Cases of Forced Feederism

[LillyBBBW]

i have some but i don't want to name names. it would embarrass the people involved. and as i said before people have tried to do it with me but i cut ties.

Alright I'm going to call you out on this. Supero, you systematically speak with the lowest life forms out there. The average person operates with extreme paranoia when it comes to bearing their souls to inquisitors and seekers like you. I highly doubt most feeders or feedees would spend much time telling you all their secrets. The types of people most likely to do this with you are the very ones you consistently describe here in this forum. Ones who will click on your profile, view your photo(s) and sit up all night chatting with you with one hand in their pants talking about how hot you would be if you would gain some more weight. The only statistical significance you've supplied is that you are most likely to speak with the kinds of people most folks wouldn't bother with. I can't tell you how many times I've had some weirdo PM me or email me prodding for me to send them pictures or meet them on some corner while they visit my city from out of town. And when I wont succumb to their charming offers they ultimately name drop you by your FIRST name, assuming you are a good reference. I've sat there with eyes wide as saucers thinking, "OMG! WHY did she talk to/meet with this clown!?!"

I'm going to be seen as a bitch here but I can't sit back and listen to this any more. I know you are trying to be nice to these 'gents' but when you start alluding to them secretively in serious discussions I have to call bullshit. And you put them in these discussions knowing full well that they will never themselves post here because they are least likely to even read or waste valuable fap time conversing with us. And the idea that a weak and insecure fat woman is going to block her ears to the deafening song of Hollywood beauty and quit her weight watchers meeting to hook up with one of these slobs is so laughable it's insulting to women everywhere. Seriously, stop talking to those people. NOBODY else does and there's a reason for it.

 

[TraciJo67]

edit.

Lilly, you know better than this. This is just blatantly, forthrightly cruel. I'm shocked that it's been allowed to stay plastered here for all to stumble across and read, frankly. Who are you to attack SuperO's personal life, and in such a public, eviscerating manner? Frankly, had I posted this, I probably would have been banned for life.

Nothing that she's said is unreasonable. Yet I see that it's being stretched, skewed, and pulled entirely out of context. It's as if we're so afraid about having discussions about any negative aspect of this particular fetish that any comment -- ANY comment that can be construed as even slightly negative, no matter how reasonable -- has to be pulled apart and blown up into the very caricature of unreasonable hyperbole ... no matter what was actually said.

I know that you'll attempt to make a case for throwing SuperO's personal life onto the tracks for all to inspect because she's 'invited' it by making some rather mild observations about the nature of exploitation and how that doesn't always come across as forced in way that we view force traditionally. But I haven't seen her make any observations about anyone specifically, and I doubt that she was doing so even in a masked or underhanded way. She was simply stating her truth, as she sees it. I happen to agree with her. Not all coercion is overt. People who would allow themselves to be guided and manipulated into a relationship that proves to be abusive aren't always shrinking, pitiable wallflowers. To an extent, we can all be exploited by someone that we love. SuperO has been very careful to say that she's not generalizing about ALL feeders, nor is she equating ALL FA's with feeders, nor is she claiming that the fetish is in itself harmful. Frankly, when I see people pulling apart and skewing something that is in itself a reasonable stance, I start to wonder: What do [the general] you REALLY feel threatened by?

 

[LillyBBBW]

Lilly, you know better than this. This is just blatantly, forthrightly cruel. I'm shocked that it's been allowed to stay plastered here for all to stumble across and read, frankly. Who are you to attack SuperO's personal life, and in such a public, eviscerating manner? Frankly, had I posted this, I probably would have been banned for life.

Nothing that she's said is unreasonable. Yet I see that it's being stretched, skewed, and pulled entirely out of context. It's as if we're so afraid about having discussions about any negative aspect of this particular fetish that any comment -- ANY comment that can be construed as even slightly negative, no matter how reasonable -- has to be pulled apart and blown up into the very caricature of unreasonable hyperbole ... no matter what was actually said.

I know that you'll attempt to make a case for throwing SuperO's personal life onto the tracks for all to inspect because she's 'invited' it by making some rather mild observations about the nature of exploitation and how that doesn't always come across as forced in way that we view force traditionally. But I haven't seen her make any observations about anyone specifically, and I doubt that she was doing so even in a masked or underhanded way. She was simply stating her truth, as she sees it. I happen to agree with her. Not all coercion is overt. People who would allow themselves to be guided and manipulated into a relationship that proves to be abusive aren't always shrinking, pitiable wallflowers. To an extent, we can all be exploited by someone that we love. SuperO has been very careful to say that she's not generalizing about ALL feeders, nor is she equating ALL FA's with feeders, nor is she claiming that the fetish is in itself harmful. Frankly, when I see people pulling apart and skewing something that is in itself a reasonable stance, I start to wonder: What do [the general] you REALLY feel threatened by?

Tracijo, Supero and I have actually had a similar conversation like this before. In that conversation we agreed to disagree, yet I reserved the right to call her out on this very issue and she agreed to it. It's much too long a story for me to describe in detail at this moment and no, this is not an attempt to be cruel to Supero. This is an attempt to show how two philosophies she has been very vocal about on this board actually duel with each other. If one is going to advocate for lending support and fellowship to these undesirables one should not be surprised that their experiences are going to contain many unplesantries than it does for the average person. This presents a bias when one uses these experiences in a discussion just as an officer of the law would have biases based on dealing with violent offenders all the time. There is nothing at all wrong with her choices but she needs to know that her views are jaded by them.

 

[superodalisque]

Alright I'm going to call you out on this. Supero, you systematically speak with the lowest life forms out there. The average person operates with extreme paranoia when it comes to bearing their souls to inquisitors and seekers like you. I highly doubt most feeders or feedees would spend much time telling you all their secrets. The types of people most likely to do this with you are the very ones you consistently describe here in this forum. Ones who will click on your profile, view your photo(s) and sit up all night chatting with you with one hand in their pants talking about how hot you would be if you would gain some more weight. The only statistical significance you've supplied is that you are most likely to speak with the kinds of people most folks wouldn't bother with. I can't tell you how many times I've had some weirdo PM me or email me prodding for me to send them pictures or meet them on some corner while they visit my city from out of town. And when I wont succumb to their charming offers they ultimately name drop you by your FIRST name, assuming you are a good reference. I've sat there with eyes wide as saucers thinking, "OMG! WHY did she talk to/meet with this clown!?!"

I'm going to be seen as a bitch here but I can't sit back and listen to this any more. I know you are trying to be nice to these 'gents' but when you start alluding to them secretively in serious discussions I have to call bullshit. And you put them in these discussions knowing full well that they will never themselves post here because they are least likely to even read or waste valuable fap time conversing with us. And the idea that a weak and insecure fat woman is going to block her ears to the deafening song of Hollywood beauty and quit her weight watchers meeting to hook up with one of these slobs is so laughable it's insulting to women everywhere. Seriously, stop talking to those people. NOBODY else does and there's a reason for it.

Wow! all i can say is that was rather personal and uncalled for whew! especially since we both seem to agree that those kinds of people exist even if thier numbers are pretty small. as for the rest it would have been really nice to be given the benefit of the doubt but i guess people believe what they'd like to believe and thats fine as well. i am who i am and i know who that is. the rest doesn't really matter.

in regards to references: often when someone is interested in you he might exaggerate contacts with people he feels you might have in common to make points. it would have been nice if you had actually checked with me just once before jumping to the most negative conclusions you could come to just to see if it were true. i've had to do that myself many times and i've often found that it was someone who had chatted with someone briefly--maybe just long enough for them to know that wasn't the type of person they wanted to deal with. i know i'm not a psychic and i don't trust rumours. i like to see for myself. and yes, lots of people know my first name. it isn't a secret. i'm lucky enough to be able to construct my life in ways where i can live it freely and in the open. i don't give out my address and phone number with anyone but i'm perfectly comfortable with people at least knowing my first name. my screen name isn't an alter- ego that i use because i have sensitive employment. i don't need to lead a double life.

i talk to lots of people. i don't feel the need to be rude or paranoid to protect my safety or just because i don't personally care for someone's viewpoint. i feel in control of my life so i don't take most people as a threat. it probably has a lot to do with being a southerner as well. we are a little more open to talking to people. our lives are frought with much less danger than some. i'm glad i have the opportunity to live in an environment of trust. we also tend to like oddballs. it keeps life interesting. especially since we know deep down we are all just oddballs too. most oddballs are pretty harmless. its usually the other people who are trying so hard to look normal that you really have to worry about. on top of that being in the arts where being open to other ways of being is important to your creative life. it tends to overlap eveywhere and i'm glad it does. i never thought it was a character flaw to learn from folks--and not just people on the fringe. i like being open minded even though i don't always succeed as well as i'd like. most of the people i actually "hang out" with are actually pretty conservative--even in the community. but i like talking to all kinds of people because they teach me things about myself and they are a part of the world i live in. and i actually find even if i don't believe in everything that they do i might understand where they are. i can relate to them. i like them. thier life is a little different from mine. i hope i give them the room to keep being that way. i like people who are not just like me. i don't divide the world up into winners or losers because i am well aware there is always someone out there who could consider me a "loser" or a "low form of life" too. i remember being thought of that way by a lot of people as a young black person in the south. i think thats why i tend to talk to people instead of relying on the stereotypes of society or the rumours of frightened people. usually i don't have much interest in people who are frightened, touchy and too closed to talk about who they are. but, no matter what we are just people anyway and thats all we are on the whole.

i really was dissapointed to think you'd rather believe what seems to be some rather purient things about me that you do without really ever discussing it with me personally. the reliance on innuendo and rumour is really sad especially since you are well aware of stuff like that having been a web model. but if thats what you'd prefer there isn't much i can do about it. but like T.J. said all of this just makes feeders look like they have something to hide--which most don't. i mean if you have to get on the ground like this to defend someone it really makes it look like there is a need to. i wonder if it doesn't do most feeders who aren't forcing anyone to do anything they don't want to do a diservice. it makes it lok as though people are trying really hard to hide something. but i know its probably all of the sensitivity people have to some unfair criticism of what they do. but, thats not what it looks like on the surface. it just looks overly defensive.

 

[LillyBBBW]

Wow!

I never believed anything told to me by these gents who contacted me. It was my belief at the time that whatever association they had with you was probably being exaggerated for reasons I can only venture to guess. What was most strinking to me and the point I was intending to make was the fact that they DID this. You have always struck me as a super nice and open person, moreso than I think is wise and that's just my opinion. You've never been secretive about this and have often spoken publicly here about your intention to be open with everyone. This is what I was referring to and I apologize if my post was carelessly worded and implied anything further. I am still however shocked at times by what appears to me to be a lack of a filter when it comes to meeting strangers and that is the only case I was trying to make. It appears to me that a lot of the negative experiences you allude to are mostly self inflicted and not indicative of anything.

Obviously it is your choice to approach life as you see fit. Maybe it is a sounthern thing and something I will never understand or embrace, though my family has roots on the south and I know of no one like this. For me my encounters with the emails I referenced, it was a direct example of why such openess can be dangerous. It bugs me, the knowledge that someone could be using my or your name to lure people. The first time it happened *I* didn't even know what your name was and was like, "Who?" And then he told me who you were, as if you even wanted me to know that. It seemed pretty clear after a while that he was exaggerating but even if everything he was saying was gospel truth, he was doing it. This was what was so shocking to me, this loathsome character flaw in this individual and that he would so quickly use you in that way and attribute things to you that were clearly out of character. The incident was quickly forgotten about but when a mildly similar occurance happened again with someone else, maybe it's just me but I found this troublesome. If you care so much about weak insecure people who could possibly be mislead yet it doesn't bother you at all that you could be supplying people with the tools to do it - I don't know, I just think those two philosophies don't work well together.

I think I can count at least 10 to 1 the amount of people who've told me I would be so much more attractive if I would only lose weight as opposed to those who think I would look better if I gained. This world is full of cretins of all genders who would freely volunteer to any of us what a pretty face we have. It would be a leap however even for the most gung ho among them to assume that anyone would force us in to weight loss. We know of men who pressure their wives and girlfriends both directly and indirectly to remain under a certain weight or look a certain way, but FORCE? As it's being described for this thread? That's quite a leap for even the worst of them even in this weight loss obsessed society. Yet you come here and call us "naive" if we simply don't believe because of your experiences -- experiences that many of us feel are artificially weighted towards the negative due to your openess. We're supposed to just believe despite the lack of any tangible evidence at all and if we don't then we're somehow deficient or hiding something. I think it is clear by the creation of this thread that no one here has anything to hide or the question wouldn't be asked. It is asked because we earnestly want to know and have created a space for people to come fourth with any first hand knowledge. In this thread you've attempted to draw a line between your experiences and the probability that forced feederism must exist but there is simply no evidence to support this. At least not so far, nor is there any paralell for it in any other control group. "The Biggest Loser" in my opinion seems the height of aggravated assault though no one on that show is there involuntarily. No one in the weight loss world was ever forced into something that they didn't already want for themselves, it was just that the pressure was over the top and inappropriate. As feedees we already understand that but the idea that one could be made a feedee against their will? Let's not just just guess. There has already been plenty of guessing and conjecture rooted in fear going on for years. We're trying to transcend that here with this thread and please don't call us naive because we wish to reserve judgement until someone comes fourth with a credible testimony.

 

[superodalisque]

I never believed anything told to me by these gents who contacted me. It was my belief at the time that whatever association they had with you was probably being exaggerated for reasons I can only venture to guess. What was most strinking to me and the point I was intending to make was the fact that they DID this. You have always struck me as a super nice and open person, moreso than I think is wise and that's just my opinion. You've never been secretive about this and have often spoken publicly here about your intention to be open with everyone. This is what I was referring to and I apologize if my post was carelessly worded and implied anything further. I am still however shocked at times by what appears to me to be a lack of a filter when it comes to meeting strangers and that is the only case I was trying to make. It appears to me that a lot of the negative experiences you allude to are mostly self inflicted and not indicative of anything.

Obviously it is your choice to approach life as you see fit. Maybe it is a sounthern thing and something I will never understand or embrace, though my family has roots on the south and I know of no one like this. For me my encounters with the emails I referenced, it was a direct example of why such openess can be dangerous. It bugs me, the knowledge that someone could be using my or your name to lure people. The first time it happened *I* didn't even know what your name was and was like, "Who?" And then he told me who you were, as if you even wanted me to know that. It seemed pretty clear after a while that he was exaggerating but even if everything he was saying was gospel truth, he was doing it. This was what was so shocking to me, this loathsome character flaw in this individual and that he would so quickly use you in that way and attribute things to you that were clearly out of character. The incident was quickly forgotten about but when a mildly similar occurance happened again with someone else, maybe it's just me but I found this troublesome. If you care so much about weak insecure people who could possibly be mislead yet it doesn't bother you at all that you could be supplying people with the tools to do it - I don't know, I just think those two philosophies don't work well together.

I think I can count at least 10 to 1 the amount of people who've told me I would be so much more attractive if I would only lose weight as opposed to those who think I would look better if I gained. This world is full of cretins of all genders who would freely volunteer to any of us what a pretty face we have. It would be a leap however even for the most gung ho among them to assume that anyone would force us in to weight loss. We know of men who pressure their wives and girlfriends both directly and indirectly to remain under a certain weight or look a certain way, but FORCE? As it's being described for this thread? That's quite a leap for even the worst of them even in this weight loss obsessed society. Yet you come here and call us "naive" if we simply don't believe because of your experiences -- experiences that many of us feel are artificially weighted towards the negative due to your openess. We're supposed to just believe despite the lack of any tangible evidence at all and if we don't then we're somehow deficient or hiding something. I think it is clear by the creation of this thread that no one here has anything to hide or the question wouldn't be asked. It is asked because we earnestly want to know and have created a space for people to come fourth with any first hand knowledge. In this thread you've attempted to draw a line between your experiences and the probability that forced feederism must exist but there is simply no evidence to support this. At least not so far, nor is there any paralell for it in any other control group. "The Biggest Loser" in my opinion seems the height of aggravated assault though no one on that show is there involuntarily. No one in the weight loss world was ever forced into something that they didn't already want for themselves, it was just that the pressure was over the top and inappropriate. As feedees we already understand that but the idea that one could be made a feedee against their will? Let's not just just guess. There has already been plenty of guessing and conjecture rooted in fear going on for years. We're trying to transcend that here with this thread and please don't call us naive because we wish to reserve judgement until someone comes fourth with a credible testimony.

the only thing that bothered me most was the nasty leap you made in logic about what i was doing when i spoke with someone online or how many people i had met in person and under what circumstances. i guess its more exciting than the truth about how i like talking about gardening and art and vacations or how i met a friend in spain who is also a documentarian at the prado to discuss el bosco. they don't require hands down the pants. some people really have more interests than just fat. if i heard exxagerations about someone i didn't believe and didn't know any of the particulars about i certainly wouldn't pass them on in public as if they were true. you wrote as though i had met all of these guys "on street corners" and somethng lurid was taking place. i accept your apology but that was just wrong no matter how you try and clean it up. i would never do that to you and you know it.

 

[LillyBBBW]

the only thing that bothered me most was the nasty leap you made in logic about what i was doing when i spoke with someone online or how many people i had met in person and under what circumstances. i guess its more exciting than the truth about how i like talking about gardening and art and vacations or how i met a friend in spain who is also a documentarian at the prado to discuss el bosco. they don't require hands down the pants. some people really have more interests than just fat. if i heard exxagerations about someone i didn't believe i certainly wouldn't pass them on in public as if they were true. you wrote as though i had met all of these guys and somethng lurid was taking place. i accept your apology but that was just wrong no matter how you try and clean it up. i would never do that to you and you know it.

Supero, I honestly do apologize. I NEVER thought that and I apologize if it seemed that way or if anyone reading this got that impression at all. Making it seem as if you are doing something with these men was never at all a part of what I was trying to say and I truly am sorry for making it appear that way. A few times you made reference to people who were only intersted in you for your fat and you've never spoken about anything else. I'm sure you have more interesting things to discuss however the negative encounters were what you mentioned and those were what I was addressing. As for what these men were harassing me for, that part is true. Maybe it's because I'm a paysite model and they just assumed I would be into it, I don't know. I never meant to imply anything about you other than that you were trying to be a nice person by talking with these people. I should have been more clear and that is completely my fault.

 

[superodalisque]

we're cool. and i'll always respect your opinion.

 

[Brainiac]

I have always wanted to be force fed by a dominating female feeder. I would be like submissive on that, she could tie me up on the bed and force feed me by hand or funnel. She could give me like appetite stimulants or something to calm me down.

Sadly I haven't found any type of female feeder

I would love to see my belly get really huge and see my weight climbing.

I'm submissive male feedee.

 

[Etiola79]

Once again, equating being an FA as a fetish, and not equating being an FA with a preference.

One more time, with feeling:

Not all FAs are feeders.

Not all Feeders are FAs.

Not all feeders are FAs?

It doesn't make much sense to me (I might be missing something).

 

[Jon Blaze]

Not all feeders are FAs?

It doesn't make much sense to me (I might be missing something).

It depends. Yes most feeders are FAs. But there's no rule on numbers, or a specific goals in mind. There are whole communities of feeders that have no interest in people that are actually large. They're focused on "beginner bellies", making thin people slightly chubby (or even just closer to average), and stuffing sessions only. If you define an FA as someone that prefers larger partners and not just fat in and of itself at any level: Then the group I mentioned would not qualify.

 

[Tad]

Not all feeders are FAs?

It doesn't make much sense to me (I might be missing something).

I've also seen around the web a few feeders who seem to take pleasure in 'ruining' their partner. Gloating about how they used to be hot and are not disgusting blobs of fat, how helpless and disgusting they have become. I'm pretty sure that isn't fat admiration

 

[Etiola79]

In the first case, I understand that a feeder who enjoys making someone else *fatter* (but not to the point where that person would be considered *fat*) wouldn't qualify as a FA.

In the second case, Tad, that's exactly what I feared when I stumbled upon this thread.

I know some feedees are sexually turned on by public humiliation / fat shaming, but in the situation you describe it sounds like the act of feeding is done out of spite.

I doubt the feederism community wants to be associated with such vile individuals, so I vote we call them "jerks" rather than feeders.

 

[mathfa]

I've also seen around the web a few feeders who seem to take pleasure in 'ruining' their partner. Gloating about how they used to be hot and are not disgusting blobs of fat, how helpless and disgusting they have become. I'm pretty sure that isn't fat admiration

I've seen this too, it's really horrifying. Some people even find the health issues hot.

Respect your partner(s) everyone, admire them, don't degrade them (unless they specifically want that).

 

[ChattyBecca]

Respect is KEY!