Dimensions Forums  
Home Register Premium Membership Stories Ye Olde Library Health Issues Market Place Big Fashion

Go Back   Dimensions Forums > Discussion > Weight Board > Weight Gain



Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-11-2007, 07:38 AM   #1
Baby Robot
 
Baby Robot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: THE SOUTH
Posts: 42
Baby Robot can now change their title
Default Rolls and Revolution: a systemic take on Feederism

This post is a fairly general pondering of fat sociology and history, but I started it as a response to the question, "Can someone become a feeder/feedee, or is something that's there from birth?"

It can be done, and I'm living proof. There's obviously no single standard for female beauty worldwide. There's a dominant one, sure, for white, blonde, blue-eyed members of the Swedish bikini team, but people find sexiness in rebellions from that image, regardless of the politics of their choice (e.g. white American men tend to fetishize the "otherness" of Latinas in America, believing them to be more passionate, or Asian women, feeling there's something about them that's more submissive and obedient.) With the way that beauty standards have changed so rapidly on a historical scale, genetics don't nearly play as big a part in what we find attractive as we might think. That's not to say there aren't biological proclivities that feeder/feedees tap into in our own little kink, but it's hardly as cut and dried an issue as "feeder/feedees are born, not made."

For instance, previous beauty ideals tended to lift up the economically unattainable and reinforce a class system which dictates that the wealthiest people are also the most attractive and desirable. When Western society was primarily agricultural, the poorest members (men and women) of that society were out in the fields all day under the sun and didn't always have much to eat, becoming tan and lean as a result. Not surprisingly, the dominant beauty image at the time for women was fair skin and plump curves. When the opposite began to come true in post-WWII America, with farming diminishing as a viable occupational avenue and men making enough money to let their women grow plump and fair in a booming economy, the paradigm radically shifted again; within ten years we had Twiggy and a similarly slim crop of models. Unfortunately as a culture we have a staggeringly short memory when it comes to determining what we find attractive. Now we talk about "classic beauty" as being something that started in the 1940s.

However, even this is shifting again. With gyms and diets and tanning salons available fairly cheap, the "tan and skinny" look is becoming more accessible to more people. Too accessible in fact, to be significant as an indicator of economic success. As a result, the beauty image is shifting to now idolize youth, with treatments to keep one's skin forever young and beautiful and paralyzed with toxins appropriately expensive so that only the wealthy can afford it.

Fat Admiration in general and Feeder/Feedee in particular reject this standard and therefore are kinks with a political dimension, although not always one that is acknowledged. I'd say there is a greater proportion of pro-fat activism because fat is not always a voluntary aspect of one's life, and fat is much more visible a kink (for those who find it kinky) than, say, being a furry. This is especially true for gainers. As anyone who's come back from college 30 pounds heavier than when their family last saw them, there are intense personal and public pressures to lose weight, coming from people we love (our families) and people we've been conditioned to trust (our doctors.)

When I mentioned biology up front, it's because despite all the societal conditioning against fat people, we've got most of the biology on our side. Human dietary patterns until the rise of agriculture has been feast and famine, such as when a large animal was killed or when trees dropped their fruit. As such, since our stomachs could only hold so much at one time, we developed an evolutionary taste for sugar and fat, where we could get the most energy from in times of famine. We're also biologically programmed to look for prosperity as determined by how much food one had as determined by how fat people are, so the next time someone says they aren't into fat girls/guys, they're lying, either to you or to themselves. We're also attracted to youth, which implies longer fertility and greater yields of genetic survival, which I feel (although I have no statistically significant data to go off of) explains the fetishization of phenotypes prevalent in youth: blonde hair and blue eyes.

This post is already insanely long, but I think it serves to illustrate that if you've tossed off the shackles of feeling guilty about being fat, you're a revolutionary. The most insidious aspect of this system is that it is self perpetuating; the next generation of people will have to deal with the same oppressive body image conditioning, if not a more vicious and malevolent form of it. So take up the pudgy flag, and say it loud: I'm fat, and I'm proud! (or "I like fat people, and I'm proud!")
Baby Robot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2007, 10:42 AM   #2
The Fat Man
Fat Don Draper
 
The Fat Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: TX
Posts: 348
The Fat Man never has a post go unnoticedThe Fat Man never has a post go unnoticedThe Fat Man never has a post go unnoticedThe Fat Man never has a post go unnoticedThe Fat Man never has a post go unnoticedThe Fat Man never has a post go unnoticedThe Fat Man never has a post go unnoticedThe Fat Man never has a post go unnoticed
Default

Now this is a post worth my time and effort to reply to, kudos my friend, well said and spot on on all accounts.
The Fat Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2007, 02:43 PM   #3
Jon Blaze
Dusk
 
Jon Blaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Oklahoma City, OK ya dig? ;)
Posts: 6,744
Jon Blaze keeps pushing the rep limit!Jon Blaze keeps pushing the rep limit!Jon Blaze keeps pushing the rep limit!Jon Blaze keeps pushing the rep limit!Jon Blaze keeps pushing the rep limit!Jon Blaze keeps pushing the rep limit!Jon Blaze keeps pushing the rep limit!Jon Blaze keeps pushing the rep limit!Jon Blaze keeps pushing the rep limit!Jon Blaze keeps pushing the rep limit!Jon Blaze keeps pushing the rep limit!
Default

Nicely Done!
__________________
Love people of all sizes!!! History is sometimes more logical than society.- Me

"Happiness is not stopping to think if you are."- Palmer Sondreal
Jon Blaze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2007, 04:48 PM   #4
love dubh
douchebag reform school
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,728
love dubh has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!love dubh has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!love dubh has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!love dubh has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!love dubh has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!love dubh has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!love dubh has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!love dubh has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!love dubh has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!love dubh has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!love dubh has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!
Default

I don't think the preference alone makes you a revolutionary who damns the man, and rocks the foundations of the system; in the same way that being a lesbian isn't "throwing off the chains of male chauvenism."

The actions you take to the make the constituents of your preference happier and given them a better life is what makes you a revolutionary.

Activism is the key, which you stated briefly. I think that factor, however, should be emphasized within the SA community.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Representative John Duncan, R-TN
It seems rather elitist to me for people who may have degrees in this field feel that they, because they've studied it, they somehow know better than the parents.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Stewart
Yes, in the Brownback family we teach that boys have a god stick and girls have a shame cave.
Manny: yeah but i could be patient zero to a rabies epidemic
Manny: rabies is as close to zombification as we can get
love dubh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2007, 05:43 PM   #5
Baby Robot
 
Baby Robot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: THE SOUTH
Posts: 42
Baby Robot can now change their title
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by love dubh View Post
I don't think the preference alone makes you a revolutionary who damns the man, and rocks the foundations of the system; in the same way that being a lesbian isn't "throwing off the chains of male chauvenism."

The actions you take to the make the constituents of your preference happier and given them a better life is what makes you a revolutionary.

Activism is the key, which you stated briefly. I think that factor, however, should be emphasized within the SA community.
I think we agree on most of this, but I feel the comparison drawn between fat people and lesbians is imprecise. It could be argued all day that there's some way to identify a lesbian by sight, but outside of a piece of clothing which has "I'm a lesbian" printed on it, it seems to me impossible. Not so with fat people. I tend to view fat acceptance more in line with the mainstream acceptance which tattoos are gaining. Simply by virtue of their existence are they a public statement, and since nowadays, all tattoos are voluntary and embraced by their owners, there's been a sea change in how people perceive them. What was was the provenance of sailors and convicts became common to lawyers and bankers and doctors, and remained public to reinforce itself within the mainstream until my priest doesn't bat an eye when he sees my tattoos peak out from my collar. Of course, since most people claim and affirm their tattoos and most people do not claim and affirm their fat, I suppose the analogy is a little murky, and that embracing one's self is key.

I think that for slim fat admirers, it becomes a much more active process. Since they possess (by virtue of systems beyond their own control) the social capital to distance themselves from fat people and receive some sort of social benefit as a result, they must choose not to do so. Rather, they must deny "skinny privilege" and embrace, both literally and figuratively, the fatter objects of their preference. I don't feel that there's anything more noble about either side, just a reflection of current societal beauty values; if being fat was so chic that naturally slim men and women were resorting to dangerous means to pack on weight, it would be partially up to the fashionable fat to affirm and treasure their slimmer objects of their preference.

I've also become convinced that top-down activism isn't going to work. Protests and petitions are fine for building energy and helping flagging morale, but I doubt that fatness registers highly enough on most people's social radar to be confronted from a political standpoint; it's not an issue in crisis (in the same way that health care, affordable housing, education, and defense policy are) and politics tends to be concerned with things more immediate than size acceptance. That being said, I think we could learn a lesson from both lesbians and the tattooed. Neither gained mainstream acceptance through big rallies or legislative action. Tattoos became mainstream by virtue of their constant public presence and positive association with the body image of their owners, and lesbians (and the entire LGBT community) continues to gain acceptance in wider society through stressing its normalcy: outside of their private bedrooms people are all the same. I'm a community organizer, so I might be biased in my perspective, but that's the way I'd like to see people come to embrace their own size, and that of everyone else.

Last edited by Baby Robot; 02-11-2007 at 05:45 PM. Reason: Grammar
Baby Robot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2007, 06:49 PM   #6
isotope
What?
 
isotope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 116
isotope does more than just post hot picsisotope does more than just post hot picsisotope does more than just post hot pics
Default

I've been wearing a beret with kelligrl on it for a long time already.
isotope is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2007, 07:10 PM   #7
Renaissance Woman
Please do.
 
Renaissance Woman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: 15 steps, then a sheer drop
Posts: 1,201
Renaissance Woman has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!Renaissance Woman has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!Renaissance Woman has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!Renaissance Woman has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!Renaissance Woman has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!Renaissance Woman has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!Renaissance Woman has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!Renaissance Woman has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!Renaissance Woman has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!Renaissance Woman has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!Renaissance Woman has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baby Robot View Post
We're also biologically programmed to look for prosperity as determined by how much food one had as determined by how fat people are, so the next time someone says they aren't into fat girls/guys, they're lying, either to you or to themselves. We're also attracted to youth, which implies longer fertility and greater yields of genetic survival, which I feel (although I have no statistically significant data to go off of) explains the fetishization of phenotypes prevalent in youth: blonde hair and blue eyes.
I'm not into BHM's. My preferred male body type is slim to skinny. According to you, I'm lying to myself. I don't think so. And there are plenty of guys out there for whom BBW's don't make them go ooh baby. It's not a question of dishonesty. Sexual attraction is much more complicated than that, as you talked about in the first part of your initial post.

I'll agree with you on the youth stuff, but not the blonde hair/blue eyes. Youth is not contingent on these traits.
__________________
I am in NO sigs.
-BothGunsBlazing
Renaissance Woman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2007, 07:27 PM   #8
Tooz
sweet chocolate christ
 
Tooz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: shoppin' fuh food
Posts: 5,086
Tooz keeps pushing the rep limit!Tooz keeps pushing the rep limit!Tooz keeps pushing the rep limit!Tooz keeps pushing the rep limit!Tooz keeps pushing the rep limit!Tooz keeps pushing the rep limit!Tooz keeps pushing the rep limit!Tooz keeps pushing the rep limit!Tooz keeps pushing the rep limit!Tooz keeps pushing the rep limit!Tooz keeps pushing the rep limit!
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Renaissance Woman View Post
I'm not into BHM's. My preferred male body type is slim to skinny.
Mine is too, really.
__________________
let's call a spade a spade: it's porn
Tooz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2007, 08:45 PM   #9
Jack Skellington
Grim Grinning Ghosts
 
Jack Skellington's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 3,607
Jack Skellington keeps pushing the rep limit!Jack Skellington keeps pushing the rep limit!Jack Skellington keeps pushing the rep limit!Jack Skellington keeps pushing the rep limit!Jack Skellington keeps pushing the rep limit!Jack Skellington keeps pushing the rep limit!Jack Skellington keeps pushing the rep limit!Jack Skellington keeps pushing the rep limit!Jack Skellington keeps pushing the rep limit!Jack Skellington keeps pushing the rep limit!Jack Skellington keeps pushing the rep limit!
Default

You make many sweeping generalizations in which you are both over examining and over simplifying. You are also failing into the trap of the misguided assumption of "If I find something attractive, everyone else must too."
__________________
Serpents and spiders, tail of a rat, call in the spirits wherever they’re at. Rap on a table, it’s time to respond, send us a message from somewhere beyond.

Goblins and ghoulies, from last Halloween, awaken the spirits with your tambourine. Creepies and crawlies, toads in a pond, let there be music from regions beyond.

Wizards and Witches, wherever you dwell, give us a hint by ringing a bell.
Jack Skellington is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2007, 09:05 PM   #10
love dubh
douchebag reform school
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,728
love dubh has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!love dubh has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!love dubh has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!love dubh has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!love dubh has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!love dubh has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!love dubh has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!love dubh has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!love dubh has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!love dubh has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!love dubh has a ton of rep. Literally. As in over 2000!
Default

Duh, Jack. All the skinny minnies are lying to themselves; we all want to just let go and become fat, because after all, it's just so easy, innit? Just a matter of shoving Twinkies in, right? No genetic or psychological predispositions or nuttin.

I'm just a lying sack o' shite. Now someone c'mere with a cheesecake.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Representative John Duncan, R-TN
It seems rather elitist to me for people who may have degrees in this field feel that they, because they've studied it, they somehow know better than the parents.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Stewart
Yes, in the Brownback family we teach that boys have a god stick and girls have a shame cave.
Manny: yeah but i could be patient zero to a rabies epidemic
Manny: rabies is as close to zombification as we can get
love dubh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2007, 11:22 PM   #11
Baby Robot
 
Baby Robot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: THE SOUTH
Posts: 42
Baby Robot can now change their title
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Skellington View Post
You make many sweeping generalizations in which you are both over examining and over simplifying. You are also failing into the trap of the misguided assumption of "If I find something attractive, everyone else must too."
Hmm. I certainly don't intend for a forum post to be treated as academia, but I feel I came to my conclusions with a little more rigor than a few sweeps of the ol' generalization broom can provide. I don't mean to imply that people are somehow dishonest if they have a personal preference that tends towards skinnier shapes, so apologies if it came off like that. As I said before, attraction is a lot more complex than we presently understand, but looking at history, evolutionary biology, and social theory, we can be reasonably sure that biological factors play a role in determining what we find attractive. This isn't to say that we don't deny our biology constantly in our screwy little lives as modern humans. (I do it all the time, from eating processed food to believing in romance, a very modern concept) Realistically though, despite whatever individual genes we have, there's a genetic current running through human history which values fat people, and that's why I feel a shift of the culture in favor and acceptance of a more open beauty image is possible and many times more probable than, say, a shift in favor of looking to the elderly as icons of beauty. (for which I can't discern any biological basis) I don't necessarily believe that absolutely every person on the planet will respond to fatter bodies the way I do (not by any means) but I do firmly feel that nearly everyone at least has some biology in there which could allow them to find larger people attractive. It's more a question of potential than actual attraction, to clarify.

In addition, the more I think about it, the more I'm agreeing with Renaissance Woman about the blond/blue thing. I sought to connect it to youth because many babies, at least Caucasian babies, are born blond and blue and as they mature and fully develop pigment their features change. However, I don't feel as strongly about the connection between typically infant traits and sexual attraction as I do viewing preference of blond hair and blue eyes as a trope of a racist system of beauty, one that non-Caucasians are unable or unlikely to naturally attain. Lakshmi Chaudhry wrote a really neat article on it here.

Finally, I'm going to take liberty and assume that love dubh was being sarcastic in her response, which I suppose I deserve if I ruffled some feathers. Again, mea culpa. I didn't write this post to indict the thin for hypocrisy or anything like that, I'm just trying to figure out my own kinks to see what dimensions they have besides the obvious, more prurient side, and want to discuss this with people in similar situations. A good point is raised, though: some people don't get fat. Period. They could very well "shovel in the Twinkies" and not gain an ounce. In addition, some people don't like the way extra pounds make them feel, have a family history of weight-related illness or for whatever reason aren't into being my size. That's fine, as long as they're happy being their size. It's about Size Acceptance, not Size Enforcement, right? I would suggest that many fat people are unhappy with their size because of conditioned framing of fatness and negativity, and feel in the long run it's holistically healthier to learn to love your body at any size rather than strive for something unrealistic to your own physiology.

Case in point: I weigh as much as a good friend of mine who's only an inch or so shorter than me, but am told I "wear the weight better." I've always been big, my bone structure is huge, and I put on muscle pretty easily. On the other hand, my friend was lean, with much more delicate features until an adverse reaction to a medication he was on led to a bout of hypothyroidism and weight gain. He's actually about 20 pounds lighter than me, but looks heavier, simply because he's gained the weight much faster, and it's probably weight he wouldn't have gained if his body were functioning properly.

I do hope I'm not misunderstood. I'm not a pedant or attempting to act as though I've got the end-all-be-all answers on fatness. I'm just an average fat guy and am by no means attempting to pass judgment on individuals here. Rather, I'm tacking up some ideas I've been toying with in the past couple months, and looking for feedback and discussion into the subtexts in science and culture which inform our ideas of attractiveness.
Baby Robot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2007, 08:39 PM   #12
Happy FA
Loving Lovely Large Lady
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: New Yorker
Posts: 290
Happy FA has super-sized repHappy FA has super-sized repHappy FA has super-sized repHappy FA has super-sized rep
Default Jane you ignorant slut

Interesting post, but I suspect that you'll discover that if you look closely at what you've posited you will see that you have fallen into the same trap that you accuse others of, generalizing. This wonderfully diverse bbw/fa community of ours is made up of a spectrum of folks each of whom is a group of one. When we attempt to group them into larger groups we are in at least some way robbing them of a bit of their uniqueness and forcing them to fit into a category of our choosing.

It is easy to "see" patterns among the people in our group and the society in general, but too often those patterns are only useful as a statistical tool to evaluate elements of our society and without value as a predictive tool. Making a generalization, I know that I and many others on a daily basis make evaluations based on our categorization of other people in accordance with our own constructs. The value of those evaluations is at best probabilistic. And, because each person is a single unique individual, in applying our theories gleaned from our evaluations of the fat community and the society at large to the individual, no matter our degree of confidence, ultimately it's a 50/50 proposition. Either we're right or we're wrong.

Please keep on theorizing and sharing your thoughts with us, and don't feel defensive if others disagree with you. We each struggle to make sense of the world around us and conform it to our perception of what the world is or should be. Look at what a lousy job our President in that regard. You and I and the others here should take comfort in the fact that being right or wrong isn't usually the be all end all. Rather, the fun of life is in the striving to do better and enjoy the process.
Happy FA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2007, 11:04 PM   #13
kerrypop
Supafly
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 515
kerrypop knows EXACTLY what's going onkerrypop knows EXACTLY what's going onkerrypop knows EXACTLY what's going onkerrypop knows EXACTLY what's going onkerrypop knows EXACTLY what's going onkerrypop knows EXACTLY what's going on
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baby Robot View Post
Hmm. I certainly don't intend for a forum post to be treated as academia, but I feel I came to my conclusions with a little more rigor than a few sweeps of the ol' generalization broom can provide. I don't mean to imply that people are somehow dishonest if they have a personal preference that tends towards skinnier shapes, so apologies if it came off like that. As I said before, attraction is a lot more complex than we presently understand, but looking at history, evolutionary biology, and social theory, we can be reasonably sure that biological factors play a role in determining what we find attractive. This isn't to say that we don't deny our biology constantly in our screwy little lives as modern humans. (I do it all the time, from eating processed food to believing in romance, a very modern concept) Realistically though, despite whatever individual genes we have, there's a genetic current running through human history which values fat people, and that's why I feel a shift of the culture in favor and acceptance of a more open beauty image is possible and many times more probable than, say, a shift in favor of looking to the elderly as icons of beauty. (for which I can't discern any biological basis) I don't necessarily believe that absolutely every person on the planet will respond to fatter bodies the way I do (not by any means) but I do firmly feel that nearly everyone at least has some biology in there which could allow them to find larger people attractive. It's more a question of potential than actual attraction, to clarify.
I think it is fair to say that you believe in evolution. (I think you even said it above!) If you don't, for religious or other reasons, I won't be sad if you disregard this post (that goes for everyone! )

From an evolutionary standpoint, one might say that chubby people are at an advantage, due to fat storage during times of famine, or what have you. This is a logical standpoint. I can see the likelihood of developing a taste for fats and sugars and things that will keep you alive during these times of need.

You mentioned that biological factors play a part in what people find attractive, I agree with this as well. Something to consider, however, is that evolution does not have a set direction, and animals (or plants I suppose) do not develop attributes for the specific reason that it will better the species.

How does this fit in?
Although it is possible that a pre-existing appreciation for the larger form could have existed, it is also possible that a pre-existing appreciation for the smaller form could have existed in tandem with the larger form. Small people have TONS of evolutionary benefits, such as heat tolerance, speed, able to hide in small spaces... the list goes on. Humans aren't exactly fearsome without guns and spears.

In addition, since humans havn't been thinned out (numbers wise ) in quite a while, the amount of diversity that could exist within our species really is astounding. Especially since we are a species that has populated the whole of the world for many, many years.

Although biology plays a part, I think that the question really comes down to nature vs nurture, or genetics vs. environment. There are people on both sides of the issue, and I personally believe that pieces of both fit into what individuals are attracted to.
__________________
Stan: tell me this, if ewan mcgregor came over to our apartment right now and said "free kiss then I'm gone!", would you do it?
Kerry: naww, i'd be a little freaked out...
Stan: I might.

Last edited by kerrypop; 02-12-2007 at 11:24 PM. Reason: posted before I was finished :)
kerrypop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2007, 11:17 PM   #14
Accept
True Metal FA
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Eugene, OR
Posts: 169
Accept does more than just post hot picsAccept does more than just post hot picsAccept does more than just post hot pics
Default

What makes an FA? My own personal theory is that it has little to do with biology. I think it's much more than some social collective unconscious that maintains certain paradigms (insert Happy FA's excellent 2nd paragraph here). I also think it's much more complex than simply a desire to look like rich people -- but that plays into my theory as described below.

Call me Freudian, but I think the most influential factors toward a person's sexual interests come from intense neurological association during infancy through childhood -- anything from cartoons, to other television shows (where you see a lot of rich, famous people being happy and/or idolized), to toys, to experiences with peers, to experiences with family members, to arbitrary interaction with the world in general. How much more is the young mind, free from skepticism and the burden of nuanced criticism, able to draw blanket associations between basic sensory input and primal, unrestrained euphoria? And how potent those associations would be -- perhaps even to the degree that instead of fading over time like so many lessons, they become indirectly reinforced by other Pavlovian experiences that share qualities!
Accept is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2007, 05:01 AM   #15
Baby Robot
 
Baby Robot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: THE SOUTH
Posts: 42
Baby Robot can now change their title
Default

Now we're talking! I think it's really interesting to see members of the FA and SA community share their thoughts on what makes us tick. I doubt any one of us will ever hit the nail on the head, but I think it's better that we discuss it rather than letting detractors of the community assign those values to us with very broad, unflattering strokes (I've heard being an FA indicates everything from low self-esteem to sadism, to say nothing of feederism, which typically receives an even dimmer view, even within the FA community)

Quote:
It is easy to "see" patterns among the people in our group and the society in general, but too often those patterns are only useful as a statistical tool to evaluate elements of our society and without value as a predictive tool. Making a generalization, I know that I and many others on a daily basis make evaluations based on our categorization of other people in accordance with our own constructs. The value of those evaluations is at best probabilistic. And, because each person is a single unique individual, in applying our theories gleaned from our evaluations of the fat community and the society at large to the individual, no matter our degree of confidence, ultimately it's a 50/50 proposition. Either we're right or we're wrong.
I agree wholeheartedly, and well put, HappyFA! I'm a historian by inclination and training, so I have a personal bias towards assigning significance to events in the past. This explains why my degree has an 'Arts' in it rather than a 'Sciences.' I don't expect my conjectures on a message board to be any more statistically significant than my conjectures at the bar about why a certain band broke up. J.L. Gaddis wrote that the social sciences often serve to confirm the obvious, and when they don't confirm the obvious they're often wrong, and I agree there too. I think we can identify trends and similarities in the origin stories of most FAs, but these would obviously become flawed if applied to any one individual.

I think Accept touches on this too: Being an FA is a big tent affair. I'll call him Freudian, but if he feels that he and others were drawn to the subculture because of some events in infancy or early childhood, he's probably right, too! I never had the initial erotic experience that a lot of people describe after first seeing "Pigs is Pigs" or something along those lines, but I don't doubt for a second that its there.

Kerrypop sums it up well in that last statement. Nature vs. Nurture! I'll again say that both have a lot to do with attraction, and people become FAs for one reason or the other, or a combination of both. When I imply that a size-positive body image revolution in this country has legs, this is what I'm talking about. The only reasons we have impeding this from happening are artificial, as opposed to a birdman-positive revolution (we have no birdmen)

Just my thoughts.
Baby Robot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2007, 04:07 AM   #16
lemmink
THE PUMMEL IS COMING
 
lemmink's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Canberra
Posts: 769
lemmink knows EXACTLY what's going onlemmink knows EXACTLY what's going onlemmink knows EXACTLY what's going onlemmink knows EXACTLY what's going onlemmink knows EXACTLY what's going onlemmink knows EXACTLY what's going on
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baby Robot View Post
When I mentioned biology up front, it's because despite all the societal conditioning against fat people, we've got most of the biology on our side. Human dietary patterns until the rise of agriculture has been feast and famine, such as when a large animal was killed or when trees dropped their fruit. As such, since our stomachs could only hold so much at one time, we developed an evolutionary taste for sugar and fat, where we could get the most energy from in times of famine. We're also biologically programmed to look for prosperity as determined by how much food one had as determined by how fat people are, so the next time someone says they aren't into fat girls/guys, they're lying, either to you or to themselves. We're also attracted to youth, which implies longer fertility and greater yields of genetic survival, which I feel (although I have no statistically significant data to go off of) explains the fetishization of phenotypes prevalent in youth: blonde hair and blue eyes.
I don't see that biology is on the side of fat people when it comes to natural selection. Yes, people are biologically programmed to look for prosperty as determined by how much food people have got - but that desire makes people interested in tall people (who historically have had better nutrition than short ones, and are better fed). People are *still* quite openly going for tall people, and that's something that has never changed (to my knowledge) throughout history. Those who aren't into fat people aren't lying. As you mentioned, interest in fat people/thin people is largely dictacted by society.

So, the who where do FAs/feeders come from question...

I see feederism/Faism primarily as a biological thing rather than a sociological thing, and I treat it like that, but that's only because that's been my experience of it. I don't discount the experiences of people who have later become FAs, and can actually document their gradual appreciation of the fatter form. If you look at the stories people have told on the boards, you'll find that there's a range of stories of becoming aware of their FAness - some will have dreams or behave like a feeder at ages under four, others will only come to be aware of it at sexual maturity, and still others will become FAs after meeting the right guy or girl who's just that bloody sexy.

If there is anything I've noticed (perhaps only because I've been looking for it), it's that those with a strong feeder tendencies seem to become aware of their sexuality at a much earlier age than those who are FAs, which makes sense. FAism is related closely to sexuality and sexual preference while feederism (which I don't think is necessarily related to weight gain) may be more of an innate biological impulse: the urge to nurture/feed those they love.
lemmink is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2007, 04:15 AM   #17
lemmink
THE PUMMEL IS COMING
 
lemmink's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Canberra
Posts: 769
lemmink knows EXACTLY what's going onlemmink knows EXACTLY what's going onlemmink knows EXACTLY what's going onlemmink knows EXACTLY what's going onlemmink knows EXACTLY what's going onlemmink knows EXACTLY what's going on
Default

On the feeder vs FA thing, I think it's unwise to use the commonly known definition of feeders as people who are into feeding someone AND getting them to gain weight. There are plenty of feeders who I've encountered who are into feeding, but NOT into weight gain - in fact, I've met at least six or seven irl, whereas I've met no people (besides myself) who are both feeders AND into fat via gaining. I figure feederism and FAism are independent sexual preferences/(biological impulses?), it's just that on Dimensions both often occur together, which confuses stuffs.
lemmink is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2007, 10:22 AM   #18
Wagimawr
 
Wagimawr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Winston-Salem, North Carolina
Posts: 4,674
Wagimawr keeps pushing the rep limit!Wagimawr keeps pushing the rep limit!Wagimawr keeps pushing the rep limit!Wagimawr keeps pushing the rep limit!Wagimawr keeps pushing the rep limit!Wagimawr keeps pushing the rep limit!Wagimawr keeps pushing the rep limit!Wagimawr keeps pushing the rep limit!Wagimawr keeps pushing the rep limit!Wagimawr keeps pushing the rep limit!Wagimawr keeps pushing the rep limit!
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lemmink View Post
On the feeder vs FA thing, I think it's unwise to use the commonly known definition of feeders as people who are into feeding someone AND getting them to gain weight. There are plenty of feeders who I've encountered who are into feeding, but NOT into weight gain - in fact, I've met at least six or seven irl, whereas I've met no people (besides myself) who are both feeders AND into fat via gaining. I figure feederism and FAism are independent sexual preferences/(biological impulses?), it's just that on Dimensions both often occur together, which confuses stuffs.
Hmm. Never would have thought of that.

I'd have to say stuffing without the girl getting bigger is a bit of a waste, but that's just me.
__________________
hehe executive member
professional wang.
you said member.
Wagimawr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2007, 11:14 AM   #19
LillyBBBW
Wig Snatcher
 
LillyBBBW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 9,794
LillyBBBW has ascended what used to be the highest level.LillyBBBW has ascended what used to be the highest level.LillyBBBW has ascended what used to be the highest level.LillyBBBW has ascended what used to be the highest level.LillyBBBW has ascended what used to be the highest level.LillyBBBW has ascended what used to be the highest level.LillyBBBW has ascended what used to be the highest level.LillyBBBW has ascended what used to be the highest level.LillyBBBW has ascended what used to be the highest level.LillyBBBW has ascended what used to be the highest level.LillyBBBW has ascended what used to be the highest level.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baby Robot View Post
This post is a fairly general pondering of fat sociology and history, ..... <snipped>
Being that this is a generalization based on sociology I'm not going to quibble over blanket statements and unreasonable expectations. We're talking general trends and such which colors the whole discussion in blanket statements and generalizations so that is intrinsically understood from the beginning.

I will say that with the internet it has painted a brand new picture for such things. I'm wondering to myself if maybe general attractions and feelings never changed and has always been as it is. Just that now with the internet things that were seemingly obscure are being brought to light so to speak. People of a certain makeup are more easily able to find each other and be heard. People who before would never freely admit to what they like or what they're into are more embolden to do so. Just that in certain eras a particular physical status was the one most highlighted.

I remember back in the 90's the term 'lesbian chic' was being tossed about in my corner of the world. Suddenly it became cool to be a lesbian and people were bearing all, claiming bi-dom and wearing their orientation with pride. It seemed all the rage and every time you turned around somebody was kicking open the closet door and holding up a pink triangle. I don't think that these are people who were strait and then suddenly decided to become lesbian because they looked good in the shoes. They may have had curiosity all the time but because the climate was right they felt emboldened to come out. But if you are not at all a lesbian you might smile as the parade passes by but it's not going to encourage you to do anything more. At that time it seemed EVERYBODY was a lesbian which was far from the truth. The climate was all about lesbian chic but seriously there was no further increase in its prevalence than before.

The same might hold true for FA's. A guy might fancy all kinds of women including some that are fat but never felt free to act on it due to societal norms at the time. All of a sudden it becomes chic to love fat girls and suddenly there's an influx of people with fat girl silhouettes on their T shirts and they're hugging fat girls at random on the street. It would make it seem society has been converted which is truly not the case. They were there all along, just stifled under the iron boot of conformity.
__________________
Expecting the world to treat you kindly because you are a good person is like expecting the bull not to charge because you are a vegetarian.

"...If the only pain you recognize as valid is your own, of course you'll have trouble identifying it when you see it in other people. That's the trouble with narcissism. It makes you really inadequate and boring."

Have you hugged a fat girl today?

@~;~~
LillyBBBW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2007, 12:27 PM   #20
bigplaidpants
FAtari
 
bigplaidpants's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Chicago, southside
Posts: 666
bigplaidpants is a pillar of the Dimensions communitybigplaidpants is a pillar of the Dimensions communitybigplaidpants is a pillar of the Dimensions communitybigplaidpants is a pillar of the Dimensions communitybigplaidpants is a pillar of the Dimensions communitybigplaidpants is a pillar of the Dimensions communitybigplaidpants is a pillar of the Dimensions communitybigplaidpants is a pillar of the Dimensions communitybigplaidpants is a pillar of the Dimensions communitybigplaidpants is a pillar of the Dimensions communitybigplaidpants is a pillar of the Dimensions community
Default Kudos

This thread seems seems to be looking for a sweater.....or a sock, hat, etc. I loved the responses, however. This kind of "reflection" is good for the soul...and the community, IMHO.

As for the OP, there are lots of theorizing and generalizations here that I find hard to follow.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Accept View Post
What makes an FA?
If Accept's question (luv ur posts, btw) summarizes what going on here (esp for the OP), then maybe theorizations on biology and culture may not be the most helpful. Nature vs. Nurture, biology vs. social construction, etc. All these are great, interesting, and wonderful ruminations. But, they often are just abstract answers for heart-felt questions. I know for me, figuring out what it means to be an FA has been its own journey, one I'm still on. It started with my fascination with fat folk as child, drinking water as a 8 or 9 year old to try to expand my already fat belly, dating fat girls I just kept coming back to, to finally "coming out to myself" when I finally learned what an FA and BBW were in college (early 90's).

IMHO, before anyone can theorize too much, I suggest writing your own fat-biography. It's like a spiritual biography, but it's about you and fatness - your fatness, the fatness of others, your feelings about fatness, fat-fantasies, etc. Theory makes more sense, I think, when your own story is clearer.

That being said,

Quote:
Originally Posted by LillyBBBW View Post
...I will say that with the internet it has painted a brand new picture for such things. I'm wondering to myself if maybe general attractions and feelings never changed and has always been as it is. Just that now with the internet things that were seemingly obscure are being brought to light so to speak. People of a certain makeup are more easily able to find each other and be heard. People who before would never freely admit to what they like or what they're into are more embolden to do so...
I think this is very insightful, Lilly. And, so easily overlooked. It's been said a number of times that the internet has revolutionized so many things. The world of eroticism, for good and ill, is an obvious example.

I know for me, coming across Dim and other sites like it in the early 90's was pivotal for me getting a handle on my own fat-attraction. I wasn't much of a porn connoisseur, so the internet was an easy, free, and private place to just explore. I knew I'd always been fascinated (that was the word I used at the time) with large or fat people. Once I saw it on the net, explicitly sexualized, etc., that was it. Everything began to make more sense from there. (Like, realizing my love for big boobs was really a LOVE for big everything; I just didn't feel free to come out with it...and, why all the "normal" girls I dated I erotically lost interest in.)

Quote:
....All of a sudden it becomes chic to love fat girls and suddenly there's an influx of people with fat girl silhouettes on their T shirts and they're hugging fat girls at random on the street. It would make it seem society has been converted which is truly not the case. They were there all along, just stifled under the iron boot of conformity.
While I don't think this applies to me, I think Lilly is right. The fat-fad is a kind of media-magic that gets waived more than a few. But, whose to judge? (Except, perhaps, with the general wisdom of the fat community.) For me, my sense of repression around fat, fat admiration, eroticism, etc., felt to repressed for it to be a passing thing. Fat was NOT "in" in the 80's and early 90's when I wish it would have been more accepted. I have a feeling it would have changed alot of thing for me. I spent most my time repressing my sense of the sexual, not responsibly discovering and enjoying it.

That's not all to say that fat-positive madness abounds today....like it does here. I still get plenty of odd looks and awkward (even disdainful) chuckles when I express myself as an FA and my interest in fat eroticism...even in highly open and "alternative" circles.
__________________
on relative hiatus

Quote:
Originally Posted by philosobear View Post
Fat-desire is ever present not because it is permanent, but because it is always coming back.
My Favorite Flower
bigplaidpants is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:50 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright Dimensions Magazine. All rights reserved worldwide.