"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"

Firstly - probably best to let them answer instead of you guessing

secondly, you are choosing to misunderstand the point I clearly indicated. Comparing a kink to sexual orientation diminishes and demonizes the orientation part, it makes it sound as though not-straightness is sexually deviant when it's not. That is, literally, homophobic, regardless of intention. It, as I said, implies that there is something "abnormal" about not being straight when there's not. It's completely normal.

Also, interestingly enough, we know that kinks aren't "hardwired" into us the way orientation is, and even then we know that orientation is more fluid that not, in a very broad sense. Kinks are just things our brains latch onto that inspire us to want to have sexual fun, they don't really have any meaning or morality, so intertwining them with something as complex as sexual oriention is damaging to both concepts. We can tell because a lot of us know that our tastes and kink desires do in fact shift over time, whether that's because of media we consume or situations we are exposed to, or whatever. It's a lot less hardwired than orientation, by a long shot, even if the foundation is there.

Most may know me as an erotica writer, but I also write essays on topics related to *gestures* all of this. Dating, socializing, social issues, intersectionality, etc. Readers often reach out to me to ask for specifics or share more context about why something resonated with them.

I've thought about doing an advice column for awhile and after talking with some friends about it, decided to move forward! If you've enjoyed my writing (fiction and non!) and would like something tailored to your situation, consider submitting to it!

loradayton.com/advice/

that's not how bras work... they go around your ribcage... which definitely does not have your stomach in it where the band rests.

Just because a drug is most commonly used in certain situations does not mean it is intended only for those situations. Sometimes you will be prescribed something that seems way out of left field but has a specific purpose. It's an appetite stimulant—you need to eat to survive, this is not an option, and generally when something is prescribed to positively affect a vital function (food intake) the benefits outweigh the risks. It would make reasonable sense that it's prescribed most commonly to patients who constantly undergo treatments that eliminate their drive to eat, heal, and combat their illness.

As someone who is both queer and a feedist, I strongly disagree with feedism being "hardwired into your sexuality" because that is just... not how that works.

A kink is what feedism is for me. It's a lot of fun and I will generally always enjoy it and it's even my favorite! But it's not required for me for gratification.

A fetish means that it's *required* for sexual gratification. For many people, feedism is a fetish.

However, by saying it's "hardwired like sexual orientation" this is rather homophobic because it implies that something is "wrong" with not being straight and that's not hte case, and it also boils queerness simply down to sexual kink and fetishes which it's not. Being not-straight isn't a "lifestyle"—orientation is about a LOT more than sex, a lot more. Feedism always boils down to something involving sexual gratification and food.

Now, however, there are people who cannot stop themselves outside of sexual gratification and that's neither a kink or a fetish, that's something else and it requires a trained professional to assess. BUT I do think that people who are curious about it put way too much pressure on themselves—if you want to try gaining, try it. If you want to try feeding, try it (with a consenting party). You can revoke consent. you can change your mind. you can try other things. You don't have to go all in (and quite frankly you shouldn't, that's just my opinion).

That just simply boils down to kink negotiation. It's literally just about consent and limits and boundaries and who is okay with fantasy and reality mixing and when and where. Not having that conversation is dangerous and that's how people get hurt.

Not only this but to put it bluntly, a ton of feeders and FAs do not have *any* idea what the hell they are doing or have any concept of either what it truly takes for someone to gain or how to maintain it and care for them—not just physically but emotionally and mentally. Invariably, they realize they hit a limit when the actual realities of having a fat/superfat/gaining partner come to the surface and they bail because surprise surprise, they weren't equipped to deal with anything beyond "hurr hurr must make someone bigger"

I'd say you would be the one who doesn't understand. Considering this is a privately owned forum whose servers are based in another country, "free speech" doesn't apply here the way you think it does. Additionally, yes, as you said, anyone can explain anything to anyone when it's wrong—which is exactly what I did. Good job! One (1) gold star for you.

I know you are so, so desperate to take me down a peg because it is the *only* attention you get from women but I ain't it.