I don't see the nature of proper consent brought up enough in this community. I would hope it all goes without saying. Unfortunately, I know not everyone is on the same page about this.
I am no means an expert. I'm a virgin with one scene of BDSM under my belt. But in the lead-up to that, the most important thing that was stressed to me, which was reiterated and reinforced from the very first article about what different people gain from BDSM to the rules posted in the club we went to, was
consent. This was often described with terms like RACK.
The term RACK needs to be front and center when talking about feederism.
RACK stands for Risk-Aware Consensual Kink. It is one of a few terms that describes what kinds of activities are ethically permissible in kink. One definition reads:
Risk-aware: Both or all partners are well-informed of the risks involved in the proposed activity.
Consensual: In light of those risks, both or all partners have, of sound mind, offered preliminary consent to engage in said activity.
Kink: Said activity can be classified as alternative sex.
It should go without saying, but without risk-aware consent, it isn't feederism, it's abuse.
People who don't have the consent of their partner to feed or fatten them and yet try to do so anyway, subtly or overtly, are not feeders with feedees; they are abusers with victims.
If your partner isn't consenting to gaining weight or eating more than they should, any amount of emotional manipulation, self-destructive enablement, or physical coercion isn't "hot." It isn't feederism. It's not a kink. It's abuse.
And omitting or down-playing the risks of feederism to try to solicit someone's consent is abuse.
Feederism isn't entirely safe. Ensuring all parties involved with some feederism activity, be it gaining, stuffing, force-feeding, or humiliation, are aware of the risks involved with that activity is a prerequisite to ethical feederism.
The responsibility for ensuring that all parties are aware of the risk lies with every person involved in the activity. That means
every person--not just the person who bears those risks.
If a feeder has any doubt at all that their feedee isn't fully aware of the risks of gaining weight or eating too much sugar--indeed, if a discussion of those risks hasn't been had at all--then the feeder has an obligation to make those risks known.
And willful ignorance of the risks is not a valid excuse for abusive behavior; in the age of the internet, it is trivially easy to do the research required to learn about the risks involved with any activity, especially if that activity is something like gaining weight.
Only after those risks are established can consent be given--which must be given enthusiastically. The lack of a "no" does not constitute consent. "Yes" only means yes if it is given by an informed and clear-minded individual without the threat of retaliation. And a "yes" once does not mean "yes" forever--it doesn't even mean "yes" for the entire duration of the activity. Consent must be continuous as well; it can be revoked at any time.
Involuntary feeding, secret fattening, and other kinds of nonconsensual feederism have a place: in fiction.
Outside of those places, it is abuse.
