Discussion: Feeders/Feedees and emotions/mentality

[Ample Pie]

I've always said that the focus on feedees as victims is more of a problem with non-feedists than feedists. If you believe that I am the victim of my own sexuality and you don't even know me, well that's your problem.

[loopytheone]

My mother is a big believer that feeders are something disgusting and slimy that exist to abuse and deceive their poor little victim of a partner. Understandably as somebody who enjoys both the feedee and feeder aspect of things this annoys me quite a lot, though she is too much of a bigoted old woman for it to be worth me bothering to explain things properly to. She once called me a feeder as a insult and I guess she thought it worked because I went all shocked and red and flushed... actually my immediate thought was 'How does she know? How does she know? Is she reading my messages or something?!'!

Both me and my partner are neutral about gaining weight, though I will admit that I am loving the idea of him getting bigger! But we enjoy the feeding aspect itself, which I guess is a bit different from most feeder/feedee type people. Then again, I never do anything 'normally'!

[TwoSwords]

I've always thought that there was a significant difference between feederism and gainerism, that not all people who enjoy eating/feeding others do so from a desire for them to gain weight (indeed, most of the people in the world who enjoy feeding others don't have this as their motive at all.) There's nothing wrong with handing someone a sandwich if they're hungry, and the nothing wrong with being happy that they then enjoy the sandwich, and benefit from it. In reality, I think very few feeders or feedees actively pursue immobility. There's other, safer, more-temporary ways to experience the kinds of feelings often associated with that.

I've been reading through the first page, though, and I do have to every time someone brings up "mental issues" as an explanation for aberrant behavior or unusual desires; especially being a researcher as both a hobby and a job. This isn't the 1500s anymore, and we have names and thorough descriptions of just about every type of actual, mental illness there is. Each one has distinct symptoms and can be diagnosed by recognizing those symptoms. It's how psychologists are able to recognize a real case of Stockholm Syndrome, as opposed to someone who learned to like a formerly-abusive person when they changed their ways. What kind of mental illness do we think a specific person has, and what symptoms do they show, which would indicate that?

I just think a lot of people use words synonymous with "crazy" to avoid studying the issues more closely.

[Fat Molly]

Originally Posted by TwoSwords

I've always thought that there was a significant difference between feederism and gainerism, that not all people who enjoy eating/feeding others do so from a desire for them to gain weight (indeed, most of the people in the world who enjoy feeding others don't have this as their motive at all.)


In reality, I think very few feeders or feedees actively pursue immobility. There's other, safer, more-temporary ways to experience the kinds of feelings often associated with that.

I've been reading through the first page, though, and I do have to every time someone brings up "mental issues" as an explanation for aberrant behavior or unusual desires. <snip> I just think a lot of people use words synonymous with "crazy" to avoid studying the issues more closely.

good points here. a lot of this stuff is the stuff ive been thinking about intently with regards to my partner in the 'worry as an FA' thread.

most ppl on tumblr who claim to be pursuing immobility are either thin or average or just barely chubby. and i look at them and think, lol, do you have any idea? bc i feel like many of them are underinformed or overoptimistic about what it would mean to be immobile.

i think there *can* be elements of feedism that are intentionally self-destructive but it should never be thought of as a necessary component of feedist tendencies - even among depressed people. my feedee and feeder and gainer kink exists even when my depression/borderline symptoms aren't too significant - in fact, they're more active when my depression/borderline is alleviated.

I like what alienlanes said about the collection of planets surrounding the central kink of erotic wg.

[pdt]

There's a lot to unpack with me. As a feedee, personally, I'm fascinated by immobility, mostly as like a bdsm-adjacent submission fetish thing. Mostly I just like the idea of my weight being out of my control.

I imagine I'll probably have to re-evaluate my position like 200 lbs from now, but for now I'm moderately active and fully independent around 300 lbs, and have never met a force feeding that I'm not extremely turned on by.

[choudhury]

This is a very long thread. Scanning it, I'm struck by how much confusion or uncertainty exists around the concept of "feeder." (We seem pretty clear on what a "feedee" is, i.e., someone who is sexually aroused by being fed and gaining weight). But on "feeder," we seem confused about whether there is a meaningful difference between "feeder" and "enabler" or "encourager" etc.

Speaking for myself, I love when a woman overeats and when she gains weight. But I don't draw any particular thrill from being the agent DIRECTLY contributing to these things. That is, it's not about ME feeding her (whether through subterfuge or directly, or through pressure or consent, or whatever). It's about her choosing to eat a lot, basically.

Now the "enabling" part creeps in insofar as I'm happy to provide a safe and loving - and yes, even food-filled - environment for my lady to eat a lot. I suppose I "enable" every time I buy a dessert or propose going out for ice cream. But that seems like a pretty darned indirect species of "feeding," especially since I'd be doing these things anyway if I were on my own. And again, if I say "let's get Dairy Queen" and she says "yes," I'm not being turned on by the fact that I initiated this, so much as the fact that she ends up overfull from her order.

If I had to arbitrate all this, I'd say we're probably better off defining "feeder" in a narrow way that ties sexual excitement to being the feeding agent, rather than in a loose way that slides over into characteristics of nearly all FAs (most of whom enjoy overeating and weight gain).

[ChattyBecca]

Originally Posted by Ample Pie

I've always said that the focus on feedees as victims is more of a problem with non-feedists than feedists. If you believe that I am the victim of my own sexuality and you don't even know me, well that's your problem.

AMEN!!!! Couldn't agree more!

[John Smith]

I was browsing around the earliest pages of this thread.

I was amazed. So fluid, so refined. So witty
That was truly the Golden Age of this website... what happened to these giants before us?

[TwoSwords]

Originally Posted by John Smith

I was browsing around the earliest pages of this thread.

I was amazed. So fluid, so refined. So witty
That was truly the Golden Age of this website... what happened to these giants before us?

Sadly, to summon giants is a thing for gods, not men. A man has only the qualities of himself, and though he may increase those qualities with skill, the one quality that he can never increase is his amount.

As for the qualities of wit, refinement and fluidity, however, some still find them simple, but again, sadly, not myself. I am under a curse, you see; that I can learn only those things which can be taught or demonstrated, so my wit can rise no higher than the wit of those whose word I read, my refinement no further than my meager experiences make possible.

That only leaves fluidity, and there, I'm afraid that mine rests at a little over half, and no further. However, perhaps it's just as well, since a man more fluid might lose other qualities like these.

Yes. I'm watching Cyrano as I write this. Why?

[John Smith]

Originally Posted by TwoSwords

Sadly, to summon giants is a thing for gods, not men. A man has only the qualities of himself, and though he may increase those qualities with skill, the one quality that he can never increase is his amount.

As for the qualities of wit, refinement and fluidity, however, some still find them simple, but again, sadly, not myself. I am under a curse, you see; that I can learn only those things which can be taught or demonstrated, so my wit can rise no higher than the wit of those whose word I read, my refinement no further than my meager experiences make possible.

That only leaves fluidity, and there, I'm afraid that mine rests at a little over half, and no further. However, perhaps it's just as well, since a man more fluid might lose other qualities like these.

Yes. I'm watching Cyrano as I write this. Why?

The Curse of the Men...