Munchies:
Here we have OP compare his plight to that of gay people and continue to ignore multiple women calling him out of his misogyny. He demands explanations that have already been given or rejects them outright because he doesn't like them and accuses people of ad hominem attacks were there were none.

You hate to see it.

X_Larsson:
You have not mentioned ONE factual quote where I slander, denigrate, hate, ridicule, diminish etc. Do that, please show where I have done so.

I don't CARE at all if you or anyone on the forum likes me or not, but I have not expressed any of the above things about anyone. I do care about truth, though.
Your feelings are not evidence.

If my posts are full of discrimination and lies, it would be super easy for you to find examples. Noone of you have presented such quotes yet.

BustingButtons:
To me this all reads like someone trying to evade self evaluation. Talking about woken elsewhere, here and there whilst failing to tackle the objectification and fetishisation inhibiting their ability to find love.

It's like when smeone asked Speilberg about his movies and it was "I was going through a divorce and didn't want to do therapy ".

X_Larsson:
Feel free to explore this a bit more. Maybe you are on to something? I ask that you avoid talking about objectification and feederism as a fetish.

I am the opposite, highly emotionally invested and will never be attracted to a (good looking?) woman that behaves in a way that I find unpleasant.
Some ie think Lizzo is an attractive BBW (based on looks), while I find her directly offputting due to her lack of grace and sophistication.

But I am sure people here will now try to turn that as well against me.

ForeverFFA:
Many people (yes, including myself, a woman) can empathize with the struggle to experience sexual attraction outside of this fetish. Shallow or not, I don't have a problem with anyone's personal choice to not keep trying to make anything else work. But there's a lot more that has been going on in this thread that makes me think that the OP would benefit from an attitude shift towards the humans that he is seeking relationships with.

I explained right after the sentence you quoted that I think there are degrees of shallowness.

Malvineous:
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?

Being attracted to tall men is shallow, but normal.

I would also say that if you’re not interested in a romantic relationship with a person unless they’re specifically eager to gain weight for your sexual gratification, it might be worth taking a time out and assessing what’s going on. That feels to me like the point where a fetish is causing harm, not enhancing your life. But maybe not!

Malvineous:
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.

Malvineous:

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.

Malvineous:

I wouldn't either. I personally don't think someone is shallow if they lose attraction to their partner. Munchies said that.

Malvineous:

Women seem to have a more multi-factored list of things that they find attractive in a partner, so if he lacks in one area, there's still other areas to fall back on. Here's an equivalent for women: Let's say he gets married like you said. Then one day, he gets fired and refuses to look for any work, he just wants her to be the sole breadwinner, so that he can spend all his time playing video games and smoking weed. He doesn't want to take over the housework either. Anything that distracts from his gaming is met with frustration. That includes showering, so he starts neglecting his hygiene. On top of that, he gets fat when she likes fit guys, and he grows a weird beard. These are all symptoms of severe depression, but he stubbornly refuses to get help or talk to her about it. Do you think she would still find him sexy?

X_Larsson:
If set to Inside 800 km radius from stockholm (capturing most of Sweden population, some of Norway, Denmark, Finland and some Germany/Poland,
25yo and up women, straight or bi, feedee, gainer or mutual, and online in the last 12 months gives 36 hits in total!
And like I said, that is a pretty wide scope, in my opinion. Geographically, it covers over 15 million people, I guess. Most of Sweden, plus Oslo, Copenhagen, Warsaw, Berlin, Hamburg, Helsinki. Some big cities.

But again, my initial question was about going outside the preference. I could offer that, haha, "instant friend zone", but without benefits?

Letters And Numbers:
Based on the way you project yourself in this thread, I would say no, don’t go outside your preferences to try to try to date women you won’t be attracted to. Maybe just start with making friends. And don’t dismiss therapy. I think you may be developing an unhealthy relationship with this kink or fetish or whatever term works best for you.

X_Larsson:
That is a somewhat odd way of framing your reply. I am still very interested in hearing how you base your recommendation. It might be helpful for me to know. Thanks!

Letters And Numbers:
When you “meet a woman with whom [you] share at least some intellectual and psycological common ground, and where things are fun and drama free”, what is stopping you from becoming her friend?

X_Larsson:
Yup. That is my original assumption here, and also what I wonder about. Friends, no benefits (?), but some strings attached (as friendship means).

X_Larsson:
If set to Inside 800 km radius from stockholm (capturing most of Sweden population, some of Norway, Denmark, Finland and some Germany/Poland,
25yo and up women, straight or bi, feedee, gainer or mutual, and online in the last 12 months gives 36 hits in total!
And like I said, that is a pretty wide scope, in my opinion. Geographically, it covers over 15 million people, I guess. Most of Sweden, plus Oslo, Copenhagen, Warsaw, Berlin, Hamburg, Helsinki. Some big cities.

But again, my initial question was about going outside the preference. I could offer that, haha, "instant friend zone", but without benefits?

Letters And Numbers:
Based on the way you project yourself in this thread, I would say no, don’t go outside your preferences to try to try to date women you won’t be attracted to. Maybe just start with making friends. And don’t dismiss therapy. I think you may be developing an unhealthy relationship with this kink or fetish or whatever term works best for you.

X_Larsson:
That is a somewhat odd way of framing your reply. I am still very interested in hearing how you base your recommendation. It might be helpful for me to know. Thanks!