General

Evolutionary psychology is a theoretical framework that attempts to understand human psychology in the context of evolutionary adaptation. Just as evolutionary biology speculates on the environmental conditions which necessitated certain adaptations of the human body, evolutionary psychology speculates on the conditions that necessitated certain adaptations of the human psyche.

One of the major evolutionary forces is sexual selection. Sexual selection is a pattern of sexual preferences for certain traits between one gender of a species and another. These traits are typically signs of good health and highers chances of survival for the offspring of the mates.

Feederism is a sexual fetish oriented towards weight gain and overeating. These are both activities that would have been exceptionally rare in early hunter-gatherer societies. A mate that could enable such activities would need to be an exceptionally successful hunter and/or gatherer, to the point they could provide such a surplus of food for their partner that their partner could overeat and gain weight.

Such a mate would naturally be equipped to provide for offspring of their partner as well, and their offspring would be likely to inherit these abilities, giving them a better chance at survival. Thus, there is a sexually selective force towards being on the receiving end of the feederism relationship.

The provider end of the feederism relationship would naturally form as a sexual preference over time in response to the presence of individualsworld.he receiving end. But it would take an extremely long time for these sexually selective forces to codify into psychology behaviors that could be inherited genetically.

Because of this, those with the feederism fetish are likely descendants of a long and ancient line of extravagantly successful hunters gatherers. We are simply trying to recreate our ancient deeds in the modern world.

Interesting theory

That's a really nice theory.

That might be partly why there are still cultures around the world that appreciate plus-sized women or individuals; it signifies that the person isn't living in poverty and has access to as much food as they want.

I do find the psychology of it fascinating, in kink in general. This is an interesting theory. I do wish there was more information out there about it. It would help us understand ourselves a bit more too

Evolutionary psychology does make a lot of sense to me. Anyone who studies animals will tell you that instinctive behaviors are inherited. How else would a salmon know to swim upstream to mate for instance? It wouldn't make sense for humans to be the only animals in existence to not have that feature. Rather than our big brain being used to overcome instinct, I think people usually use it to come up with excuses and justifications for why our base instincts make rational sense, so we must have chosen to do it on purpose. Tabula rasa fans, don't @ me. Anyway, OP's theory could have some truth to it, but I have a few other thoughts on the evolution of feedism. It's probably not just one thing. I do want to mention though that mutation is a huge part of evolution, so some aspects could be an exaggeration or a twist on other instincts that are normally expressed a different way.

Gluttony and hedonism is the most obvious as an ingrained instinct. Food is inconsistent in nature; sometimes the hunt fails, or nothing can be harvested in winter, and preserving excess food was impossible. It makes sense to eat as much as you can to stock up and build up some fat reserves that you can burn through when you run out. Everything pleasurable that we want to do had a practical application like that in nature.

The features that people find attractive in the opposite sex are unconsciously based on what would help with child rearing, but fat can accentuate some of them. Men are attracted to fertility cues in women; wide hips for giving birth, large breasts for producing milk, soft clear skin as a sign of good genetics. Fat will exaggerate all of that. On the other hand, women are attracted to signals that show a man's ability to provide and protect; having a large and imposing frame for physical defense (usually based on height and strength, but fat does it in a different way), and access to resources (normally wealth, but fatness shows off an abundance of food). Of course it's more complicated than what I just listed, but that's just a few of the basics.

It seems like a lot of fetish dynamics are some kind of exaggeration or modification (or sometimes a reversal) of traditional gender roles, which also have an underlying aspect based in survival. Men have an instinct to provide for and protect their partner, and feedism leans into that with feeding and pampering. The famale counterpart is an instinct for nurturing and caretaking, which can also be expressed through feeding, though there's a difference in orientation. I've noticed that a lot of female feeders prefer soft feedism and encouraging rather than the more active role that male feeders tend to prefer.

From the feedee's perspective, gift giving (food) and acts of devotion (feeding) are comforting because they show their partner's commitment to the relationship. A certain amount of self-sacrifice in a safe context shows that they have your back if a real problem arises. Plus, it's relaxing to feel like your partner is taking some of the pressure of having to struggle to survive off your shoulders. And yes, as OP mentioned, for women it also demonstrates their partner's hunting ability/access to resources.

this is way beyond anything that i took in school, and outside of the topics i've read about since... however, i would suggest that the general fatphobic stance of society in general, and the niche nature of communities like this (or even general fat appreciation) would suggest that societal norms promoted through religion, media, etc. play a much, much larger role than this shift away from the hunger-gatherer mode of living.

if you look at the wave of obesity that has developed in the last 30 or 40 years (primarily in north america, but elsewhere as well), even that is more about economics and the commoditization of food. i would not be surprised if there is an economic relationship there, too (more wealth leading to better food, less wealth resulting in more processed food).