General

Writing my reactions as I read it this time rather than posting them all at once.

16 pages in and this is a well-rounded take, much like the dissertation was. I prefer the way the dissertation is organized, frankly, as there is a clear narrative throughline that helps organize the piece; in other words, it feels more focused. But the 2014 research is shaping up to have a greater breadth and depth to the background information presented. Part of this comes down to the fact that more pieces of literature (another dissertation, linked at the end of this post) have been generated on the topic of feederism since the dissertation was written, but additionally there is discussion of feederism through the lens of psychology, sociology, and more.

Their exploration of feederism through a psychological lens--in which they examine it as potentially sadomasochistic, pathological, or addictive--made me wonder how most of us in the community view feederism. Personally, I'm quick to dismiss pathologizing it (as are the authors, who report the absence of "emotional dysfunction and harm commonly associated with addiction" ). Otherwise, is it a kink? A sexuality? A lifestyle? Something else?

EDIT: The authors also posit that it bears similarities to "body projects" which subvert norms of attractiveness, i.e. tattoos and piercings. Do many people practice feederism specifically as a middle-finger to societal norms? Or is it just icing on the cake?

Here's the link to the dissertation the authors reference in this paper (mostly for my convenience later when I read that next):
core.ac.uk/download/pdf/185288887.pdf

As well as a Merrie Melodies bit that I had never seen before but the authors say was called out as being well-known by their interviewees:
core.ac.uk/download/pdf/185288887.pdf

I'm always amused by the way researchers throw shade at their peers.


(emphasis added)

On the topic of Fantasy Feeder:

I like this takeaway they base on previous research (Murray, 2004) regarding the fat acceptance movement:


Another fun quote from GIovani and Peluso (2006):

The latter quote posits the advantages of labeling feederism as a subculture rather than a fetish or kink. It's interesting that it can't be both in this framework, but it does make some sense. For example, as a relative outsider to BDSM kink communities, it would seem to me that the styles and aesthetics and subcultures around BDSM (fashion, discussions of consent, etc.), up until the point of actual play, have more moral capital in the eyes of the public than someone who is seen as merely wanting to get their rocks off.

I missed that quote! I haven't read through the whole paper yet but if that's the conclusion they come to I'm really interested in seeing the argument. Framing feederism as a sexuality does feel the most appropriate to me. Language we use about being closeted or coming out does echo queer sexual orientations, after all. I'm especially fond of their followup quote:

I have not read the dissertation yet. I am glad someone in the academy is doing work on feederism. I believe it could provide a more positive view of our kink in the long run and also provide a great way for us to reflect on our community and selves. For this reason I would also love to see more work done on people with belly and vore fetishes.

Before reading this I am going ask a few questions going in.

1. Is the author connected to feederism in anyway? A feeder a feedee. Are they related to anyone involved in the kink. Are they fat.

2. Why did they chose this topic? Goes back to question number 1. Its a question of how objective they began writing this.

3. What kind of quantitative data will the be able to present?

4. Will the author attempt to correlate the kink to childhood trauma?

5. How much was drawn from secondary sources?

6. How can this work be furthered?

I was recently in a discussion about sex with a guy I might want to actually be in a relationship with. He said and I hate what he said: “ All girls I've had really kinky sex with have cried telling me it's the best orgasm they had, and it's not coming from a place of anger it's intimate to hurt someone for their pleasure and comfort them afterwards. In a twisted way I don’t truly understand.”
It was upsetting to learn. That to me raises the question about how often is a kink and or fetish a reflection of trauma, abuse, toxic? Just idk all I know is that I’m not interested in that. I believe that sex is a culmination of what the relationship is. As in sex is an expression of love. And yeah it’s also recreational. But someone hurting me especially during sex and then comforting me is a horrifying concept. It made me wary of him. And just I had to bite my tongue and not point out that from what I know of his past relationships that was not a bdsm or something. That was an actual trauma toxic thing that those girls had brought into sex because that’s what they were shown that love is. I know people won’t agree with me. But when I read that it made me cry. It scared me. So just yeah a kink a fetish can be so many things. It can be a fun thing. It can be a liking a girl in dresses. It can be a penchant for shoes or whatever. It can be enjoying more to hold onto. It can be because maybe you have had better relationships with heavier people. It can be that you like the sounds they make when they are eating or really full. Or that they seem happier. Or just literally anything can be a turn on for whatever reason. Maybe it’s cause of morbid curiosity, maybe it’s a power thing. I know for me that My porn is completely separate from my relationships. Yes sometimes I am turned on by a pudgy belly spilling over jeans or them overeating or whatever. But it is not something I want to explore because for me it is a selfish thing. As in I would get bored and resentful if it was permanent. I get too sadistic. It’s not shame it’s more I don’t want that. Plus it’s not one or the other. So I mean idk. A fetish, kink, preferrence, whatever is complicated. Also some people just like how they look bigger or smaller. If they are confident and healthy then good for them. Idk it’s confusing. These discussions get heated. If someone writes on these topics you should be prepared for major criticism. Atm I’m exhausted and responding because why not. Plus that conversation was slightly upsetting and I’m curious

To sate your curiosity as you go in:

1. They self-identify as a BBW, but appear to be an outsider to feederism.

2. Unclear. It's possible they encountered it in their own life and were curious about the myths around it. That's just conjecture though.

3. There isn't much, as they admit. Qualitative analysis contributes the most to their conclusions, just as in the research paper mentioned further in this thread.

4. The dissertation had little focus on the psychological origins of feederism. The research paper has a more in-depth discussion of that topic, though most of it is conjecture. These papers have been more sociological in nature, if anything.

5. Little was drawn from secondary sources. Almost everything contributing to their conclusions were primary source interviews or information they found from inside the community (through forums such as FF and Dimensions).

6. Check out the other research paper in this thread!

I won't comment on whether a relationship with this guy is advisable or not, as ultimately that's your decision, and I'm not fully clear on the situation/his past relationships. Under the assumption that you're still interested in him, however, I will advise you, if you haven't already, to talk to him about your feelings on the matter. If his kink is something you will never be able to entertain, let him know your boundaries. If he's accepting of those boundaries, wonderful. Likewise, if you're curious, he is ultimately the best person to ask about his perceptions, motivations, and desires. You might learn something new, or you might affirm your own beliefs; either outcome is good.

Additionally, I will point to this passage in the second research paper that I think describes well what some people get out of BDSM.



I don't think there needs to be any trauma involved for someone to enjoy a kink or to have a sexuality that deviates from perceived norms. Sometimes you need an unconventional release. Sometimes you're just born that way.

I'll also point this out:

"to hurt someone **for their pleasure** and **comfort them afterwards**"

This alludes to two things that are really important to BDSM.

The first is consent; "for their pleasure" **requires** that all parties are consenting. A lot of care needs to be taken to ensure that all parties are aware of any risks that are involved in the kink and that there are clear lines of communication to slam the brakes in case things go too far. The point is to have fun.

The second is aftercare. After a scene or play, people will often engage in a bit of nonsexual intimacy while talking about which parts of the experience they enjoyed, what they want to explore further, and what they want to leave on the shelf next time. Again, the point here is to make sure everyone is having fun, and to reaffirm the baseline of love and affection with which partners should go into these experiences.

Again, talk to each other and educate yourselves.