My conclusion
I'll try to rephrase. I hope you get free of your situation and find the guy you're looking for. You deserve a break. The kind of guys you want are out there for sure. However, they're actually pretty rare. Like exceedingly rare, probably less than 1 in a million. Those kind of guys know how valuable they are too, so they're very picky about who they spend time with, since they have their pick from lots of interested women. That also makes them extremely cautious about people who want to take advantage of them, so they are guarded against everybody. The type of ad you made sounds enticing, but would raise too many red flags. Maybe you should change your approach. Try contacting people directly so you can build trust first before laying out your situation. Also, most people have to search for years before finding mr. right, so maybe try to find an alternative means of escape on your own. Personally, I'd be very interested, but I'll just have to keep you in mind in case I ever make over 6 figures someday, lol. Good luck
3 years
Ethics
Good point, and I have noticed something similar regarding trauma. I agree that it depends on how they deal with it. For some, trauma is debilitating, and can lead to depression, kill their self-esteem, and they become apathetic about what happens to them, so food becomes an escape. I think that's probably most of the people who end up on My 600 lb life filled with regrets. In that case, encouraging them would be unethical because you'd be taking advantage of their weakness to help them do something that they know is self-harm, but they don't care about their own well-being. It's similar to how we view drinking alcohol, consent means less when judgment is impaired.
But for others, trauma can shape who they are, even as they move past it. Our personalities are influenced by our own life experiences, good and bad. It doesn't make their desires any less valid. As a personal example, I have had some pretty horrible experiences surrounding work. At this point, I don't trust any employer not to steal from my wages. These experiences have influenced me to want to start my own business. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that decision, even if something negative played a role in influencing it. The same can be true for weight gain.
But for others, trauma can shape who they are, even as they move past it. Our personalities are influenced by our own life experiences, good and bad. It doesn't make their desires any less valid. As a personal example, I have had some pretty horrible experiences surrounding work. At this point, I don't trust any employer not to steal from my wages. These experiences have influenced me to want to start my own business. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that decision, even if something negative played a role in influencing it. The same can be true for weight gain.
3 years
In your opinion are those with this fetish are more likelier to be autistic?
I think it has to do with having special interests. If you can obsessively fixate on Pokemon, you can also obsessively fixate on kink. lol
Fetishes - gotta catch em all!
Fetishes - gotta catch em all!
3 years
Ethics
Finally, there's virtue ethics, which is based on the idea that everyone should cultivate good personality traits (virtues) and act in accordance, while avoiding bad traits (vice). "Be the change you want to see in the world". Actions are only morally good if they reflect the moral ideal. Of course, the first question is who decides what counts as a virtue? There doesn't seem to be a definitive answer. Some have a personal role model, others trust in religious scripture as a guide, others take a philosophical approach. But in our case, let's just assume that Aristotle got it right the first time. He had a whole chart of virtues and vices. According to him, the 12 virtues are:
Courage or bravery in the face of fear,
Temperance, moderation, and restraint in the face of pleasure or pain,
Liberality or generosity with money,
Magnificence, industriousness, or doing something worthy with wealth and opportunity,
Magnanimity, humility and nobility with one's honor,
Proper ambition and pride in accomplishments,
Patience and good temper,
Truthfulness and honesty,
Wittiness and good humor in conversation,
Friendliness,
Modesty,
A sense of justice, and righteous indignation in the face of injury.
So let's see, helping someone to gain massive amounts of weight is self-indulgent, shameless, and probably a tasteless use of money (all vices). However, it also involves generosity, ambition and pride, courage to face the risks, and needs both honesty and patience to make such an arrangement work (all virtues). I haven't read deeply enough into Aristotle to find out if he had a system for weighing competing virtues against each other, but let's take the more conservative route and assume that someone must have every virtue all the time in order to avoid being unethical. So according to that standard of virtue ethics, encouraging someone to immobility is indeed morally wrong. But then, so is any degree of gluttony or even exploring kink in general, which display the same vices. The big question here is are you willing to live by that strict moral code and apply it to every situation? Will you try to avoid all forms of self-indulgence? The fact that your vices may be to a lesser degree than others won't excuse the fact that you are basically committing the same sin just by being part of this community.
So yeah, I guess it's up to everyone to decide for themselves, but unless there is some kind of rational foundation behind your ethics, it's pointless to hear about them.
Courage or bravery in the face of fear,
Temperance, moderation, and restraint in the face of pleasure or pain,
Liberality or generosity with money,
Magnificence, industriousness, or doing something worthy with wealth and opportunity,
Magnanimity, humility and nobility with one's honor,
Proper ambition and pride in accomplishments,
Patience and good temper,
Truthfulness and honesty,
Wittiness and good humor in conversation,
Friendliness,
Modesty,
A sense of justice, and righteous indignation in the face of injury.
So let's see, helping someone to gain massive amounts of weight is self-indulgent, shameless, and probably a tasteless use of money (all vices). However, it also involves generosity, ambition and pride, courage to face the risks, and needs both honesty and patience to make such an arrangement work (all virtues). I haven't read deeply enough into Aristotle to find out if he had a system for weighing competing virtues against each other, but let's take the more conservative route and assume that someone must have every virtue all the time in order to avoid being unethical. So according to that standard of virtue ethics, encouraging someone to immobility is indeed morally wrong. But then, so is any degree of gluttony or even exploring kink in general, which display the same vices. The big question here is are you willing to live by that strict moral code and apply it to every situation? Will you try to avoid all forms of self-indulgence? The fact that your vices may be to a lesser degree than others won't excuse the fact that you are basically committing the same sin just by being part of this community.
So yeah, I guess it's up to everyone to decide for themselves, but unless there is some kind of rational foundation behind your ethics, it's pointless to hear about them.
3 years
Ethics
Ok, but how do you actually know when something is ethical or not? It seems like most people just go with their gut instinct and use "ethics" as a post-hoc justification. Does it feel right? Then it must be morally good. Does it sound icky? Then it must be unethical. I'm sure I don't have to point out that something as important as society's ethical code shouldn't just be left to emotion, so let's think through this for once. Broadly speaking, there are three major schools of thought about ethics.
Consequentialist or utilitarian ethics says that ANY action is ethically good so long as it is reasonably expected to have a positive outcome. By that they mean that it increases the overall amount of happiness while diminishing the overall amount of suffering. But whose happiness should be prioritized? If you want to go far into utilitarianism, you could say that immobility is unethical because it removes a worker's ability to contribute to the greater good. Of course, that's a pretty extreme position because it assumes all of us are obligated from birth to put personal interests aside in order to spend our lives working for the collective. But ignoring that, the wider impact on society of a couple pursuing this lifestyle is minimal either way.
What about the happiness and suffering of the gainer? Both of those are highly subjective terms that mean something different to everybody. You should know that there are many people out there who seriously want to become that size and live that lifestyle. For them, being immobile makes them happy, and the health issues don't seem like suffering to them. Encouraging them might be like helping them achieve a lifelong dream. If their lifestyle of choice is denied to them because other people "know better", then they will end up living a longer life for sure, but one full of sexual repression and regret. The only argument against it in that case would be if their immobility caused more suffering to other people than the gainer would suffer from giving up on their dreams. Like if they have children or if they had an elderly parent that was depending on them for care. So according to consequentialism, encouraging the right person in the right situation to immobility is morally good, because it increases their happiness and diminishes their emotional suffering.
Next, deontological ethics places emphasis on individual liberty as a value. The underlying belief here is that everyone is born with certain natural rights that can never be granted, only taken away. Speech, religion, right of assembly, bodily autonomy, and property ownership to name a few. So deontology focuses on creating a system of rules and boundaries that allow for the most amount of people to seek fulfillment in their own way. As long as everyone is playing by the same fair set of rules, then anything that results is considered a fair outcome. Underpinning all of these rules is the basic idea that you're in the clear so long as you do not cause harm to others without their consent. The majority of all laws are based on this concept. So according to deontology, as long as there is informed consent, then encouraging someone to immobility is morally neutral, because everyone involved wants to participate. Moreover, interfering with their desires could be seen as morally wrong because they did not consent to having their autonomy taken away.
Consequentialist or utilitarian ethics says that ANY action is ethically good so long as it is reasonably expected to have a positive outcome. By that they mean that it increases the overall amount of happiness while diminishing the overall amount of suffering. But whose happiness should be prioritized? If you want to go far into utilitarianism, you could say that immobility is unethical because it removes a worker's ability to contribute to the greater good. Of course, that's a pretty extreme position because it assumes all of us are obligated from birth to put personal interests aside in order to spend our lives working for the collective. But ignoring that, the wider impact on society of a couple pursuing this lifestyle is minimal either way.
What about the happiness and suffering of the gainer? Both of those are highly subjective terms that mean something different to everybody. You should know that there are many people out there who seriously want to become that size and live that lifestyle. For them, being immobile makes them happy, and the health issues don't seem like suffering to them. Encouraging them might be like helping them achieve a lifelong dream. If their lifestyle of choice is denied to them because other people "know better", then they will end up living a longer life for sure, but one full of sexual repression and regret. The only argument against it in that case would be if their immobility caused more suffering to other people than the gainer would suffer from giving up on their dreams. Like if they have children or if they had an elderly parent that was depending on them for care. So according to consequentialism, encouraging the right person in the right situation to immobility is morally good, because it increases their happiness and diminishes their emotional suffering.
Next, deontological ethics places emphasis on individual liberty as a value. The underlying belief here is that everyone is born with certain natural rights that can never be granted, only taken away. Speech, religion, right of assembly, bodily autonomy, and property ownership to name a few. So deontology focuses on creating a system of rules and boundaries that allow for the most amount of people to seek fulfillment in their own way. As long as everyone is playing by the same fair set of rules, then anything that results is considered a fair outcome. Underpinning all of these rules is the basic idea that you're in the clear so long as you do not cause harm to others without their consent. The majority of all laws are based on this concept. So according to deontology, as long as there is informed consent, then encouraging someone to immobility is morally neutral, because everyone involved wants to participate. Moreover, interfering with their desires could be seen as morally wrong because they did not consent to having their autonomy taken away.
3 years
Flavor fatigue during stuffing
It's not just flavor fatigue for me. If I eat too much of the same flavor, I start to feel really sick like I might throw up. But I can make that feeling go away and keep eating if I switch to a different food. I don't feel like that from being overly full either, usually I'll just end up with uncontrollable hiccupping if I go past my capacity, lol
3 years
Death feederism discords?
3 years
Can you be healthy at any weight?
I feel like I need to set the record straight about HAES, since it seems most people, whether supporters or critics, misunderstand what it means. HAES did that to themselves though. I've looked through their website, and they use a lot of vague language with room for interpretation. However, after reading through their linked resources and organizations they've partnered with, their message becomes clear.
First of all, it stands for HEALTH at every size, not HEALTHY at every size. They are not trying to imply that it is possible to be healthy regardless of size. Instead, they mean that anyone can take steps to improve their health at any size. The traditional view is that health improvements can only happen with weight loss, so if you starve yourself or get WLS, you will be automatically healthy (which is completely wrong). Not only that, but traditional diet and exercise programs fail for most people in the long run because they don't take human psychology into account, so you are mentally set up for failure. Plus, crash dieting can lower your metabolism.
HAES still recommends diet and exercise, but with a different mental approach. Weight loss is treated like it's not the goal, health is. That way if your weight plateaus, it doesn't feel like a failure. For diet, they suggest an approach called intuitive eating. The idea is to pay close attention to signals from your body, not cravings. For example, you will probably feel more energetic after eating eggs and fruit rather than a hamburger. It also means stopping when your hunger goes away, not when you feel full. For exercise, they tell you to find something active that you enjoy doing for its own sake, so exercising doesn't feel like torture and you look forward to it. If you follow their suggestions, you WILL lose weight over time (but of course that's just a "side effect"
. So it's not really a good fit for the feedist community, and would be better suited for the vanillas in the wider body positivity movement.
First of all, it stands for HEALTH at every size, not HEALTHY at every size. They are not trying to imply that it is possible to be healthy regardless of size. Instead, they mean that anyone can take steps to improve their health at any size. The traditional view is that health improvements can only happen with weight loss, so if you starve yourself or get WLS, you will be automatically healthy (which is completely wrong). Not only that, but traditional diet and exercise programs fail for most people in the long run because they don't take human psychology into account, so you are mentally set up for failure. Plus, crash dieting can lower your metabolism.
HAES still recommends diet and exercise, but with a different mental approach. Weight loss is treated like it's not the goal, health is. That way if your weight plateaus, it doesn't feel like a failure. For diet, they suggest an approach called intuitive eating. The idea is to pay close attention to signals from your body, not cravings. For example, you will probably feel more energetic after eating eggs and fruit rather than a hamburger. It also means stopping when your hunger goes away, not when you feel full. For exercise, they tell you to find something active that you enjoy doing for its own sake, so exercising doesn't feel like torture and you look forward to it. If you follow their suggestions, you WILL lose weight over time (but of course that's just a "side effect"
. So it's not really a good fit for the feedist community, and would be better suited for the vanillas in the wider body positivity movement.
4 years
Any feeders married to a non feedee?
Zelda64:
How is that dynamic like. Is it difficult and how do you express your urges with someone not into the fetish?
How is that dynamic like. Is it difficult and how do you express your urges with someone not into the fetish?
I wasn't married, but I have some experience with this. Obviously it depends a lot on your personalities and the strength of your relationship and your fetish, so maybe it can work for you. From what I've seen, most fat people not into feedism are unhappy with their bodies and want to lose weight. Even the ones who seem content with their bodies will eventually reach a moment of clarity where they're too fat to do something they used to, or they have a sobering doctor's visit, and now they want to lose all of the weight as quickly as possible.
You won't be able to just ignore it. It will be in your face at all times because their weight loss efforts will replace a lot of both their free time and conversation topics. They won't be able to enjoy anything food-related with you anymore, so a major way you interact with each other will have to change overnight. They will still expect you to be 110% supportive and happy for their weight loss. Even if you're happy for their happiness, it will be hard since they hate the very thing you're attracted to and are actively getting rid of it. If you try to express your desires to them, they will look at you like some kind of monster who wants to cause them harm for your own sick pleasure. Of course it doesn't bother them at all that you have to keep your entire sexuality (an important part of you) bottled up inside with no outlet just to spare their feelings. Even if you don't express any of this to them, they will be able to sense something's wrong. You will have to lie and pretend everything's fine of course, there's no way to make them understand what's bothering you. The forced secrecy will bother you even more than the weight loss does.
Resentment will start to creep in. You will find yourself secretly wishing that their diet will fail. For every pound they lose, you'll hope they gain back two. Wishing for your partner's failure is obviously really unhealthy for the relationship, and it will probably disintegrate on its own if neither of you ends it first. People say that sex (i.e. sexual compatibility) isn't everything in a relationship. They're only right in the same way that the bread isn't "everything" in a sandwich. Obviously you don't want your sandwich to be just bread, that would be boring. But it's still super important, because without it, the whole thing falls apart in your hands. (Did you like the food metaphor I just did there?) Honestly, if you're a feeder and you can't find a feedist relationship, it's easier to just be alone.
6 years
I need help
I also have clinical depression, but I find that just occupying my mind with hobbies doesn't really pay off. It can be fun in the moment, but I still end up just as depressed after. Here's what actually works for me.
- Keep taking your medication
- See a therapist
- Make time to hang out with friends IN PERSON at least once a week. Rearrange your schedule somehow or make new friends that you can hang with on your time. We're social creatures that aren't meant to be alone, so your depression will win if you can't do this.
- Finally, make a life plan. Here's how.
Basically, you start by picturing what your life would look like in the future if you have everything you need to be truly content. Any dreams or goals you might have.
Then you work backwards from there, thinking of what you would need to do to get from where you are now to your dream life.
Then you break down those tasks into small, specific steps. "Get a better job" is too vague. List every small step involved, including touching up your resume, which sites you will look at listings on, etc. figure out what your salary would need to be to pay for your monthly expenses in the future. If you want to buy a house in 10 years, research the prices, the neighborhood and everything else now. Do all the research up front on everything so that nothing is left to figure out later.
This is a big research project that will take you weeks or even a couple of months to complete, but your mind will be completely occupied the whole time. By the time you finish, you'll have a step by step guide that you know will make your life great at the end.
Then, just make an effort to work on completing your to-do list one small step at a time. Allow yourself to celebrate each accomplishment. As long as you keep checking things off your list and making progress, you will feel a lot better. Hands down the most effective at relieving my symptoms. Of course your mileage may vary. But this is solid advice for everybody on earth, not just depressed people.
- Keep taking your medication
- See a therapist
- Make time to hang out with friends IN PERSON at least once a week. Rearrange your schedule somehow or make new friends that you can hang with on your time. We're social creatures that aren't meant to be alone, so your depression will win if you can't do this.
- Finally, make a life plan. Here's how.
Basically, you start by picturing what your life would look like in the future if you have everything you need to be truly content. Any dreams or goals you might have.
Then you work backwards from there, thinking of what you would need to do to get from where you are now to your dream life.
Then you break down those tasks into small, specific steps. "Get a better job" is too vague. List every small step involved, including touching up your resume, which sites you will look at listings on, etc. figure out what your salary would need to be to pay for your monthly expenses in the future. If you want to buy a house in 10 years, research the prices, the neighborhood and everything else now. Do all the research up front on everything so that nothing is left to figure out later.
This is a big research project that will take you weeks or even a couple of months to complete, but your mind will be completely occupied the whole time. By the time you finish, you'll have a step by step guide that you know will make your life great at the end.
Then, just make an effort to work on completing your to-do list one small step at a time. Allow yourself to celebrate each accomplishment. As long as you keep checking things off your list and making progress, you will feel a lot better. Hands down the most effective at relieving my symptoms. Of course your mileage may vary. But this is solid advice for everybody on earth, not just depressed people.
6 years