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?"

Yes, I do use the word "some" to mean a minority or undetermined number of examples that is not indicative of the group. The problem is, that's not the idea I want to express. That's a different idea. Perhaps it would soften the blow to add more waffle words like "I've noticed that it's common for" or "It seems like there's a frequent trend of"...
I promise you I'm not trying to be hurtful. I'm more than willing to change the phrasing I use, so long as it can still mean what I want it to mean.

Ok, here are two articles that each cite multiple studies on what women find attractive in men.
businessinsider.com/science-backed-qualities-in-men-women-like-2016-6
confidencetoachieve.com.au/what-women-want-in-a-man-according-to-science/

I haven't been explaining to women how women work. I've been giving my thoughts on gendered differences in socialization/psychology, for both men and women who are reading the thread. It's not a private conversation. I know that women fully understand how they work. However, I don't think either gender fully understands how the other works, because each person is limited to their own perspective. Having conversations like this could be a way to reach some kind of understanding about each other.

I didn't expect everyone to agree with me, but I hoped to discuss the ideas on their own merits instead of simply getting told my language is wrong. I asked in good faith how to express the SAME ideas about patterns better, instead I'm basically told not to express them in the first place. Those are the connotations of what you're telling me. Again, I'm not attached to being right about this, but I do care about being able to speak on the topic. It's true that it may not be as widespread as I think, but that's an opportunity to give me some examples that you think are more widespread, and we can discuss.

The example you gave me of 'most men beat their wives' would only bother me because it's untrue. However, if you were to phrase it the other way around, and say that 'most partner abuse is committed by men', then that wouldn't bother me because it is true. My ego isn't wrapped up in such things. (Unless it were used as justification to reach some wild conclusion like 'that's why you should never trust your boyfriend' ). Also, how is saying 'most women are attracted to multiple things in a partner beyond the physical' as bad as saying 'most men beat their wives'? If we look at the connotations, then what I said would paint women in a more flattering light than men, because it would imply they're less "shallow".

Making love while hand feeding them can be gentle.
If you include stuff outside the home, there are some fun feedee date ideas.
Fast food crawls, where you order something at every drive-through along a route.
Buffet dates are a classic.
Order the entire dessert menu at a restaurant.
Order something at every restaurant in a mall food court.
I'd suggest ordering something from every food truck in an area, but I think that's more of a Portland thing. You get the idea.

I'm not sure that "some" communicates what I want it to, because it's just an indeterminate number. For example, some people shower daily. Some people have walked on the moon. There's no indication of frequency or proportion. Is there no room to discuss major trends in human behavior?

Yeah, I agree that there are degrees of shallowness like you said, but I was asking to find out what is the bare minimum for someone to be considered shallow at all in your view?

Wait, so what's your definition of shallow then? Is it being attracted to any physical characteristic or having any fetish?



That all depends on how rare your preferred partner is. It's preventing him from finding anyone in Sweden, but it might not in California. If his fetish were BDSM instead, he wouldn't have a problem anywhere. That's why he has to make a change if he doesn't want to end up forever alone. He has to sacrifice one of the two, either his fetish or his home. Either one will feel like a big loss, so it's up to him which he values more. If he has to suppress his fetish, it's never going away. He'll have to learn coping strategies and make peace with feeling unfulfilled in life. Also I wouldn't frame it like feedees are eager to gain weight for their partner's sexual gratification, they do it for their own sexual gratification, and they have shared goals with their feeder. Maybe that's just nitpicking semantics though, idk.

The point I was trying to make is that in general, it seems like men have a narrower list of qualities that they find sexy in a partner, while women generally have a wider range of things they find sexually attractive beyond purely physical. It's not about who you would date, but what turns you on. Your example of a woman who only likes 6' tall men is an exact comparison, but that's because the woman's list of turn-ons is also very narrow, which I think isn't very common for women. What I was trying to do was think of some common answers I've heard for what women find attractive beyond just looks (sense of humor, etc.), and come up with a scenario where ALL of those qualities disappear at once. Perhaps I made a bad analogy, but I'm struggling to think of a different one that still illustrates that point.

My personal definition of shallowness has nothing to do with what someone's attracted to, no matter how specific. I think shallowness comes in when someone values sexuality above anything else in a relationship. So to make another strained analogy, you could have a guy who's only sexually attracted to 4' tall rodeo clowns, which is super specific and rare, but if he cared the most about personality and family values in his rodeo clown (and is even willing to bend some on the sexual side so he can find someone), he wouldn't be shallow in my opinion. However, you could have a different guy who is attracted to women of all heights, sizes, races and ages, but he doesn't care about anything else, he just wants a hot girlfriend and nothing else matters to him, that guy would be shallow.



Yeah that's true, but I think that problem goes way beyond fetish sites, it's just more pronounced here because we're looking for unicorns. But people have been accusing Disney of giving kids unrealistic expectations on relationships for decades. That, and friends often support each other by saying things like "Don't worry, you'll find that dream guy someday." I think a lot of people just aren't happy with "good enough" anymore.

Of course, it's the same way for men too. Attraction alone can't be a base for a relationship, because personality and life goals matter much more when you're eventually going to live together.



True, love is also a big factor. I didn't think to mention that, but the reason why is that in cases like OP where he has such a narrowly defined range of attraction, it's much easier to lose EVERYTHING that he finds attractive outside of love, which might not be enough to make up for it. To be clear, I don't think his situation is very common.



I completely agree, and I said the same thing in my own words in an earlier post, where I was outlining his options. I said several times that sexuality is important to people in relationships, so most women will not be interested in that kind of arrangement.



My understanding was that seeing people as a monolith meant that you viewed them all the same way, or the exceptions are so rare that they're negligible. I don't see it that way. A majority might be only 50.1%. Even something like 20% might be the main trend if everything else is smaller. Let's say we were able to run a survey and poll every single woman in the western world about what they find attractive. Do you think you'd get a billion answers that were all completely different, like only one woman in the world likes tall men? Or would there be some overlap between answers? If we tallied up the common answers, we could turn that data into a pie chart. Do you think the slices would be completely equal in size, like the same exact number of women like tall men as ones who prefer short men? Or would the slices all be different sizes?

When we talk in generalities, we're really just guessing about which pie slice is the largest. This is something most people do to some degree in different ways. It's a way to try to understand the world and how to move within it. Yes, this can veer into being toxic with some people who take it too far, but that's not always the case. Streaming networks use generalizations to predict which shows will be popular. As you're growing up, you pay attention to how people react to you and adjust. "People don't like it when I do X, so I should avoid doing X from now on", even though that generalization isn't absolute, and there are many people who do like it. Pattern recognition is extremely common, but most people don't even realize when they're doing it.