General

Yes! Yes! The man actually hit it nearly on the head with his first crack shot!
Unlike most paraphilia or fetishes, adipo or pregophilia are both related to actual evolutionary benefits. Note: females of our earliest ancestors weren't by any means plump, voluptuos, or outright fat 9.5 times out of 10, simply curvacious as it naturally occurs or is emulated today. The healthier the pad at the waist-especially in colder climates like that of neandertal man, coupled with softness of the hips and bust, the more likely a female to survive winter, child birth, and other harsh but not combative-think hunting mammoths and wooly rhinos and 20 foot deer. This genetic preference is warped modernly by control of the means of information and image distribution; it takes years of men getting the images ultra-thin hotties to override that genetic programing and we eventually phase it out: marriage. You see, once wed women tend to thicken out at least a little, increasing for each child born by some 6% if they eat properly during their pregnancy. Noteably, most men are still highly attracted to their wives PHYSICALLY and emotionally still even after this due to the fact it appeals to their deepest depths of attraction, however throughly suppressed.
Women who have a similar turn-on [feeders or FAs] are transposing their maternal instincts to nurture and carefore another-normally their child, on to that man.
Argueably, the whole FA movement is merely a more extreme backlash against the mass supression of this natural incling. God I love how ignorant those Hollywood and Eliteist are to human nature! It just added the kind of kindling to the fire that either breeds a "who gives a ***" mentality or embracing of their inner love of the fat.

Normal? Who's normal; wait, me? Hell no! Just because nature inserted a few-actually quite the massive number of them, mechanisms associated with our sub or semi concious processes when courting and selecting a mate or society primed them to fire on overload doesn't mean I have to justify a tic of it; I'm an FA with a feeder streak as I've said and it's a natural to me as, well, I guess breathing is enough of a biological consistancy to use as a comparision.
It is my standing opinion that sciences place is at the heel it was born at with all the same duties: explain HOW things work and why they LIKELY came to be; anything it claims beyond that is getting into a pissing contest you won't win with religion, philosophy, and an arsenal of other independant thought schools. Oh, and to tac on a corrective statistic, it is entirely argueable the the male population body-predominantly those whose ancestors lived in colder climates primarily, is in fact 100% predisposed to having a Fat Phila or Preference; societal conditioning simply affects people to varying degrees based upon their mental nature and rearing.
Actually, I can explain how the romantic connection with food forms. See, especially when it is an intergral part of their bonding behaviors-such as in a Feeder-Feedee or Mutual Gainer relationship, the wiring that releases the happy and horny hormones gets set to trigger with that behavior primarily in that context; it's why breaking it off then still hanging afterwards makes gestures that once held couple's context with anyone make you start to miss your old better half.
While I accept your view point CanadianEnglish and find you for the most part agreeable, I see nothing wrong with a little acedemic know-how on who I or anyone else is and why; if it happens, isn't it better to know the means and the method?

The point Moonchild's Evolutionary biology teacher made is true; science is a neuatral force in the universe 'til you try and make it the source it was never meant to be. I'd argue however that that only furthers why my point that an explanation isn't necessarily a good thing is so off kilter? I'm not trying to call it normal or-or, as stated, myself for that matter, just noting relevant data related to the subject that I've come acrossed. I mean, if knowing why people with Sicle Cell Anemia are predisposed to it by ethnic genetic background or Schitzophrenia runs in families isn't bad as it does society good with an reasonable and kind of fascinating explanation, then why not philias and fetishism?
Yes, it's a person's sex life.
Yes, it's deeply private and there's no need to cure it 'til it becomes a problem.
But what's wrong with being informed on the hows and whys of us? As Moonchild also noted, current Herd Mentality "normal" strips that little perk away anywho, so why not learn from their unabashed curiosity toward "not normal" and get a little retrospective from it? It's both biochemically and pschologically a valueable exercise.

Cksteele79's point is an excellent summery of the effective "modern" root FA and all it's direvations; latching on to someone who could bring home the bacon, caribou, etcetera etctera ensured a healthy or even airing on the side of corpulent while other's were knocking on death's door or hacking it out for some proper scraps. It's just like how being blond is a natural draw in most places; it was a rare and desirable genetic defect when it occured, thus, to have a blond bride[persay] amongst a sea of natural black and brunette haireds proved you were simply that awesome.
Oh, and if you would Domtar would you clarify your first paragraph to me? I don't quite get what you're getting at.
And I totally second the threads originator's point; the human body is a biological marvel along with most of the tiny stuff that makes the bigger happenings of our world possible. Even with what I said-science ONLY giving the how, it's a damn cool how.

#1-my theory on the "thinning" of the population's sense of sensual: from an early age boys and girls are exposed to over the past two or three generations a ridiculous amount of media blitz on how they should look, talk, act, etcetera etcetera. Now, assuming groups like the Builderburgs and the Skull and Bones society's spidery little weavings throughout the wrungs of global power amongst the developed nations directly and behind the scenes amongst the developings have actually been preping from some sort of Ark-style deal for them while we are left to straggle on in an effective reset to just before the industrial revolution conditions when tech' is effectively wiped out on during the winter of 2012, then skinny masses to enslave by offering what they had at the cost of freedoms, fidelity, etcetera etcetera. I know, it sounds like a conspiracy deal, but if all the parts fit, then car is car.
#2-Societal suppression affects people differently. In my case, once I hit the second year of high school and definetly afterwards I came down with a permanent case of the "who gives a ***s". Yah, I didn't start hitting on every big-boned hotty and blatanly advertise my being an FA, but teenagers are jerks and most young adults seem to not grow out of that phase 'til about age 22 or 24 around here so it was more of a pragmatic deal. Anywho-scow, the FA or similar genes aren't scattered throughout all men equally; they are concentrated and most pronounced amongst those who's ancestory was from northern or frequently cooler climates where big girls didn't frost out as fast as rails. It was filled under "survival of the mates" and unless you percieve imanent odds of major issues all around that make it likely she'll need some extrafluff, it doesn't kick in equally. Pronounced FA's simply tapped into it for other reasons that can be chocked up to the innumerable interactions of a near infinite mix of genes and genomes.
#3-Nature versus Nurture says that if your parents-dad for girls, mom for guys, and if your homosexually geared vice versa, then both physically and mentally you're going to go for someone similar to them; it's been tested and proven that we do it, so that's another option.

Actually, that one's got a deeper root than the one I already illuded to; it goes back to protohuman survival reactions and has a hint of modern social angst in it.
See, bigger women tend to be in vogue even more than the natural preculsion when percieved or active conditions are worse. Now, in africa itself bigger isn't better; between the Lions and Leopards and Cheetas[oh my!] larger for guys and girls alike was a death sentence as they were not only more tempting targets but slower marks. Coupled with the larger tendancy of population means that african natives tend to air on the side of leaner all around. Scattered tribes are highly FA tend to have distinctly advantageous natural advantages that allow such excesses, however in mother africa significance of size still isn't a norm modernly.
African Britons and Americans percieve their lives as equally dangerous with the unfortunate fact that despite some 40 years of social aid they're communities are on the highway to hell more often than not in terms of drugs, violence, etcetera etcetera; key difference is that they have the food to fatten up their ladies or gents while they don't in the land nearly down under. It's like you getting a panic attack over something that logically you know is totally harmless but emotionally you react to like it's life or death; in other words, most of the events of high school of mediocre significance. Make sense now?