Between that and your prior post mentioning occupations, I'm surprised.

The industries with the highest percentages and those occupations are more likely to be active, no?

Sure, physical activity may not burn a lot of calories but I doubt someone with an active job would have an easy ability to snack on the job, which would limit the amount you can eat.

Not sure how many opportunities an ER nurse would have to snack, for example.

The lower percentage in the industries of finance, insurance, or professional services is also curious. Seems like most of the work those industries provide would be desk jobs where you'd plop down your expanding gut and widening ass into a desk chair all day, typing at a computer while you snack on doughnuts, candy, cookies, and drink coffee all day.

But, there's probably something I'm missing.

While I think there's some truth to this, not always.

There's skinny people with almost no energy, from eating little to almost nothing. Metabolism is rock bottom, each calorie is precious, body goes into survival mode, and there's not much energy to do much else. The most extreme form of this is anorexia, which would ultimately result in death when there just no calories left to burn and the body shuts down from starvation.

On the other hand, I do at times see large women who can really move. I've also noticed that volleyball and soccer players have a tendency to be chunky; football players too. When I was a kid and teen, I thought most of the female soccer and volleyball players (who tended to be thicker) were cuter than most of the cheerleaders (who tended to be thinner). There were plump cheerleaders but they were uncommon. Those soccer and volleyball players had more energy than most folks, despite the additional weight.

So, I don't think it's necessarily that simple.

You don't have a job? And you have kids, in this day and age, in California of all places? Wow.

Anyway, I don't know what you mean by eating unhealthily, but I think you could make some changes and still gain. In fact, you probably should, especially since you have kids and likely a much greater share of chore responsibilities since you aren't working a paid job.

One is that I might recommend trying to eat some different food. Even salad can be loaded with calories, if you add enough dressing or add chicken to it. You also need protein, and what store doesn't have fatty cuts of meat. I do wonder what you cook for dinner, since presumably the others don't experience a similar problem.

Here's another idea, which may seem counter-intuitive until I explain it a little more; some exercise. I don't mean marathons, but maybe some light walking; just get out of the house a little bit. Or lift some weights.. that might help build some muscle to help support your future increased weight. Don't worry about whether this physical activity will burn many calories. It won't, and you'll see this if you look up some calorie burn estimates. If you walk a mile but eat another cookie, the cookie would likely more than make up for the calories burned from the walk. Light exercise can also have the effect of making you hungrier, so you may even end up eating even more than you would have. This means more of a gain, and you should feel like you have some more energy. This effect on hunger is probably one of many reasons why weight loss efforts fail.

I don't know if you drink any cream-based weight gain shakes, but if you do, keep those in the evening, shortly before going to sleep. For some folks it has the effect of creating drowsiness. It may also make you feel full for longer, making you eat less. So you probably don't want to drink any of these in the morning.

I hope you find some of these ideas useful.

Was it a much older building? Seems like almost everything was built narrower then.

I just realized I haven't properly replied to this thread.

In my very unscientific observation, almost every time I see a couple with a large woman, the man is large too.

You do see significant size contrast couples on occasion, but that seems uncommon. If anything (again, unscientific) I think the large man/skinny or thin woman couple is more common than the opposite, where she's large and he's skinny or thin.

This is unlikely to do with physical preference in all cases. It does tie into the observation that in general, women seem less focused on physical appearance and are more interested in connecting emotionally, whether the personalities fit, and empathy. Although in both cases there always seems to be a mysterious 'X' factor that isn't well understood, it's just there or not and you just know it.

When both are large, both are likely to face similar challenges in day to day life, both likely enjoy eating, the empathy thing.

If you want a fat woman, it would seem that large men have the advantage. So if you are really determined, it would seem that you should pick up that fork, eat more pasta alfredo, give in to those triple burgers, slather on the butter and mayonnaise, eat more of those large, decadent desserts, drink half and half like milk, or suck down pints of heavy cream before bed.

But, this is just my unscientific observation. I have only lived in the U.S., and only in three distinctly different locales. I'm also talking about what I've seen in public, in real life. The vast majority of these folks are unlikely to be involved with feederism, although I suspect there may be some out there who do it and aren't aware there's a term for it, or that there could possibly be others into this sort of thing either. If you're looking for someone who will stick a funnel into your mouth and pour a gallon of weight gain shake down your throat while rubbing your belly, you're probably going to be out of luck. But you shouldn't have too hard of a time finding a BBW who loves food and cooking.

Pizza can be very hit and miss.

Sometimes there's cheaper pizza that isn't half bad for the expense.

Cost is not a guarantee that it will be great. I remember one time, I had a "large" pizza which I believe was 14" or 16" from a local joint, that was $25. It was so bad that eating half of it over two days was a trial, and I tried to force myself to eat it, it was so bad. I couldn't take it anymore and had to throw out the rest of it.

Pizza Hut and Papa John's would have been better, and cheaper. Even Dominos would have been better.

There's also how I would expect most male mutual gainers to be fine with a woman who's gaining for herself, or even if she's just large.

Also, most feedees can't reasonably or realistically expect her future boyfriend or husband to not eventually get fat, if he isn't already. Most that I've talked to, admit and expect this.

Also, those who tend to be good at cooking tend to be overweight or even obese.

I've also noticed that in general, women usually seem to be less focused on appearance than men are, so perhaps there's many who may not explicitly want her boyfriend or husband to gain weight, but at the same time don't mind.

Hopefully I'm making sense here.

Not exactly the most helpful reply, but I wish you the best of luck with this, and I hope you find what you're looking for.

Although, I don't really see how $300 for bills and rent would buy anything. But, perhaps I'm not being creative or imaginative enough. Utility bills alone can easily blow past $300, between electric, water, Internet, and phone. Of course, I'm assuming this isn't split at all.

If public transit is really this important, be sure to do your research, or ask someone living there about it, and local attitudes about it. I really hope Uber, Lyft, and the like lose their game of chicken with investor money before more cities significantly scale back public transit options further, fueling the viscous cycle of "reduced public transit" -> "reduced ridership" -> "clearly this is evidence it's not needed" -> "reduced public transit" It's insidious false logic that sounds simple on the surface but ignores a LOT of details.

All I can really tell you, are some places of where NOT to go. Illinois is a dying state, where job competition is extremely fierce, and there's no reason to think it will improve in the next 10 or 20 years. Chicago maybe isn't *as* bad with less decline, but it's not exactly good either. In junction with high cost, if you don't have at least a $55K/yr. job and willing to commute an hour by car, forget it. Chicago does have a pretty good public transit system, but I wonder if you'd be able to get the kind of job you have in mind. Even if you could, the housing cost would eat you alive. There's a reason I left it.

Other states in the Midwest are generally doing better.

I lived around St. Louis, and while the public transit options weren't as awful as they seem to be where you are, coverage didn't seem that great and at least while I was there, any efforts to expand coverage were fiercely opposed.. *fiercely*. I suspect there was a racial and class motivation, but they would never publicly admit this.

I live in Texas now. Lot of job growth, and it seems every other restaurant has a "now hiring" sign (of course, this kind of work can vary greatly in pay and often requires work outside of business hours). But, I would have to recommend that you stay away. A short distance south of where I live is Arlington, TX, where at a little over 400K, makes it the largest American municipality without a public transit system of any sort.

Dallas does have DART, but many have described it as being designed more like an amusement park ride than a proper bus system. Others have described it as a case study of how NOT to run a bus system. Ridership is low, because apparently it's not that useful. Basically, you need a car or you're stuck.

While I've never lived in NYC, you should stay far away from there as well. While they have captured headlines for actually fighting against Uber, Lyft, and the like, it's still horrendous. A short while back I heard about 6 living in an illegal housing arrangement, with three bunk beds in a studio apartment. Was still $500/mo. plus utilities.

I can't believe I'm actually saying this, but the larger cities in Ohio might very well be your best bet. I'm not sure of the quality of public transit in Minneapolis, MN but that might be another one.

I can only offer some theories and educated guesses, as a former very long time Illinois resident, and one who likes to observe and ascertain trends.

The too long; didn't read answer - I think there just aren't going to be enough in general. Also, to eat to the degree necessary, depending on how big you're looking for, is not an inexpensive endeavor.

Really, you should just make plans to leave Illinois. Even if you want to stay in the Midwest, literally any other state is doing better. If you don't, I expect you to lead a life of poverty, forever. You'll never get a woman because even if they claim they don't care about money, no one wants a janitor or a fry cook.

You have also mentioned living in Chicago, but I have no idea how far you would be willing to travel. I'm going to guess you can't go more than 2 hours one way, on a semi-regular basis. That would include the entire Chicago metro, and probably Madison, WI.

There's also of course the simple fact that almost no one will actually admit to feederism, or even recognize it.

Sure, on one hand nationwide, and in Illinois as well, the overall obesity rate has increased.

I took a look at your profile. Based on your age, I'm going to make the reasonable assumption that you are probably looking for women in their early 20s, whether into feederism or not. I have bad news for you.

I'm going to assume you aren't ignorant of the economic woes of Illinois, or how long it has lasted. In essence, after the previous economic crisis in '08, the state has never really recovered. While the numerical jobs count as *finally* reached pre-crisis levels, the quality has gone down.

Chicago seems to have been less affected by it, but the effects are still felt. If you think the best job you're likely to get is gas station attendant, maybe bartender if you're really lucky, even if you have a master's degree, are you going to stay if you have the option to move away? Even if you don't find anything better, you aren't worse off than before.

Illinois continues to lose population where on a percentage basis, only West Virginia is losing population even more quickly. The age groups leading the charge is 25-34, to a lesser degree 35-44, and for 18-24, this rate has sped up. The only reason it was lower for awhile was because of attending college. Basically, it's because there's either no jobs or crap jobs. There's a town which offered a few dozen jobs at $10/hr. and requires a bachelor's degree for them. They received many hundreds of applicants.

A couple years ago I heard that 40% of Illinois high school seniors who want to attend college, will be doing so out of state, in spite of the higher expense involved.

In addition to what you learn in the classes, you may also get some networking opportunities. In essence, they believe the state is not going to turn around in time to provide decent enough opportunities. Possibly maybe even.. never? What good are networking opportunities when everyone is just going to say "sorry, there's no jobs" or "yeah all we have is this minimum wage position, but you better hurry up because 100 others want it."

There's also the fact Chicago is costly. Chicago has done a poor job managing previous growth. Traffic is heavy because there's not enough road capacity. Housing costs are either too high, or commutes take too long. Combine that with low job growth, and it's not hard to see why younger folks aren't really rushing in.

Even if a young woman manages to get one those $50-60K/yr. jobs and can pay for the $2K/mo. rents, fat or not, she'll probably think she's too good for you anyway.

No, I think you should just buckle down and just forget about it for now. You should get out of Illinois while you still can. Maybe you should move south.

I actually have a few more thoughts on this, and it's no wonder that you can expect obesity rates to continue to rise.

The average length of the full-time work week continues to rise. Last I heard, the average is around 47-48. Something like 20-30% report over 60 hours. Some occupations such as tax accountants will have peak seasons requiring longer work weeks at some times of the year.

Commute distances continue to rise. Averages around 30-45 minutes one way, which depends on metro area of course. Super commuting, or 1.5+ hours each way, is more common than it used to be. It's one of the major reasons folks are leaving NYC and San Francisco, the latter of which has become so toxic, few are willing to move and live there (but I digress).

Between work hours and commute time, it's not hard to see it adds up. Sleep hours don't have much more leeway to go down. However, there's still only 24 hours in a day. Vacation time is often limited, and there's often office political pressure not to use it. In light of all these time demands, physical activities typically take a back seat, as many are simply too tired or wish to make the most of any potential family time.

Certain other trends likely reflect this. The last few times I went to a gym, most patrons looked like they were either retired, or didn't go very often, perhaps once or twice a week. The treadmills (aerobic activity might help weight loss) were less popular than the weight machines, which actually cause most to bulk up.

Professional runway models and athletes may have the time to go to the gym 4 hours a day, or even more. Indeed, their jobs often depend on it. Whereas paid shoots are unlikely to take up 45 or more hours a week. Most jobs don't permit this. Part-time jobs would allow this, but typically don't provide anywhere near enough income.

Makeup and cosmetics also always have far more bang for the buck in terms of time and cost, when it comes to making oneself look better.

I've even heard that it's no longer uncommon for high school football players to weigh over 300 lbs.

Housing trends also reflect this. As the rural small towns continue to depopulate and the cities continue to grow, this creates housing demand. Analysts have determined customers most want interior floor space, but there's only so much land area to go around. Something has to give, so yards in new houses get smaller. This usually means no physical activities in the yard.

There's also financial considerations as well as time. Fresh fruits and vegetables tend to go bad quickly. So, you might be less inclined to purchase any, if much of it would go bad. Organic food is similarly costly, and may go bad too quickly. A problem when you may just want to stock up as much as you can in fewer grocery store trips. One can always get vitamins by popping a multivitamin pill, too. This also encourages more takeout food or microwaveable food that's easy and quick to to prepare.

Another trend is that since the 50s, the amount of takeout or restaurant food for meals has only increased. It makes sense. Significantly more women are in the work force, and have professional career type jobs, which would be affected by the increasing length of the work weeks. Most will raise kids at some point. She wants to ensure her family gets dinner that night, but after a long day she may not feel like cooking and wants minimal cleanup. The answer? She might stop by McD's or some other fast food joint on the way back and just order multiple value meals. Or if not, there's probably frozen microwaveable food in the fridge. This is the kind of food that is more likely to add more pounds and inches.


While some of these trends are a little concerning, and you wonder what the breaking point is, I don't see them ending any time soon. I do however like one of the consequences of this; there will be more plus sized women in the future.