General

For those of us who have a fetish/paraphilia about feeding/weight gain/fat etc, quite often those activities/thoughts are just as much or even more of a trigger to arousal than conventional sex. Doing anything or being willingly on the receiving end of something that causes sexual arousal is a sexual act by definition.

So whilst spooning cake into someone/rubbing their tummy/eating for them/watching them eat whilst encouraging them wouldn't seem to Mr and Mrs Vanilla a sexual act any more than scratching your elbow, it may well be for someone from this community. It might not fall into the definition of sexual intercourse in the conventional/legal/dictionary sense but clearly if it's intended to be sexually exciting for both of you then yes, I'd say it would be considered cheating.

I think falling back on "but we didn't have sex" would be at the very least disingenuous.

I think in the strictly monogamous relationships most people choose to be in this would probably fall in a grey area that leans a bit towards 'cheating', for pretty much all the reasons Foxglove already stated. I think if anyone wants to go behind their partners back and use the "but it's not physical!" excuse and ignore the sexual and/or romantic implications that may be involved, well... Maybe you need to reexamine whether your needs are being met in your current relationship? Or maybe you're less of a monogamist then you thought?

On a personal level, I feel like I could deal with somebody I was dating having a feeder/ee relationship outside of our own. I know I'm not looking to put on another 100 pounds, and if this is what they want then who I am to deny them? I see it this way: I care about this person and want them to be happy, so why chain them to me when I know that they are repressing their own needs? I would feel quite selfish in doing so. Again, this is just *me* though, I know most people don't share in my ideals.

Absolutely agree!

Clive, I think there are two different questions here. One is to do with whether or not feederism constitutes "cheating" if done behind your partner's back, without their permission. You for example don't think it is cheating if there is no sex involved, even if there is sexual arousal.

The other is whether or not it is possible for a couple to agree one of them can go off and do certain things with a third person without it being cheating.

When you say:-
"lets assume you and your spouse have approached the idea and she/he has decided that its not for them. If, then, this is not something they would perform.....how could it be construed as cheating if you then do it with another? Again providing there is no physical sexual act attached..."
- you did not mention whether or not, in that circumstance, you envisaged that the couple had agreed beforehand or not that one of them could go and do that act with another.

it may be the use of the term "cheating" that is confusing. Cheating implies dishonesty/deception. If you and your partner agree beforehand that you can engage in feederism/penetrative sex/flirtation or whatever with someone outside your relationship, it doesn't matter what that act is, it won't constitute "cheating" because you're not sneaking around behind their back.

In the context of a monogamous relationship where it is either agreed or implicit that you are exclusively dating/sleeping with/faithful to the other, penetrative sex, or other sexual activity with another person, would be "cheating" if you don't have their permission beforehand, because of the dishonesty and infidelity involved. If you do have their permission, it is sexual activity outside of the relationship but would not be "cheating" because you are not being dishonest or betraying their trust.

The question of what types of activity, if you have not agreed it with your partner beforehand, would constitute "cheating" is a different subject. It's a matter of fact and degree and might vary from person to person depending on their principles and views.

Flirting, as in cheeky banter with a twinkle in your eye, might not, for many, be enough to "count" as cheating even if you do have a few illicit thoughts about how hot that person is and maybe even get a bit aroused thinking about it. Having an online conversation where you are both aware the other is turned on by the subject matter and the object is for you both to have a sexual experience might go over the borderline into some people's definition of "cheating" even though there is no physical contact. Feeding in person might go over that borderline too if both people are finding the experience sexually alluring and fulfilling.

Again, it's a matter of degree where you draw the line and people will differ as to whether that, done behind your partner's back, would or wouldn't constitute "cheating", infidelity, an affair, or whatever you want to call it.

If you don't have your partner's permission to do so, if you get together with a third person to practice feederism and both you and that third person find it a sexual turn-on, I think you would find that most people would find it a rather dubious attempt to "get out on a technicality" if you try to claim that the feeding itself is the sexual source, rather than the person doing the feeding/eating, and so therefore it doesn't count as cheating/infidelity.

I do accept however that in certain circumstances it can be a grey area. For instance I gather that a straight man (say) might get turned on by being fed by (say) another straight man to whom he is not attracted, because the simple act of feederism is his trigger. I don't know how rare or common that is. I get the impression that feederism liaisons tend to be man + woman amongst the heterosexual and same sex + same sex amongst non-heterosexuals which suggests to me that it is not simply the feederism that is the source of the arousal. Similarly I've talked to bi-curious people who imagine that they might get turned on by the idea of being fed by either a man or a woman. I haven't personally talked to someone who is so turned on by feederism itself that the act alone causes arousal regardless of the person they are doing it with. They may well exist. And if they do, I'm not sure whether the feedee or feeder's partner, if not consulted about that act, would consider that "cheating" or not.

For me, though, it just so happens that feederism is a sexual matter, a paraphilia/fetish, and I can't honestly imagine a circumstance where I would engage in that without it being wholly bound up with being a sexual experience which involves the person I'm doing the feeder-y act with. Doesn't mean it's the same for everyone, that's just my take.

If (theoretically, mind) someone encourages me to eat a huge cake, I'll also want them to do me whilst face down in it I'm pretty sure that if I didn't have my partner's permission to do that, it would constitute cheating!

since cheating is to act around the established rules... I think it does depend on the type of feeding and the type of relationship it's taking place outside of.

Going to a buffet with someone, is a bit different than them hooking you up to a tube and all that.

Context of the situations

I agree with Foxglove. Cheating entails doing something that one has explicitly or implicitly agreed not to do by entering an exclusive romantic relationship with another. Precisely what one has agreed not to do may depend on the particular situation - there are such things as open relationships, in which in some cases that openness is subject to agreed limitations, but in general, it is sexual and romantic intimacy in respect of which people implicitly undertake to be exclusive to a spouse or other partner.

There is no easy or precise definition of when conduct becomes intimate. As Foxglove points out, something inducing arousal in one person is not by itself sufficient - merely looking at an attractive member of the opposite sex can induce arousal, and that can hardly be described - by itself - as intimate. Even in circumstances where both persons are aroused, this is not necessarily sufficient for intimacy (imagine two very good looking people wearing revealing clothing meeting briefly on the street, for instance).

A reasonable rule of thumb is that an intimate act is one that one would not perform (or permit somebody else to perform upon one) except if one was aroused by it and by the person with/by/to whom it is done. (Things might get rather complicated if this is so for one but not both people who jointly and willingly engage in conduct that is not conventionally considered as intimate; it might be said in that case that the act is an intimate one for one person and not the other; it is doubtful in the circumstances that the other can be said to be cheating on an implicit undertaking not to be intimate with another, especially if he or she does not know that the other treats the act as if it were intimate.)

In the context of our particular proclivity, things are not altogether straightforward, as much of what is involved - eating and giving food to others or encouraging them to eat - is not something that people do tend to reserve for situations of intimacy. We all have to eat to survive, and eating is conventionally a social pastime. Feeding other people - in the broader sense of that term that includes dinner parties - is a common social occurrence amongst people who do not find it remotely sexual (even if the eating involved is of the overindulgent type that many of us enjoy). Those of us who do find it potentially sexual will still wish to engage in the ordinary social events in the ordinary way, and may well find a non-sexual joy in doing so in addition to any sexual arousal that might follow from particular permutations of interaction.

Foxglove might well desire to be "done" by somebody who encourages her to eat a huge cake, but my joy in baking cakes and feeding them to other people comes in large part from the social element and the satisfaction in others enjoying what I have made (that is not to say that an attractive woman eating a goodly amount of it does not have its own special joy, of course). For many, I suspect that the situation is very similar.

Thus, it seems to me that only those activities so risqué that one would not engage in them other than with somebody by whom one is aroused can be those by which one might be said to "cheat" in a conventional relationship, but precisely where such activity begins and ordinary social activity ends is likely to be unclear in many cases.

This.