September 16, 2002
I posted my anti-feeder article several years ago (November of 1997...but who's counting?), but only recently has anyone responded in other than what I would call a "positive" fashion. Usually letters regarding that particular bit of writing were along the lines of "I had no idea..." or "Finally, someone said SOMETHING."
Then I recieved the following note, which I'm printing (with my response) verbatim (all typos and spelling errors intact). Feel free to send your own responses, for or against, to him directly (his letter is in italics):
I find your violent opposition towards 'feederism' as you call as more than mildly amusing. Nobody is denying the tragedy that can result from the actoins of certain sick selfish individuals. But can you in all fairness lump everyone with a feeding fetish into one big pile?
Actually, I don't. I make it clear that there are differences between consensual and non-consensual feeding, not to mention erotic food play. Also, my major point is that a lot of the feeders of ANY category want to be considered size acceptance advocates, which they aren't. True, I express my own personal opinion, and in doing that I do "lump" feeders together into a single group. So to answer your question; Yes, it's perfectly fair. It's my opinion, and therefore anything goes.
Feeders are more than simply over-enthusiastic fat enthusiasists.
The act of feeding, force feeding against someones will is like forced sexual penetration. Needless to say, some men are quite turned on by forced sexual penetration. Also, feeders do not nesscisarilly desire to feed their partner until they become gross and immobile. Many feeders have a set limit in mind that is lower than you may suspect. In fact it may be lower than the size craved by many fat enthusiasts.
Sure, rape fantasy is one of the bigger sexual fetishes, particularly on the 'Net. There really are people who like to imagine being on either side of what feels like a forced situation, that odd sort of consensual non-consensuality that permeates the world of BDSM. Like the rest of that sexual genre, it engenders a very strong response from people who feel that sort of sexual play demeans or belittles the tragedy of those who have been victimized at the hands of true rapists, much as they feel that flogging or bondage elements reduces other forms of abuse victimization into some sort of game.
The main problem I always had with this reaction is it's denial of the fact that, as humans, we depict pretty horrible acts for enjoyment and education on ALL levels, from mass murder and genocidal cultural expansionism (ever play "Cowboys and Indians" as a kid?) to war on all levels (AD&D, Paint Ball, Laser Tag, et al).
So, when it comes to FANTASY, I don't particularly have any issues whatsoever... I make it fairly clear that I'm attacking the REALITY of individuals who cross over that line into reality against their partners wishes. Even if you've played out a "forced penetration" fantasy a thousand times before with your partner, the night she says "No, I don't want to" for real, and you do it anyway (with the full knowledge that she REALLY didn't want to) is still, in every sense of the word, rape.
Also, you inadvertantly support my original argument that feeders are not a part of the size acceptance movement because of the very nature of their desire to change the size of their partner.
My ideal female body size is not catered for anywhere, women shown are either usually anorexic or obese, neither of which I am remotely attracted to. as I said before, feeding is about more than weight gain, for some is the dominant aspect (forced feeding) which is more like an element of sadism than fat appreciation. As you should know stuffiing and starving are basic components of sadomasochistic relationships.
Well, you haven't been looking hard enough then. If anything, the "barely plump" aspect of feminine beauty is displayed about the 'Net for more frequently then the "obese" -- this is the reason I started Rotunda Artworks. I wanted to contribute to the culture of the erotically displayed larger female form in a way I felt was flattering and respectful, and not to inspire guffaws. But I digress.
I had to re-read this paragraph before I realized it contained several key points:
"feeding is more than weight gain" - A concession that weight gain is an element. Of course, this could have been misspoken. Saying "feeding isn't just about gaining weight" (which it isn't, and I say as much in the original article).
"My ideal female body size is not catered for anywhere" - this read either as a justification for shaping your partner to a different size, or a digression from the main article. The former is simply bizarre, as it has nothing to do with the partner you choose to be with, the latter makes it irrelevant.
You refer to "stuffing and starving" as basic components of sadomasochism. I was under the impression that inflicting pain was the basic element of S&M. As someone who had some small experience with S&M directly and through the experiences of people I know personally, I have only encountered very little food or consumption related activities.
That is not to say that there isn't a dominant or "top" aspect to feeding. Obviously, control is a major part of the fetish. Sadism also plays a part: You always hurt the ones you love (or at least lust after).
In this case the feedee also enjoys the degradation and humiliation of the 'forced' feeding as much as the enjoy being whipped and bound.
Ah... the BD part of BDSM (bondage & discipline) is often thought to cover the areas of humiliation and degradation you mention. An interesting point. However, I don't recall seeing any forced feeding fantasy that DIDN'T involve extreme weight gain -- I don't deny that forced feeding as a form of humiliation exists, just that I believe your "defense" rests on a minority element that the original article was NOT directed towards.
Your comment about sadomasochism and how it caused no long term damage is ludicrous. Zealots in every fetish groups often wind up harming themselves and others permanently either physically or psycholgically.
Again, the larger part of BDSM does NOT cause long term damage, as you imply yourself by using the word "zealot". A true fanatic of anything is a rare thing, but still something to be guarded against. A large part of BDSM (in fact, all sexual interaction) is the ability to negotiate boundaries and limits, not to mention the desire of both parties s to what a "scene" will entail. "Zealots" that harm themselves are exercising their right to do as they wish... to themselves. The latter category who do so against the wishes of their partners are abusers (or worse), and are NOT tolerated by the community at large.
The argument is strange as you, in the previous paragraph, essentially include feeding under the banner of BDSM, and then say that my argument that BDSM (as an umbrella acronym) does not incur long term damage is "ludicrous". You might want to re-think that a bit.
Practisers of S&M die all the time from asyphiation, and amputee fetishests mutilate themselves to get their desired self image. Even your humble transvestite, most whimsical and 'sanitary' of the fetishs can have unpleasant consequences taken to exess, though these are mostly psychological there are some physical damae that can be done. I wonder how many overenthusiatic cross dressers cuase damage to the bowles by tightening up their corset way, way, too much to reach the desired effect.
I notice you're using the dreaded ad hominem style of argument: Creating "everybody knows" points that really do not stand up well to any serious debate. Saying that people are doing themselves in through asphyxiation (auto-erotic or otherwise) "all the time" is too vague (and, again, an incredibly small percentage of ALL the BDSM practitioners) to really take seriously. Yes, it does happen, usually to some conservative politician who spends his waking hours railing against "smut" and societal permissiveness, only to be found dead next to an open jar of Vaseline in frilly panties, a wig, his hand on his cock and a plastic bag over his head (this happened in Britain a few years ago, by the way).
I was always under the impression that amputee fetishists found OTHER people sans limb(s) erotic, not the other way around. In any case, I don't think the deliberate self-mutilation you describe is even remotely common-place.
Also, I know a lot of cross-dressers (transvestites) and gender dysphoric types in various stages of change from one sex to another. While there are horror stories of hormonal and surgical disasters on the part of the second group, they really don't belong in this conversation as it can be argued that they are suffering from a disease: There desire to be another sex is a matter of correcting what they see as a genetic mistake, and not a fetish. The first group have had there own issues in trying to "pass" as female (or male, in the case of female cross-dressers), but very few actually wear corsets. Girdles, maybe. BTW, corsets, when fitted correctly, are generally beneficial in ways that have nothing to do with appearance. The same is true with bodices. While I am unaware of the broader group, my personal experience with bodices and corsets on women from petite to hyper-sized has been generally positive, though wearing them for extended periods can be an experience in self imposed bondage -- thus the expression "Out of Bodice Experience" at Ren Faires and the like.
Feeders are not all monstrous parasites who prey on the weak of will. Every time I dine with a female I always find myself inducing them to eat more. My girlfreind would by your standards much too thin, she is strong willed and resists me strongly on this issue.
I have to strenuously object to your idea that you have ANY idea what my "standards" are. Yes, I like "super size" BBW's, but there have been much smaller women that I find attractive. Since we never hear how large your girlfriend is, I have no idea whether I would find her attractive or not. No, strike that: Even if you gave her height, weight, and described her in detail, I STILL would be uncertain of my attraction toward her unless I actually met her in person and got to know her. Some of us perverts are funny that way.
Your main point is not contested: I'm sure there are, somewhere, somehow, some completely ethical feeders who are 100% above-board and who care about their partners health over their personal desires. The fact that I have yet to meet one is more a function of my avoidance of the culture than any indication as to their true rarity.
However, I stand by my contention that feeders ARE, as a group, creepy and obnoxious at best, downright destructive and (dare I say it?) immature and self centered opportunists who abuse trust and then run when things don't go their way. Only yesterday I was speaking with someone grappling with the psychological damage of spending nearly a year with a man who insisted he wasn't a feeder, but who constantly told her how much prettier she would be if she only gained a hundred pounds. This is on a woman who was about 5'6" and weighed 250 pounds as it was.
Before those who know me comment, yes, I understand that we all have elements of immaturity, of wanting things the way WE want it. Selfishness is a human condition: The mark of maturity is the effort we make to try and work things out with others so that everyone can get as much of what they want from life as possible.
We love eachother and get on just fine.
Good for you! Be sure to let me know if you get to the point where you accept her as she is, at the size she is. After all, I don't refer to feeders as "FAT acceptance leeches" on the original page, but as "size acceptance leeches". If you, in fact, don't accept that she's at the size she is, then you are a living example of my original point. I would feel the same if you were trying to force her to lose weight.
So, thanks for the letter. After nearly 200 e-mails in support of the article, it's nice to hear from the other side. I only wish it was someone who actually knew something about BDSM, reading comprehension, or spell checkers.
Last Modified: 7-Feb-06