Do Eating and Love Go Hand-In-Hand?

[Fascinita]

I was wondering what you all thought.

It does seem that love cannot exist without food.

To take a very obvious example, why is most people's idea of a perfect first date the classic "dinner date"?

I know folks do all kinds of things on dates, but it does seem like the classic "entry" (if not entree, haha) to love is the good old dinner date.

So... Why do food and love seem to be so closely enmeshed?

[Santaclear]

Food and eating are way popular and kinda sexy. It is pleasure and fun. I imagine many fat people and FAs have at least a mild fetish about it.

[Fascinita]

Originally Posted by Santaclear

Food and eating are way popular and kinda sexy. It is pleasure and fun.

Well, some foods are sexier than others.

Which food is sexiest, I wonder.

[Santaclear]

Ice cream and cake are very respected. I'd say, as an FA, whatever foods the fat girls like best are the sexiest ones. I also love the air of danger around some fattening foods, yes, the um, decadence. (And I love most of these foods too.)

[imfree]

Originally Posted by Fascinita

I was wondering what you all thought.

It does seem that love cannot exist without food.

To take a very obvious example, why is most people's idea of a perfect first date the classic "dinner date"?

I know folks do all kinds of things on dates, but it does seem like the classic "entry" (if not entree, haha) to love is the good old dinner date.

So... Why do food and love seem to be so closely enmeshed?

I dunno, but love, sex, nurture, and love-touch all seem
to be connected in such a way that they are normal
parts of intimacy, maybe part of our animal nature.

[Ernest Nagel]

Not to be a buzzkill on the food part but I think it could also have to do with the interceding presence of a table and other people. It's safer and friendlier, provides a nice space for getting acquainted without any pressure for intimacy beyond possibly holding hands. Also a dinner setting affords an opportunity to evaluate the others social skills while simultaneously scrutinizing their aesthetic merits in a relatively flattering low light environment (as opposed to lunch or breakfast). Plus somebody usually gets a free meal and somebody else often gets the chance to weaken her resistance with alcohol. Yup, just call me Mr. Romantic!

One good thing re the food though; when someone is eating they usually have to shut up for at least a little bit. This goes for both sides. Awkward silences are less uncomfortable when punctuated by chewing and smiling, too.

One other thing. In guy school they teach us that if she orders dessert she's horny for you. BBW's make us very optimistic!

[pinkylou]

Oh that might explain why I get disappointed when the other person decides no dessert ... my horny advances are being rejected !!

[Ernest Nagel]

Originally Posted by pinkylou

Oh that might explain why I get disappointed when the other person decides no dessert ... my horny advances are being rejected !!

Not to worry, Pink! For girls it's dessert that signifies horniness. For boy it's just a pulse.

[daddyoh70]

Originally Posted by Fascinita

Well, some foods are sexier than others.

Which food is sexiest, I wonder.

Bananas, definitely bananas

[pinkylou]

Ive always enjoyed a nice plate of spaghetti and meatballs..actually I like round food, plums, bonbons..

[sweet&fat]

Food and love, or food and sex, fasc? I can easily see how yummy/decadent foods and good wine lead to the latter, but I'm wondering what you mean about the former.

[No-No-Badkitty]

Well of course food and sex go hand and hand. Think about it. Food and sex are the most basic, animalistic needs that is shared by any and all animals. No matter how big, how complex your brain is, it all boils down to two things. Food and sex. Both are absolutes for survival.

We are hardwired for it. No matter our weight.

[sweet&fat]

Originally Posted by No-No-Badkitty

Well of course food and sex go hand and hand. Think about it. Food and sex are the most basic, animalistic needs that is shared by any and all animals. No matter how big, how complex your brain is, it all boils down to two things. Food and sex. Both are absolutes for survival.

We are hardwired for it. No matter our weight.

But fasc mentioned food and love...

[No-No-Badkitty]

Originally Posted by sweet&fat

But fasc mentioned food and love...

Well, depending on who you talk too, some think there isn't much difference between the two...sex/love.

[butch]

Well, isn't the image of the mother nursing the child a primal symbol of love? Maybe the first real tangible way we experience nurturing/love in our lives? Therefore, food and love seem pretty obviously connected. It also reminds us why kissing is such an eroticized activity even though there is nothing about the oral region that is designed specifically as an erotic zone, biologically speaking. If we associate the mouth and anything that touches/enters it in a non-violent way as a loving gesture, then kissing and eating would have to be associated with love.

[Santaclear]

I've read that from a sex-without-love standpoint, squash and dumplings are great "humping foods." And for men, brussel sprouts are considered one of the best "blue balls" foods.

[Fascinita]

Originally Posted by sweet&fat

Food and love, or food and sex, fasc? I can easily see how yummy/decadent foods and good wine lead to the latter, but I'm wondering what you mean about the former.

I mean "love inclusive of sex--i.e., romantic love."

I want to know how food plays into making love sexy, and sex lovelier. I want to know whether offering food to a would-be lover is a gesture of nurturing that posits love as a bargaining chip to sex/procreation.

In that neighborhood... But I'm not able to formulate what I mean, exactly.

[Smushygirl]

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying, but I will say that when I am in relationships, or "in love", I tend to eat less. Probably because sex feeds my soul so completely. When I am not in a relationship, I definitely tend to eat more, which is probably a big clue as to why I am fat.

I will say that the best lover I ever had was very sensual and got me to do things I would never have considered before. I know this may sound gross, but if we were making love for long periods of time, we would feed each other from our own mouths. Like having something beside the bed, taking a bite of it and sharing it with kisses. Even stuff like water. I really can't describe it well, but it was one of the headiest experiences I ever had in bed. Very intimate and nurturing.

[southernfa]

Sad admission... I don't remember. So speaking theoretically, I'm with Earnest Nagel on this; if you are talking about food and romance then an intimate meal is very 'practical'. The setting is 'romantic', sharing a meal gives both parties something to do with their hands, their eyes, fill those awkward gaps in the conversation etc. It also can lead to a full belly and the associated contented feeling, which is a good association
Food and sex. Don't know, sounds great.
Food and love. That would depend on your perception of love. To me, it is a whole different ballgame.

[Ernest Nagel]

Originally Posted by butch

Well, isn't the image of the mother nursing the child a primal symbol of love? Maybe the first real tangible way we experience nurturing/love in our lives? Therefore, food and love seem pretty obviously connected. It also reminds us why kissing is such an eroticized activity even though there is nothing about the oral region that is designed specifically as an erotic zone, biologically speaking. If we associate the mouth and anything that touches/enters it in a non-violent way as a loving gesture, then kissing and eating would have to be associated with love.

I dunno, Julia. I think filial love, taking succor, being wholly dependent on and trusting of someone as an infant is a dangerous or at least problematic foundation on which to build romantic love? Yes, the mouth is erogenous and food can be erotic but when we're talking loving relationships between consenting adults everything else is just an incidental accessory. When anything than the partners becomes a context, be it food, drugs, children, money, power, control, you name it, the relationship becomes contingent and seems somehow lessened. No longer "between two consenting adults" it becomes "two (+) adults who depend on something else between them".

I like a little erotic foodplay as well as the next guy. Strawberries, bananas, whip cream, chocolate syrup, sushi, skittles, creme brulee' all great marital aids. That said if the steak needs sauce I'll just have a salad, n'mean? We depend on food to survive. We savor love to make life worth living. To paraphrase Charlton Heston in Soylent Green, "Love is PEOPLE!!", nothing more, nothing less. JMO.

An excellent, thoroughly Dimensional inquiry though, Fascinata.

[Fascinita]

Originally Posted by Ernest Nagel

I dunno, Julia. I think filial love, taking succor, being wholly dependent on and trusting of someone as an infant is a dangerous or at least problematic foundation on which to build romantic love? Yes, the mouth is erogenous and food can be erotic but when we're talking loving relationships between consenting adults everything else is just an incidental accessory. When anything than the partners becomes a context, be it food, drugs, children, money, power, control, you name it, the relationship becomes contingent and seems somehow lessened. No longer "between two consenting adults" it becomes "two (+) adults who depend on something else between them".

Ernest,

Are you talking about ideal (Platonic (not platonic)) love?

Because it seems to me that there are all kinds of contingencies in love between consenting adults. And in any case, what does consent have to do with love?

I'm serious. I'm wondering what you think there. It seems that this idea of love you're presenting is not based in reality. But then I think I may not understand exactly what you mean. Please clarify.

An excellent, thoroughly Dimensional inquiry though, Fascinata.

Fascinita. Oh, hell, what do I care.

Thanks.

[Ernest Nagel]

Originally Posted by Fascinita

Ernest,

Are you talking about ideal (Platonic (not platonic)) love?

Because it seems to me that there are all kinds of contingencies in love between consenting adults. And in any case, what does consent have to do with love?

I'm serious. I'm wondering what you think there. It seems that this idea of love you're presenting is not based in reality. But then I think I may not understand exactly what you mean. Please clarify.



Fascinita. Oh, hell, what do I care.

Thanks.

I dunno, Fascinita (sorry about that. I'm on some very hi octane pain meds, a little loopy lately) perhaps I am idealizing a bit but I'm not talking about Platonic love. I think love in its best and purest expression is simply unconditional. You love someone because you love them, not because of the way they look, where you met, how they make you feel or anything else. I'm probaly not the best person to be trying to explain this because I'm borderline Asperger's, basically an emotional dwarf. I know I've been in love only twice for sure in my whole life. Both times it was someone I'd never have imagined. Every reason not to be attracted to those women but there it was. All I can tell you is it was love contingent on absolutely nothing, not even being with them. I still love them both deeply although I'll never see them again. Sorry I'm too foggy to do any better with this for now. Maybe later? Or maybe love can't ever be explained?

[Fascinita]

Originally Posted by Ernest Nagel

I dunno, Fascinita (sorry about that. I'm on some very hi octane pain meds, a little loopy lately)

No worries

I'm probaly not the best person to be trying to explain this because I'm borderline Asperger's, basically an emotional dwarf.

I've seen you say this a number of times, and yet you seem to me more comfortable expressing ideas about emotions, perhaps more in touch with emotional expression, than a lot of other people. So I don't know. I 'll take your word for it, I guess. But you seem alright to me--no more emotionally stunted than the average fellow, at least across the abyss of the internet.

I know I've been in love only twice for sure in my whole life. Both times it was someone I'd never have imagined. Every reason not to be attracted to those women but there it was. All I can tell you is it was love contingent on absolutely nothing, not even being with them. I still love them both deeply although I'll never see them again. Sorry I'm too foggy to do any better with this for now. Maybe later? Or maybe love can't ever be explained?

I think the emotional dwarf here may be me. hehe It's been a long while since I felt in romantic love with anyone. I generally think, at the moment anyway, that love is full of contingencies. Especially once one reaches a certain age. Puppy love seems less possible after you've lived through the consequences of a couple of relationships gone south.

Kudos. I hope you feel better soon, too.

[thatgirl08]

Originally Posted by No-No-Badkitty

Well of course food and sex go hand and hand. Think about it. Food and sex are the most basic, animalistic needs that is shared by any and all animals. No matter how big, how complex your brain is, it all boils down to two things. Food and sex. Both are absolutes for survival.

We are hardwired for it. No matter our weight.

What about oxygen?

[Fascinita]

Originally Posted by thatgirl08

What about oxygen?

Food implies oxygen. We use oxygen to metabolize it.