I would offer a slightly more nuanced view than Down the Donut Hole/Xutjja's.
My personal opinion is that the "feeder" doesn't have to purchase food/have food delivered to the "feedee" but can encourage and persuade that person to eat more than they would otherwise do/eat different things/eat so that they gain weight. For example, if I were a feedee, I would feel very uncomfortable accepting food gifts from someone who has less income than me. To me, being a feeder doesn't mean you have to have the means to lavish food on another, you just have to be psychologically attuned to the mutual goal of making/persuading/encouraging the feedee to eat/get fatter. The feeder can instruct the feedee what to eat, ask them to eat it at a certain time or in a particular way, or to eat a prescribed quantity. They can encourage and persuade the feedee to eat more when they're full. All that can be done online no problem.
I would also personally say that you can have a feeder/feedee relationship via text/k*k/IM without necessarily being on cam or on video chat. For me, the written word is quite powerful/erotic/persuasive and someone typing can be just as "real" as someone saying words or seeing them eating on cam.
I would take the view that even if there is no video-chat/cam, it's not just role-playing if the actual food is being eaten/weight is being gained. It might make it more real for some people to see it happen on cam, but I don't see why a text only, or text-and-photo-only (or emailed videos) feeder/feedee relationship or playdate/series of interactions can't be real feederism/feedism. I would imagine most people would enjoy a mixture though - an online feeder/feedee scenario could have a smattering of cam, text, email, sometimes real goodies delivered if you want, documented weigh-ins, lists of food consumed, etc.
It's whatever you want to make it.
Meeting up and stuffing them with cakes/being stuffed with cakes is obviously even hotter though. LOL.
My personal opinion is that the "feeder" doesn't have to purchase food/have food delivered to the "feedee" but can encourage and persuade that person to eat more than they would otherwise do/eat different things/eat so that they gain weight. For example, if I were a feedee, I would feel very uncomfortable accepting food gifts from someone who has less income than me. To me, being a feeder doesn't mean you have to have the means to lavish food on another, you just have to be psychologically attuned to the mutual goal of making/persuading/encouraging the feedee to eat/get fatter. The feeder can instruct the feedee what to eat, ask them to eat it at a certain time or in a particular way, or to eat a prescribed quantity. They can encourage and persuade the feedee to eat more when they're full. All that can be done online no problem.
I would also personally say that you can have a feeder/feedee relationship via text/k*k/IM without necessarily being on cam or on video chat. For me, the written word is quite powerful/erotic/persuasive and someone typing can be just as "real" as someone saying words or seeing them eating on cam.
I would take the view that even if there is no video-chat/cam, it's not just role-playing if the actual food is being eaten/weight is being gained. It might make it more real for some people to see it happen on cam, but I don't see why a text only, or text-and-photo-only (or emailed videos) feeder/feedee relationship or playdate/series of interactions can't be real feederism/feedism. I would imagine most people would enjoy a mixture though - an online feeder/feedee scenario could have a smattering of cam, text, email, sometimes real goodies delivered if you want, documented weigh-ins, lists of food consumed, etc.
It's whatever you want to make it.
Meeting up and stuffing them with cakes/being stuffed with cakes is obviously even hotter though. LOL.
10 years
