Munchies:
There's nothing wrong with having sexual fantasies - even if they are unusual ones. But like ... consent is sexy. And if you don't have their consent, then maybe don't sexualize them.
Greentrees8733:
Totally understandable that the experience you described would feel violating.
I’m just not convinced fantasizing about others constitutes a violation of consent. I’m willing to be convinced otherwise, but here’s my take, featuring good ol’ Alice and Bob:
Alice’s thoughts about Bob are not actually Bob. Bob himself isn’t actually involved in Alice’s private thoughts about Bob, so there’s nothing for him to consent to (or not). Alice’s thoughts (about anything) are part of Alice. As an autonomous person, I would think Alice is the only one with any say over her own private thoughts.
Put another way, I don’t think fantasizing about guys as a teenager makes you “guilty” of anything. I just don’t see how private thoughts have any moral weight. Like, what harm did you do, or risk doing?
Sharing them is different, though. Sharing impacts others, so their consent is relevant. But that’s kind of OT for this reply.
---
Side note: OP does say “I couldn’t keep my eyes off her” which (given the voyeuristic style of the post) kinda sounds like an inappropriate/potentially violating amount of staring, but that’s a separate issue from fantasizing being a violation of consent.
Munchies:
As a man thinks, so does he do.
I'm not saying fantasizing about people means you're going to actually do the thing. But it does color what you do in reality. The extent depends on what you conciously check yourself on, but it's never 100%.
Like, if a woman's boss fantasizes about her sexually, or a woman fantasizes about her best friend's husband, can we say it's not going to color their interactions with the object of their desire?
Remember, the issue isn't the kinks so much as the object of your desires.
Letters And Numbers:
That's like Puritan level thought policing.
I don't think that's what she meant (Munchies, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.)
At least, the way I read it is not that it's immoral, so much as potentially damaging to your behavior with people. Like, fantasizing about someone doesn't make you a bad person, but it's good to remember that it can and likely will color your interactions with that person (or generic group of people). The mind is recursive - what you think affects how you think.
1 year
Times change, tastes change, culture changes.
That said, I really valued OPs writing in the space, from back when he was TR, I believe. His work, especially for the time, was compassionate and open-minded.
On this site, I have seen nothing from him to change my opinion. He is open to dialogue, and when he misspeaks, he acknowledges it.
It disappoints me how intense this site has gotten when it comes to rancor. People with anger issues would, I think, be better served by therapy, rather than wasting their time publicly thought-policing every trivial discussion. I realize some people actually get off on this behavior, but that's really even worse, like masturbating on a city bus. Self-awareness is a great thing.
Acknowledging and disavowing terrible behavior that damages the space is laudable. Calling out microaggressions is often laudable. But after your target has stepped back, step off. Try to be aware of yourself and others. And if you're doing it just to get your kicks, or if you cause a fight to continue after it's over just because of your own compulsions and lack of self-control, your need to rub in your pathos to try and kindle battle, it really ruins the good you are ostensibly trying to do.
1 year
Stevita:
Unpopular take, but the plagiarism aspect isn't even what turns me off about AI writing; it's the sanitization. Human authors plagiarize off each other all the time; it's Marvel and DC's favorite thing to do. But Human authors have their own quirks; I like to think people are like, "There goes stevita again thinking 'semidarkness' is a word, and whoopdidoo, one of her characters ate out someone'a bellybutton" whether that's a good or a bad thing. AI just doesn't know how to do the kinky dirty fun stuff, you know? And reading a million self-affirmation journeys written by a robot gets hella boring.
That said, I use AI foe my covers, but the covers aren't what you're supposed to pay attention to, and I'd commission art if I could afford it.
good point
1 year
Unrelated but why does your account say you’re 12 years old???
AskDrFeeder:
Anonymity concerns.
MessyEater:
Jesus. Can’t you see how wrong that is?
You could put any age you want to protect your identity, but you chose 12 when you could have chosen 99…
Mods!!
Think before you speak. There's stricter data tracking rules for profiles of people under 18.
1 year
Hiccupx:
The AI generated tick box sounds like the way to go for now. My take on AI in general is that, human created is better. I predict that in the near future, the Internet is going to be absolutely awash with AI generated content, and the vast majority of it will be sub-standard, mass produced, drivel. The more AI there is, the more human generaled content will seem rare and valuable, and this is what people will want. For instance, there are now quite a few AI generaled images in the pics section, they are quite clever and of some interest for a while, but of far more interest are images of real people.
That's a good take. I think AI is a new shiny tool, like painting must have been when it was first conceived hundreds of thousands of years ago. A new way to take what is in your mind and show it to others. And like all new technologies, there will be a big boom and then probably a big crash to a plateau of real value.
I value human created art most, but there's a fallacy there. AI creating its own content without human input is marginal, but people using AI to create content IS art, imho. Had this discussion a couple days ago with someone, and I'm just going to regurgitate it here. All art is derivative, all art is original, all art is human expression. Just because someone is using a tool that is trained on already existing art doesn't make it ANY less art. We are all trained on existing art, we are all trained on what we see, we all choose tools to ease our time creating. Anyone that does digital art, or traditional, will tell you that other than basic theory, the first step is to understand your media. You can't create your best, realize your vision, if you don't understand / can't properly use your tools. AI is just a better tool. Who knows, perhaps those hundreds of thousands of years ago, the people that were drawing in sand railed against those new paints, said they were cheating, cheap, defaced the value of sand drawings, their impermanence, their volume for interpretation, that paint would detract from human imagination and deform art itself.
1 year
IMHO
Unfortunately, terms like "evil" can be very easily misunderstood and conflated in a genre as fraught with pathos, pathology, taboos and repression as this one.
I suppose it really falls into a few categories, right?
1a. Actually evil, like the feeder is a mass murderer that just happens to be a feeder, and the evil may or may not leak into their sexuality.
1b. Evil mainly in feeding, but probably an awful person all around. Force, manipulation, etc., with actually unwilling participants.
2. Wicked or very naughty, but consensual nonconsent at worst.
3. Kinky.
4. Vanilla (but in a good way, lol)
This a great topic, and really does play into popular public perception and media portrayal of all of us on many levels. Most media I see portrays all feeders like 1b at best, when 99% are actually 3 at most, usually 4, and only occasionally fantasize in private about being 2.
1 year
As a feeder, and ignoring everything else, do you have an ideal weight or maximum weight for your partner, and does that ideal differ if the partner is a one-night-stand or a longterm relationship (or, if it's about your pure sexual-fantasy ideal)?
2 years
I'd go so far as to assume it may be borderline inevitable given the right setup, lack of negative factors, presence of positive, etc. Our culture is so weight-obsessed, fat so taboo, it's practically begging for something like feedism to exist as a major sexuality subculture. And so, I think that many if not most people are to some degree predisposed to it, even if for 99% their life and situational circumstances will never meet in the right combination to evoke it more than in passing.
But for some, with such natural predispositions, open enough, and with a partner interested and encouraging and compassionate and passionate, etc., it makes perfect sense. I mean, it IS intensely erotic on so many levels.
For me personally, feeder-leaning, my first encounter with the genre wasn't even a person, it was a story, I think, though it was very long ago. But all the factors in my circumstances and life and personality and personal experiences are indictive of predisposition. So that when I encountered that story, a simple story, translated from german I think, of a teen having lunch with his chubby girlfriend, it made me uncomfortable but intensely curious. And I was neither manipulated toward it nor turned off from it, which I think is key for anyone in any experience, really. My curiousity and discomfort in combination led me to search out other stories and communities, and choose on my own how I felt about it.
Not quite what you were asking, but relevant I think. When people are introduced to something new, their experience often falls under one of three categories, IMO: pressured into it on one end, or so passingly as to go almost unnoticed on the other, but in the middle is just enough awareness and excitement/anxiety/fun to make an impression without being a turn off. Something expressive or alluring or mysterious, perhaps, or yah, just fun and interesting. I think there's a sweet spot for a lot of different kinds of experiences, and especially introduction to them, that makes them available for integration into your own personality and self.
IMHO, of course.
2 years
I'm sure this has been brought up many times before, but I was wondering about the viability of these.
Private forums have the obvious benefits, but default demographic-specific forums seem like they'd also be a useful idea. I know some users are overwhelmed by attention when they join, and having a safe space to be themselves and get used to the site might help with user retention. Examples might be women-only forums or feedee-only or POC-only forums, which could be easily be filtered to only be visible to users that identify as such.
Thoughts?
2 years
