curiousv:
The topic of secretly fattening someone, and the controversy around it, often appears on this forum. However, how do we even define it? There are many blurry cases between the two extremes of secret sabotage and signing a waiver before every meal.
I would do 4 but without persuasion. I would just state my preference.
Where do you draw the line between acceptable and not acceptable?
I'm listing them in order of increasing cooperation.
1. spiking their food with appetite enhancers and adding extra calories in secret, humiliating them to manipulate them to comfort-eat more.
2. encouraging without disclosure. Not adding any secret ingredients into their foods, just always having their favorite snacks lying around, inviting them to those restaurants where you know they can't resist eating a lot, persuading them to eat more, reassuring them that they can eat yet one portion more without worries.
3. enabling without disclosure. Similar to #2. just without the persuasion. If they don't want to eat more, then you don't persuade them. You still invite them to fattening places and offer a lot of food, but you don't keep persuading them if they don't want to eat more. You keep the snacks well stocked, but don't actively encourage them to eat them.
4. Limited disclosure. Similar behavior as above, but admitting that you like them as they are, being fat isn't that big of a problem, you accept them no matter what they weigh, you even enjoy them having some pudge, it looks really good on them.
5. Admitting you would like them to gain more weight.
6. Same as 5, but telling it's not just a preference but a strong sexual fetish.
7. Asking for consent before every single meal you offer.
Are there any in-between steps I missed? Where would you draw the line? I think 1 is flat out, 2 and 3 are a grey area and might be OK if they don't feel too miserable about their weight, 4 should be OK with maybe very rare exceptions depending on their personality, and 7 is over the top.
