------



## out.of.habit (Apr 16, 2007)

Waxwing said:


> I don't know, those Uruk Hai tend to pack on the pounds during the winter.
> 
> *slinks away*



Oh Waxwing, I'm so fricken glad you came to Dimensions. I think you've made me burst out laughing like 12 times in the last two days alone. lol Thanks for that. It won't let me rep you again, damn it.


----------



## Jack Skellington (Apr 16, 2007)

TheSadeianLinguist said:


> No, people don't like assholes.



Can't argue with that logic.


----------



## LoveBHMS (Apr 16, 2007)

Russ2d said:


> I agree completely Curvyem (I often ask the same question),
> 
> The purpose of the weightgain board is for a positive discussion about weightgain and the fantasies related to it... it is not for weightgain and "fantasy" as in anything else you can think of, like say, I hate both feeders and men who don't support women losing weight.
> 
> ...



If you notice, SamanthaNY's posting of the meaning of the word discussion did not include "everyone thinks the exact same way about something and says so."

Second, yes there are people on here who don't like or understand feederism, but I've never seen a post where anyone accuses a feeder of wanting a woman to explode and die.

Third, as Lemmink says, there are an infinite number of varying degrees of this fetish. 

Let's say this board were about golf, and everyone was discussing what types of golf clubs they had and what golf courses they liked and what they looked for in a caddy and exchanged ideas on exercises to improve their swing. Then some person posts and says "I love golf so much I plan on divorcing my wife because she hates golf. I plan on giving up my job, looting my kids' college fund and doing nothing but playing golf 7 days a week." It's reasonable to think that the other golf fanatics might say "hey, dude, that's kind of extreme, don't you think?"


----------



## Rosie (Apr 17, 2007)

CurvyEm said:


> This question is directed at those who DON'T enjoy stuff to do with feederism. Why exactly do you come on *THIS* board. If you don't enjoy it, and it offends you, why do you feel the need to answer posts to do with it claiming to be against it and then pull the poster to bits?




I didn't even realize I was on the weight board (right now) until I read this post. I do not frequent this board, but I must have clicked on it accidentally - I had meant to go to Hyde Park - yes I DO need new glasses and I'm not kidding about that!

I see a LOT of posts here that have nothing to do with feederism and that should be on the General board. Why is this not enforced (insisting that threads be on the proper board)? Perhaps that is why non feeders/feedees come here - because there are so many discussions that should be on another board.


----------



## GratefulFA (Apr 17, 2007)

SamanthaNY said:


> I was around back then (though I don't remember your name specifically) - we didn't go into the feeder rooms because they were "more tolerant" - we went there because it's where _people _were.



Interesting. Thanks for posting. My nic was newfie_m. I haven't thought of chatting because of the time it takes, but I'm thinking of trying because I miss the community.

From these posts here it looks like there has always been a little tension around the topic. I am grateful there is at least some place where the topic can be addressed.

I am open to an exchnge of ideas pro and con unless it gets close minded and mean.


----------



## SamanthaNY (Apr 17, 2007)

Oh, sure - I remember you! C'mon by - it's always good to hear fom another oldster. Chat is very different from what you remember, but it's still a good group of people.

And yeah, there's always some dicey subjects here, but overall, it's still a great place.


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy (Apr 17, 2007)

TheSadeianLinguist said:


> It is not, and has never been, a board STRICTLY for discussing weight gain. Guess what, Russ? I hate to surprise you, but just because someone is into feeding or weight gain doesn't mean they all have the same beliefs as you. It certainly doesn't mean they can't disagree with you when you say a woman's self-esteem is contingent on a heterosexual relationship.
> 
> You know who was respected and liked and never minced words? UncannyBruceman. Yep, openly a feeder, and openly disucssed getting his girlfriend fatter. And he was a cool guy who respected women and their choices. So let's can that shit of, "ANYONE who likes women getting fatter is a demonized victim." Pretty much everyone likes Fuzzy, Edx, and all those guys into gaining. And they are not shy about telling you. No, people don't like assholes. Guys into gaining who still respect women? Most of us are just fine with that.



I hate when it tells me I've spread too much rep in the last 24 hours....


----------



## waldo (Apr 21, 2007)

TheSadeianLinguist said:


> ...............You know who was respected and liked and never minced words? UncannyBruceman. Yep, openly a feeder, and openly disucssed getting his girlfriend fatter. And he was a cool guy who respected women and their choices. So let's can that shit of, "ANYONE who likes women getting fatter is a demonized victim." Pretty much everyone likes Fuzzy, Edx, and all those guys into gaining. And they are not shy about telling you. No, people don't like assholes. Guys into gaining who still respect women? Most of us are just fine with that.



I think one can be thought of as an asshole when expressing strong views in a non sugar-coated (with no accompanying disclaimers) fashion by those who do not agree with or like those views. So one person's 'cool guy' may be another's 'asshole'. For you to say 'pretty much everybody likes so and so' is a bit of a stretch. Now regarding Bruce, where are you Bruce? Please come back and post here again!  

As far as the original post in this thread, my recollection is that some of the background on why certain folks tend to voice their opinions against the feederism stuff was discussed here


----------



## betina (Apr 21, 2007)

Are most of this site's members feederists/gainers or leaning towards feederism? So far I have nothing to say about the issue, to each his own (mostly) but I think I might be on the wrong site...


----------



## waldo (Apr 21, 2007)

betina said:


> Are most of this site's members feederists/gainers or leaning towards feederism? So far I have nothing to say about the issue, to each his own (mostly) but I think I might be on the wrong site...



I would guess only about 30-40% of the members are feeder/gainer enthusiasts. I wonder if a poll has been done on this question here before.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Apr 21, 2007)

To my knowledge no roll call has ever been taken. At this point I don't know how many people would participate in such a poll unless it were to be completely anonymous.


----------



## SamanthaNY (Apr 21, 2007)

betina said:


> Are most of this site's members feederists/gainers or leaning towards feederism? So far I have nothing to say about the issue, to each his own (mostly) but I think I might be on the wrong site...



That's an interesting question. I'd love to see a poll on the matter (Ripley? ) and evaluations on, for instance; 

who's into gaining, if so - for yourself, or a partner
who's into feeding (or are they _always _the same?), ditto
who's NOT into any of it, but are here for other purposes
closeted, but into it
closeted, not into it and only here to ogle the chicks
splits by gender

I'm sure there are other things we could add to come up with some really interesting statistics. I have to wonder if we'd get completely truthful responses, though.

ETA: yeah, it would have to be anonymous... but I'd still like to see it happen. I bet the numbers might be surprising.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Apr 21, 2007)

SamanthaNY said:


> That's an interesting question. I'd love to see a poll on the matter (Ripley? ) and evaluations on, for instance;
> 
> who's into gaining, if so - for yourself, or a partner
> who's into feeding (or are they _always _the same?), ditto
> ...



Include a category for the 'Not Sure' folks too.


----------



## CleverBomb (Apr 21, 2007)

SamanthaNY said:


> I was around back then (though I don't remember your name specifically) - we didn't go into the feeder rooms because they were "more tolerant" - we went there because it's where _people _were. And at the time, there was rarely any feeder discussion (honestly, you can't talk about it 24/7). We weren't "following" any specific group around, we just wanted people to chat with. It just became the room to go to, where everyone hung out. There was nothing nefarious in it. And it still happens... from time to time the rooms shift. No one can really explain why.



I think (long after the fact) I have actually figured it out. Just a theory, but it makes sense to me...
The die-hard feeder/feedees would stay in their room longer, so that when folks came to the chat when everyone else had gone for the night or whatever, there were still chatters in those rooms. So, they'd wander next door to chat, and when others came in in the morning, that's where everyone was. 

-Rusty


----------



## Jack Skellington (Apr 21, 2007)

SamanthaNY said:


> I'm sure there are other things we could add to come up with some really interesting statistics.



I'm here out of spite.


----------



## fatgirlflyin (Apr 21, 2007)

CurvyEm said:


> Yes, it is a forum for discussion but unless you were a troll you wouldn't go to a board where they discuss say, body peircing, and say you were totally against it and be rude to people. If you were against if you'd probably roll your eyes and find something better to do, no?



Sometimes a good way to gain a clearer understanding of something you dont like, or are uncomfortable with, is to expose yourself to that very same thing in hopes of educating yourself about it.


----------



## TheSadeianLinguist (Apr 22, 2007)

waldo said:


> I think one can be thought of as an asshole when expressing strong views in a non sugar-coated (with no accompanying disclaimers) fashion by those who do not agree with or like those views. So one person's 'cool guy' may be another's 'asshole'. For you to say 'pretty much everybody likes so and so' is a bit of a stretch. Now regarding Bruce, where are you Bruce? Please come back and post here again!
> 
> As far as the original post in this thread, my recollection is that some of the background on why certain folks tend to voice their opinions against the feederism stuff was discussed here



Hence the disclaimer of "pretty much." There's a marked difference between someone who calls it like it is and someone who believes women should tend to his every whim. Bruce liked the idea of dating a feedee. Bruce did not accuse all non-feedees of being emotionally crippled.


----------



## AnnMarie (Apr 22, 2007)

I think a poll is interesting, but would probably never been representative based on the nature of board division. 

If you place it on the MB, feeders/feedees may not see it. 

If you place it on the WB, it may not be seen/participated in by as many people who are not, etc. 

Again, interesting idea, but I doubt it would yield a true view based on factors like that.


----------



## AnnMarie (Apr 22, 2007)

Rosie said:


> I see a LOT of posts here that have nothing to do with feederism and that should be on the General board.



No, the main board, as marked, is for size/size acceptance issues only, despite frequent postings that are completely off topic and get moved all the time.

This board holds more than feederism issues, and always has - even more so when it was the old board set up. 

Fantasy, sexuality, more "adult" themed discussions, weight gain, etc, go here. It's also a place where people can place "racier" (still within rules) pictures if they want to.

(None of this post is about the thread topic, ONLY a response to Rosie's comment about moving threads.)


----------



## AtlasD (Apr 22, 2007)

Any subject as sensitive as this needs discussion, and this forum is one of the few places where this can happen.

There is always a hazard with single theme relationships. Lets assume a couple shares a passion for kayaking. They kayak whenever and wherever they can, kayaking dominates their discussions, all their friends kayak. For some reason- injury, health issues, or loss of interest- one partner no longer can kayak or desires to kayak. The relationship dissolves because the one common thread holding it together has been broken. If a long-term relationship is to survive there must be multiple and diverse shared interests.

Feederism cannot go on forever in a relationship. Just as there is no such thing as infinite weight loss, there also cannot be infinite weight gain. At some point a limit is reached, and where does the relationship go from there? Hopefully there are other shared interests and the relationship continues to develop. But if weight gain is the dominant theme, with few or no other facets to the relationship, then the relationship is doomed, and very likely with someone being emotionally hurt.

What consenting adults do is between them and nobody elses business. If two people want to engage in gaining activity thats their business and their right. The key, of course, is mutual consent and understanding especially if feeding is a key component to the relationship. If the feedee decides that he or she no longer wants to gain, then there is no consent for continued weight gain, and the dynamic of the relationship has changed. There has to be a discussion and consensus between the couple on what will happen when this point is reached, and the discussion has to take place before its reached. 

Any relationship needs to have some thought about the future. Five years seems like a huge length of time to many people, but it goes by so fast. If a couple is serious about the relationship, they need to discuss where they will be a year from now, five years from now.

Finally- ( I can hear you screaming wont this guy shut up?)- Feederism cannot be generalized into good or evil categories; the spectrum and intensity ranges too widely (no pun intended). Most people are put off by extremes and feederism is no exception. (At what point does more fat merely become more fat?) Yet this thread has demonstrated it is possible to have a meaningful discussion on the topic. Most of us participate in these boards because the prevailing culture is intensely hostile to the concept of fat people being esthetically attractive. For the most part, we are here to share our feeling that fat is not ugly, and is, for us, pleasurable- a premise that meets with scorn and derision in our current culture. Feederism, mild or extreme, for good or for ill is a part of the fat esthetic culture; its counterpart in mainstream society is deliberate weight loss to achieve the ideal figure- and its extreme manifestation (anorexia) is as abhorrent as feeding to immobility and/or illness. Discussion and dialogue is valuable because it may help avoid the extremes.


----------



## waldo (Apr 22, 2007)

TheSadeianLinguist said:


> Hence the disclaimer of "pretty much." There's a marked difference between someone who calls it like it is and someone who believes women should tend to his every whim. Bruce liked the idea of dating a feedee. Bruce did not accuse all non-feedees of being emotionally crippled.



'someone who believes women should tend to his every whim'?? Gee, I wonder who it might be that you are insinuating such things about. I fear you may be using a certain amount of hyperbole to make your argument against someone you do not like. It is important not to fall into the trap of assuming you know what is in a person's mind just from a few comments he/she makes on a discussion board and then proceeding to put words in that person's mouth. On the other hand, maybe you have evidence, of which I am not aware, to support this statement.

Now regarding this issue of women basing their sense of self-worth largely on being attractive to the opposite sex (or the same sex in the case of homosexuals) -it is important to point out that this is true for men as well. A man who feels unattractive to women will invariably have self-esteem issues as well. One difference is that the things which attract us to the opposite sex are different for men and women. The women are judged much more for their looks, whereas a man can compensate for below average looks by being financially successful. I'm not trying to insinuate women are gold-diggers, just naturally (subconsiously) drawn to what they see as a good provider.


----------



## TheSadeianLinguist (Apr 22, 2007)

All right. Quit being hypersensitive for thirty seconds. I was speaking about Russ who said at one point it was fine if a woman wanted to lose weight for a man, but not for herself. He said it. Go read his posts.

And, uh, plenty of women (to include myself) are self-sufficient. I don't think EITHER sex wants to date someone largely unsuccessful; that would be stupid. 

Yes, people of both sexes try to attract mates. Nooooo shit, but self-esteem is not contingent on that alone. It's not even contingent on being pretty. 

And you know what's more important, Waldo? Looking at people as individuals. Try that out sometime. You'll like it. I'm out.



waldo said:


> 'someone who believes women should tend to his every whim'?? Gee, I wonder who it might be that you are insinuating such things about. I fear you may be using a certain amount of hyperbole to make your argument against someone you do not like. It is important not to fall into the trap of assuming you know what is in a person's mind just from a few comments he/she makes on a discussion board and then proceeding to put words in that person's mouth. On the other hand, maybe you have evidence, of which I am not aware, to support this statement.
> 
> Now regarding this issue of women basing their sense of self-worth largely on being attractive to the opposite sex (or the same sex in the case of homosexuals) -it is important to point out that this is true for men as well. A man who feels unattractive to women will invariably have self-esteem issues as well. One difference is that the things which attract us to the opposite sex are different for men and women. The women are judged much more for their looks, whereas a man can compensate for below average looks by being financially successful. I'm not trying to insinuate women are gold-diggers, just naturally (subconsiously) drawn to what they see as a good provider.


----------



## Waxwing (Apr 22, 2007)

waldo said:


> The women are judged much more for their looks, whereas a man can compensate for below average looks by being financially successful. I'm not trying to insinuate women are gold-diggers, just naturally (subconsiously) drawn to what they see as a good provider.


 
This sentence made me itchy. 

This whole notion of women being naturally (and parenthetically mentioning the subconscious doesn't make it less insulting) drawn to someone who is a "good provider" is a bunch of bull. If there are some women who believe that they need to be 'taken care of' it is due to a deficient society in which we have, for some reason, decided that women need care and that men are the natural providers. 

I'm not saying you made it up. Many people believe this, and I think that it's simply false. Women are not only capable of self-sufficiency, but are in fact _evolutionarily more likely_ to care for themselves and their offspring than to require outside assistance. I'm not limiting my discussion to humans; in the animal kingdom child-rearing (which would be the de facto reason for needing support) is a job which is primarily left to female animals. 

So, really, not so natural. Humans have, relatively recently in our history, created a false connection between men and support, and between women and need. We may attempt to reinforce the idea of needing a "provider" to our female children, but that does make it any more true. 

If we are naturally drawn to certain characteristics in potential mates, those would have to do more with genetic viability rather than financial status. We've not had even the concept of money long enough to make it an evolutionary trait. It is true that we are innately drawn to people who seem to be physically capable of producing viable and healthy offspring. As animals, the wallet just doesn't come in to it. 

I'm not biting your ass about this, Waldo. You said something that countless people believe. I'm just sick of hearing something so manufactured called "natural".


----------



## waldo (Apr 23, 2007)

TheSadeianLinguist said:


> All right. Quit being hypersensitive for thirty seconds. I was speaking about Russ who said at one point it was fine if a woman wanted to lose weight for a man, but not for herself. He said it. Go read his posts.
> 
> And, uh, plenty of women (to include myself) are self-sufficient. I don't think EITHER sex wants to date someone largely unsuccessful; that would be stupid.
> 
> ...



I know you were talking about Russ, I was being sarcastic. I would like to hear Russ answer to your accusations. When I have time, I might go back and read some of his posts.

As far as self-esteem and looks, I don't mean to say it is totally dependent, but it is the rare person whose self-esteem is not significantly affected by this issue - if for no other reason than because unattractive people get picked on and discriminated against.

I agree that people should be treated as individuals, but there are certain common patterns of behavior which exist.



Waxwing said:


> This sentence made me itchy.
> 
> This whole notion of women being naturally (and parenthetically mentioning the subconscious doesn't make it less insulting) drawn to someone who is a "good provider" is a bunch of bull. If there are some women who believe that they need to be 'taken care of' it is due to a deficient society in which we have, for some reason, decided that women need care and that men are the natural providers.
> 
> ...



I think that the financial provider of today would be analogous to the physically strong male from prehistoric times, who protects the tribe from external threats and can hunt down game for food. This is different from lions, for example, where the males tend to sit on their butts and let the females go out and hunt for food. In today's world, we use money to buy food and shelter which used to be taken by physical force. Today, money is power. I am certainly no expert on anthropology, but this is my understanding of the issue.

My apologies for taking this thread way off topic.


----------



## Waxwing (Apr 23, 2007)

waldo said:


> I think that the financial provider of today would be analogous to the physically strong male from prehistoric times, who protects the tribe from external threats and can hunt down game for food. This is different from lions, for example, where the males tend to sit on their butts and let the females go out and hunt for food. In today's world, we use money to buy food and shelter which used to be taken by physical force. Today, money is power. I am certainly no expert on anthropology, but this is my understanding of the issue.
> 
> My apologies for taking this thread way off topic.


 
Look, I still take down my food via hand-to-hand combat.  

I see your point, and I actually wish we had some anthropologists in here who could discuss this with is. Are there any anthropologists on Dims?


----------

