Extreme obesity

for me yes.. id never encourage someone to be imobile, theres no quality of life there. like on my 600 pound life, those people have no life, id never say hey your 550 pounds cant walk to the mail box, go eat another cake just doesn't seem right...

i like my beer belly, n i love a good big muffin top n thighs on a girl.. Yet when you cant function normally to me thats the cut off point..n ya 800 is way to big

I like my men huge. I suppose some could classify me as an extreme feeder.

***However***

I am not into immobility, health issues, or death. I make my feedee take breaks, be active, and encourage him to have a life outside of kink. Sometimes, when we are together, we don't do kink related stuff.

I also make sure doesn't skip doctor's appointments and tells me when he is having any kind of health related issue.

For me, how he looks is not important. My focus is on quality of life.

So much to unpack here. I’m going to have to remix the posts, esp. since FF has no multiquote functionality.

Ethical discussions along these lines have been a significant part of the fatosphere since i first got involved, early-mid 1990s. Opinions vary, and most but not all are well-reasoned.

Let’s start here:


Absolutely, and here’s the key point: It’s all about the person carrying the fat, not the/any admirer(s) or potential admirers. Bodily autonomy, plain and simple. If the person whose body creates and maintains the fat is fully informed and retains agency over their body, and takes responsibility for maintaining themselves by any combination of direct action and/or non-coercive delegation, it is no one else’s business.

Death Feedism is a thing. Not mine, but real people seem to genuinely be into it. If this is what the feedee who is maintaining all that body fat wants, who is anyone else to judge? What if that person wants a feeder who’s into helping feed them where they want to go?

Back in the 1990s i heard of something similar which came up in our community, but was a different kink or lifestyle that did not necessarily depend on fatness: snuff. I only heard the term and never researched it. From what i was told at the time, it had something to do with sexually getting off on death or someone dying. These decades later i’m still amazed that it is or was common enough to have a term applied to it. Never have understood it. Parallels were drawn between it and extreme fattening, esp. feedism related.



Sweeping generalizations do not a rule make. Do we even know that weighing 900 pounds needs to be a death sentence, or require poor health? We know that most fat people of any degree of fatness tend to get shit medical “care” in most societies—certainly in the U.S., and ongoing mountains of societal hate. Stress, mood, and physiology interact, and can have deleterious effects—i’ve lived this personally, and continue to do so.

I dispute that the specific numbers cited or any similar numbers assure “active[…] killing”.



Now we’re in the realm of personal taste, and judging others. Totally good that that’s not what you’re into, and that you’re sharing what you like. Totally not good that you’re implying that others should necessarily share your tastes. Advocate, promote, encourage—great. But be clear on what is your preference and not a universal standard.



1) Your numbers are far from universal. I’ve met and hugged people (mostly women) in the mid-500s who have enough mobility for their purposes. I know people in the 200s of pounds who are immobile or close, and can’t walk to the mailbox. I was totally immobile in 2003 for close to 3 months, around 6' tall and 155 pounds—not from fatness. There are all sorts of reasons people can be immobile/have limited mobility/have substandard qualities of life.

2) I’m grateful to have had the opportunity to get to know one immobile (mostly from fatness) woman in our community (but not on FF) very well. She’s well below the arbitrary 500 or 550 or whatever pound mark. tl;dr: it’s nuanced.

3) I’m grateful to have had the opportunity to meet IRL someone in our community who’s a feedee who loves being fat so much that she’s been willing to take things to where the OP and others so far in this thread consider extreme. She’s living her life on her terms—who are we to judge?

4) Some people want to be encouraged to immobility… or at least make that claim (i’ve not personally interacted with them enough to establish veracity). If they have full agency, why can’t they pursue what they want? Why would it be bad for an encourager in that context to encourage them?

Consent is a hell of a concept.

Munchies and Junkie explain it very well! To give an other point of view, i kind of consider myself to be a death feedee. But what exactly are my fantasies? Well, i dont wanna die! That's for sure! But i wanna get really fat! Too fat to live. Death is a cost but because it's in the way, it also emphasizes how eager i am to fatten up. And to what extend. Being pushed into something I don't want is, in this very case, something that turns me on. Because it emphasizes how out of control i am. So my favorite fantasy is to be fattened up to death, without consent, by a strong feeder girl who will apsolutely dominate me. I don't know if i want her, to want to kill me, or just fatten me up to that extent, but in the fantasy i want to be helpless, and being pushed into such extreme fatness that i die. But to be celar, again, i dont want to die i only want to get sooo fat!
What are the ethics behind that?
What are ethics in the first place?
Lucky me has studied it in highschool's phylosophy! 😂
So, a thing is ethically right when it makes more good than bad. So is killing a person good or bad? Well if you know everything in advance you can decide pretty easily! Keep that in mind.
So back to my fantasy and a hypothetical experiment. If me and my feeder girl consent in advance that we're gonna live our fantasy 24/7, and there will be a safeword to stop, what will happen? I want to be forced to be extremely addicted to her. And she'll know that. She can abuse it so that i won't ever say the safeword. But that's something that i want! So, is it okay?
Well... I dont know. It does interfere with communication wich is apsolutely vital in this kind of things. But in the other hand, it's exactly what i crave, because it means that she could fatten me up in a more dominant way.
The importand thing here, is that I'm safe. If she does all of this rationally and she somehow knows that it's what i want, then yeah. It's propably ethical with me. But it's almost impossible for her to know that, since it'll require the fantasy to stop. And that's the point. As an unexperienced feedee, it turns me on more to be in a dangerous situation. That's speaking trouble most likely. What's far more realistic tho is that this stays a fantasy!
Back at the ethical part. Is it okay for someone to do that to me? If I want it trully, then yes. But what I want changes. What happens if i stop wanting it? It'll be a nightmare! Then that means it whould be unethical. But what if that person manipulates me in a way that'll keep me wanting it? Is this ethical, does it do more good than harm? Well, i think it does. So long as I'm going to apsolutely enjoy it in every point of the way, And most importantly im trully okay with what's happening, at the start of it, (because after that my feeder could theoretically make sure to keep it that way, artificially, something im also gonna have to be rationally okay with at the beginning) then, i guess it's ethical!
But that's not to encourage death feederism! It might be ironic but i don't think it's a good idea in general!
Im just saying the above to show how hard it is to have that type of feeder, or be one. Remember the feeder is also a human being and may be carried away from their fetish, corrupted, or they could be acting nice until the feedee has no way out of this. These things happen. Way more often than they don't. This is why it's dangerous.
Other than that i dont even gain at all, because i prefer irl than a fetish right now. But with the right girl? Yes, I'd go all in!
Does that clear things more than it makes a mess btw? 😂

Hats off to you if this gets you off. But if you have it irl, this is just a toxic relationship at best and an abusive on at worst. No way that will end well.

First thank you for the reply. I was talking immobile only due to weight gain. Not an injury, illness etc only weight gain. Yes people can encourage them to be immobile i just my self won't i don't feel its right, n well think its sick.Im not judging anyone, to me personally plumping up someone who cant function normally just isn't right. To need help going to the bath room, bathing,cooking a meal, thats no kind of life, so for me ethically thats where i draw the line..

Ok, but how do you actually know when something is ethical or not? It seems like most people just go with their gut instinct and use "ethics" as a post-hoc justification. Does it feel right? Then it must be morally good. Does it sound icky? Then it must be unethical. I'm sure I don't have to point out that something as important as society's ethical code shouldn't just be left to emotion, so let's think through this for once. Broadly speaking, there are three major schools of thought about ethics.

Consequentialist or utilitarian ethics says that ANY action is ethically good so long as it is reasonably expected to have a positive outcome. By that they mean that it increases the overall amount of happiness while diminishing the overall amount of suffering. But whose happiness should be prioritized? If you want to go far into utilitarianism, you could say that immobility is unethical because it removes a worker's ability to contribute to the greater good. Of course, that's a pretty extreme position because it assumes all of us are obligated from birth to put personal interests aside in order to spend our lives working for the collective. But ignoring that, the wider impact on society of a couple pursuing this lifestyle is minimal either way.

What about the happiness and suffering of the gainer? Both of those are highly subjective terms that mean something different to everybody. You should know that there are many people out there who seriously want to become that size and live that lifestyle. For them, being immobile makes them happy, and the health issues don't seem like suffering to them. Encouraging them might be like helping them achieve a lifelong dream. If their lifestyle of choice is denied to them because other people "know better", then they will end up living a longer life for sure, but one full of sexual repression and regret. The only argument against it in that case would be if their immobility caused more suffering to other people than the gainer would suffer from giving up on their dreams. Like if they have children or if they had an elderly parent that was depending on them for care. So according to consequentialism, encouraging the right person in the right situation to immobility is morally good, because it increases their happiness and diminishes their emotional suffering.

Next, deontological ethics places emphasis on individual liberty as a value. The underlying belief here is that everyone is born with certain natural rights that can never be granted, only taken away. Speech, religion, right of assembly, bodily autonomy, and property ownership to name a few. So deontology focuses on creating a system of rules and boundaries that allow for the most amount of people to seek fulfillment in their own way. As long as everyone is playing by the same fair set of rules, then anything that results is considered a fair outcome. Underpinning all of these rules is the basic idea that you're in the clear so long as you do not cause harm to others without their consent. The majority of all laws are based on this concept. So according to deontology, as long as there is informed consent, then encouraging someone to immobility is morally neutral, because everyone involved wants to participate. Moreover, interfering with their desires could be seen as morally wrong because they did not consent to having their autonomy taken away.

Finally, there's virtue ethics, which is based on the idea that everyone should cultivate good personality traits (virtues) and act in accordance, while avoiding bad traits (vice). "Be the change you want to see in the world". Actions are only morally good if they reflect the moral ideal. Of course, the first question is who decides what counts as a virtue? There doesn't seem to be a definitive answer. Some have a personal role model, others trust in religious scripture as a guide, others take a philosophical approach. But in our case, let's just assume that Aristotle got it right the first time. He had a whole chart of virtues and vices. According to him, the 12 virtues are:

Courage or bravery in the face of fear,
Temperance, moderation, and restraint in the face of pleasure or pain,
Liberality or generosity with money,
Magnificence, industriousness, or doing something worthy with wealth and opportunity,
Magnanimity, humility and nobility with one's honor,
Proper ambition and pride in accomplishments,
Patience and good temper,
Truthfulness and honesty,
Wittiness and good humor in conversation,
Friendliness,
Modesty,
A sense of justice, and righteous indignation in the face of injury.

So let's see, helping someone to gain massive amounts of weight is self-indulgent, shameless, and probably a tasteless use of money (all vices). However, it also involves generosity, ambition and pride, courage to face the risks, and needs both honesty and patience to make such an arrangement work (all virtues). I haven't read deeply enough into Aristotle to find out if he had a system for weighing competing virtues against each other, but let's take the more conservative route and assume that someone must have every virtue all the time in order to avoid being unethical. So according to that standard of virtue ethics, encouraging someone to immobility is indeed morally wrong. But then, so is any degree of gluttony or even exploring kink in general, which display the same vices. The big question here is are you willing to live by that strict moral code and apply it to every situation? Will you try to avoid all forms of self-indulgence? The fact that your vices may be to a lesser degree than others won't excuse the fact that you are basically committing the same sin just by being part of this community.

So yeah, I guess it's up to everyone to decide for themselves, but unless there is some kind of rational foundation behind your ethics, it's pointless to hear about them.