*Checks URL*
Yep, we're on Fantasy Feeder alright. Reality Feeder is a very different website...

Before you give up on HC, you should try digestive enzymes. I have to take them myself for unrelated reasons, but here's what I've used. (Take before eating to get the best results)

Zypan by Standard Process. Has several enzymes and seems to be good at handling sugars and carbs.

Essential Enzymes by Source Naturals. Has a different list of active ingredients, and is a good all-around option.

Premier HCL (Betaine Hydrochloride). Basically boosts your stomach acid, so it's good for handling heartburn and dense foods like meat, veggies and fiber. It could be helpful after stuffings when you're taking too long to digest a huge amount of food. Probably bad for acid reflux though.

Ox Bile. This is especially good for digesting fats, so is probably the best option for handling heavy cream.

I have heard Lactaid can be very helpful with digesting dairy, although I'm not sure whether or not it's only useful for people who are lactose intolerant, or if boosting your lactase enzymes would help with digesting large quantities of dairy for someone who isn't.

Regular antacids like Tums can help soothe heartburn, not sure about acid reflux though.

One thing I've taken to help acid reflux specifically is a little bit of baking soda (about 1/2 teaspoon) mixed into water and drink it in sips. It neutralizes acids quickly because it has a base pH. Be careful not to overdo it though. Taking too much or too frequently can put you at risk for some bad side effects. It would be better to get help digesting beforehand rather than soothing it after the fact.

City Island includes a feeder as one of the main characters, and it's depicted in a positive light. It's not the main focus of the movie though, more like a side plot.

I see where you're coming from, but one thing I've noticed is that most people seem to be completely incapable of handling criticism on any level, even if it's constructive. Not just about bigotry, but pretty much anything. It's totally possible that someone starts off well-intentioned, is told that they said something offensive, and then their kneejerk reaction is to defend their honor tooth and nail against a false accusation in their eyes. I guess I see people's defensiveness as being more of a personality problem than an opinion problem if that makes sense, and I do feel more inclined to grant some leeway to someone who just put their foot in their mouth without thinking though what they said. Of course it really depends on a case by case basis and how inflammatory they become. There's also ways to bring it to their attention that are more likely to make them listen to you, like saying "Just so you're aware, there are a lot of people who are hurt when people say X because of Y reason", instead of trying to dunk on them or be sarcastic or condescending. If they still want to argue after being that nice about it, then you really do know where they stand.

Huh, you must have really misunderstood me.

I never compared myself to you, nor assumed we have a similar experience online, nor insinuated that everyone else should feel the same as me about their minority status. I don't agree with any of those statements. I don't think you should tolerate people who don't treat you like a person, in fact I said people who target and harass others deserve the response they get. My point revolved solely around false positives, i.e. people who are actually innocent of what they're being accused of. I think this might be a good illustration actually. I must have miscommunicated somewhere, because it seems like you think I'm making arguments for positions I don't actually agree with. This kind of thing can easily happen in online discussions. Plus I'm exhausted, so that may be contributing.

I'm Jewish, bi, and diagnosed on the spectrum. Yes, I've been on the receiving end of anti-Semitic and ableist comments before. It's not something I'm vocal about because I don't want it to affect how people perceive me, whether that's for better or worse.

If someone is being overtly hateful and targeting other members, then yeah, that kind of response is totally warranted. Guys like that deserve it. I do recall seeing a case like that in the past where a guy was proudly calling himself a white supremacist, and had to be removed, but in the meantime people were shutting down any conversation that started going in that direction.

The only problem I see is in the grey areas where what someone says isn't anywhere near close to that, but some people feel inclined to start dogpiling anyway because they have a personal zero tolerance policy toward anything that smells of bigotry or what they interpret as dog whistles, even if that wasn't actually the person's intent. I've personally seen quite a few cases like that happen too. I think in general it's just a good policy for people to err on the side of civility and take people at their word unless proven otherwise. Even if I strongly suspect someone is arguing in bad faith, I will usually try to give a genuine response anyway.

Ok, but you're explicitly violating TOS. What you're saying might be true for disorganized communities, but not here. This isn't society at large, and this isn't a place for internet activism. In this case, tolerance actually DOES mean tolerating the intolerant until you can get a moderator to act on your behalf. It's literally their job to do so. When you confront people, you're actually being counter-productive to what you want, because all you succeeded in doing is getting the thread closed, while they still remain a member and will continue to post. That doesn't actually scare the trolls at all. If I'm wrong in my interpretation of the rules, I'll gladly accept that correction from a moderator.

I'll edit to add an analogy. If you're part of the gaming community, and someone is acting disruptive, then yes, people should do some gatekeeping on their own. But if you're part of an after school club, and someone says something out of pocket, then by rising up and yelling at them, it only makes you look like you're just as disruptive and part of the problem. But if you turn to the club president and tell them that person is turning this into a toxic environment, then thy have an excuse to act and bar that person from future meetings.

It's everyone's responsibility to keep discussions civil on the internet, not just the moderators. If someone is being an asshole or bigot, it's not your job to police the discussion, confront them, or put them in their place. First, not everyone is a skilled communicator, misunderstandings can happen, so asking for clarification is a good idea. Beyond that, you should calmly state your disagreement in a non-accusatory manner, and if they're over the line, report them to the mods. It's this attitude exactly that I've seen time and time again will cause a discussion to escalate to the point where the thread needs to be locked in the first place. All of this is spelled out explicitly in the website rules.



This rule still applies to you, even if you're well-intentioned, and even if somebody else breaks it first.

@BustingButtons

I think you're giving him a rather uncharitable interpretation. I don't see it the same way.



You're right that you shouldn't assume sex will happen after a date, but that's not what he's saying here. When he says "semi-platonic" and "with no assumption it will lead to sex", what he's trying to describe is having a long-term asexual relationship, despite not actually being asexual. Everyone has been advising him against this, because finding an asexual partner is probably going to be nearly as rare as finding a feedee in Sweden. Sexuality is a big component in most people's lives, including women, and everyone wants to feel desired. If his partner wasn't asexual, then she would probably be very unhappy and unfulfilled, as would he.



I think he was probably just being hyperbolic, but it's a known fact that there's a huge correlation between loneliness and depression, so mental health is a factor for everyone. I mean, if he really does think that if you don't have a partner you'll go insane, that's ridiculous. I just don't see a reason to take him that literal.

Given that he's not asking about a sexual relationship, I think the "friend zone" question was about whether an asexual relationship between non-asexual partners would inevitably just become a platonic friendship over time, as both of them slowly lost interest.

He might be an incel in the technical sense since he can't find a partner, but I don't hear their hateful rhetoric here. He's not asking "why won't women have sex with me?" but "can I find happiness if I give up on sex?"