No. It is not womens' job to hold men accountable for shitty behavior. That is the job of other men. To set the example and publicly hold them accountable. You cannot both say that you understand why many women do pay for play and then turn around and say it's OUR job to make a safer environment. We aren't the ones, in general, that harass, intimidate, violate, and create the NEED for safety measures.

There is PLENTY on this forum right now, and largely, it's only women that respond to it and call it out if at all. They are drowned by toxic misogyny and entitled objectifiers when they speak up.

Get started.

Does your wife have any idea or consented to you coming on to a website for fetishists talking about how you engage in the fetish with her?

writing something—especially to spec—costs a lot more resources than you think. if you can't pay, then you don't "need" anyone to do anything for you.

A+ for cuppajoe!!!

Fetishizing fatness and toxic fat phobia overlap a LOT. We should always be aware of this so we can engage with the content and our preferences responsibly. And that includes being aware of and respectful to those who point out that some things can be harmful if mishandled.

And it is 100% true that this constant obsession with fantasizing about someone else's body being other than anything it is without their consent is disgusting and if we did it in the inverse, such as if so and so lost weight, everybody would see it for what it is. It is still just as dehumanizing to do it in the opposite direction.

Within consensual kink play, this absolutely okay with willing and informed participants, but it is disgusting outside of that and there's no real excuse for it.

EDIT to add that IMO this only applies to real people (celebrities or not) and not fictional characters

This is how I revise! I write/draft in one font and revise and edit in another.

I use Scrivener. You can get a 30-day trial and I think the license is $50 for life after that. Worth every penny. There is a bit of a learning curve but it's like riding a bike and once you got it, you got it!

my whole brand of feedism is that it's casual and based on a dynamic rather than results. I'm at the size I want to be and don't want it to change. Fantasizing, playing around with it in the bedroom, occasionally getting stuffed to my limits, having a LOT of fun with dom/sub dynamics, etc... those all appeal to me but it's always about mood and dynamics than physical results, because I don't want those. So yeah!

and honestly, I think more people are closer to my style of feedism than either want to say so or admit to themselves or really understand. The fact is we can't live in fantasy 24/7. It's simply not practical. Those who say they *actually* want a constant gainer have no idea what they are doing and they will all find out the hard way they have their own limits and tolerances—those who know from the outset that there are limits are the safer ones to be around.

I don't subscribe to the concept of "staying healthy!" etc because that's fatphobic, but much more that autonomy, informed and enthusiastic consent, and true enjoyment come first before anything we can dream up.

Penises can in fact be broken! www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/sexual-health/expert-answers/penis-fracture/faq-20058154

"she" is right here

and "she" is not erupting, "she" is responding to the blatant and constant misogyny, mansplaining and condescension from the majority of *checks notes* straight men who claim to understand what sexual orientation is about, majority straight men who have clearly never truly understood what it's like to *not* be straight or ever had to doubt or question it or have it *constantly* objectified for their pleasure and gratification at the expense of others.

"she" made a post in good faith, that, sorry not sorry, didn't kowtow to a dangerous and erroneous idea that can actually cause harm to people. "she" responded in kind to the dimissal and anger "she" received from the men furious with a woman for stating that no, they are not always right.

"she" does not owe you entertainment and good fun at parties to keep you pleased. "she" has a name.

Oh spare me. I wasn't implying intent. I was literally explaining that "this can be harmful language and maybe we should try to find another"

the fact that you are taking it personally and choosing to not listen is your problem. You think "this doesn't bother me, a queer person, so you are also not allowed to be bothered by it" is not how that works. just because you do not understand my point doesn't mean mine is moot. I am genuinely trying to have a conversation here and explain why these two things are not alike and why it is harmful to both concepts. I am trying to actually *help* others understand that conflating these two things is a bad idea.

Attraction to "A fat body" is not an orientation. That is my point. You stated it yourself. Orientation is about full relational models between *people* not bodies. If the *person* does not matter to you—then the fat is simply a sexual object; not an orietnation. Conflating the two is. in fact. homophobic. The word you are looking for is "paraphilia"