Friday, February 10, 2006



This simple six letter word is more highly charged than any other in the FA/BBW world. Its meaning, its implications, its very existence are awash in strong emotional responses and laden with heavy baggage. I wanted to deal with this word and issue early on in this blog’s development, but didn’t feel confident enough of my voice or grounded enough to attempt it. Some have asked me whether I’m a feeder, whether I’m in favor of feeding, against it, would consider imposing the death penalty for feeders and a variety of other questions along the spectrum. But, as is my wont, I will initially punt(or tease out the suspense, depending on your perspective), by not attempting to answer questions about me or my predilections or views on others until I’ve developed a construct within which to talk about feeding and the related terms…. Feeder, Feedee, Foodee, Foodie etc. Perhaps more words will suggest themselves as these terms are rather monolithic and in my view are currently used rather inexactly with a broad brush to cover a range of different behaviors, actors and philosophies.

Well then, having told you what I’m not going to talk about, let’s get down to brass tacks.

What is a Feeder. The simplest answer would be the ones in the dictionary. It can be someone who provides food, the person or creature eating food, a mechanism for providing food, a portion of a river or stream leading into another river or stream or several other definitions including sources of electrical power, etc. However, in the FA/BBW world its meaning is much narrower. It refers to a person who engages in behavior which results in another person, or perhaps themselves, eating food, generally, but not necessarily in large quantity.

The classic Feeder in most people’s view is a man who encourages, forces or merely abets a woman in eating increasingly large amounts of food until she becomes so fat that she is immobilized, unable to move around, move out of a bed and is completely helpless and in the total control of the feeder who is the source of her ever increasing food requirements and any life functions normally handled by the person themselves, but which are no longer possible at the fattened person’s size. Of course the reversed gender approach is the same, with the woman being the feeder and the man being the fattened one. Not to be limiting, the two same sex relationships are also encompassed by the feeder and fattened pairing. In some cases, more of a Queen Bee situation could exist where a cadre of worker Feeders fatten a single individual. So, even trying to stretch the term to cover the different actors in the "classic" situation stretches the term pretty thinly.

But, even the classic case is much more complex than it seems and includes a number of conceptually different elements in the mix. To start, the question of the relationship between the Feeder and the fattened person can be looked at from a few ways. Is the Feeder in feeding the person being fattened doing something that the fattened person would do on their own in the absence of a Feeder? Is the Feeder taking the lead in the activity or passively following the instructions of the person being fattened? Is there a mutuality of being fattened between the two or more partners. In other words are each of two people both being a Feeder for the other person and the person being fattened by the other person. Is the Feeder’s activity a component of a loving relationship, the sole purpose of the relationship, an adjunct to improve the sexual relations in a loving relationship, a tool to allow one or the other or both of the partners to be stimulated. Is the Feeder’s activity a way to assert control over the person who is being fattened and unrelated to any sexual component or attraction. Is force involved? Is there a dominant and submissive member to the pair(usually it seems that the person being fattened is the submissive person, but again, not necessarily) or an egalitarian approach with a joint mission to fatten one or both of the people. Is there a goal involved in the fattening process, which could be defined either by a weight, a body dimension, degree of immobility or quantity of food which could be consumed. Is the fattening activity a continuous one or a cycling one in which the same number of pounds are gained and then lost so they can be gained again without exceeding some notional maximum weight? Is it an occasional event which takes the pleasure only in the process, but not the result, with no significant long term gain taking place, but the Feeder and fattened roles being donned for the evening or weekend and then put aside without any real change in the fattened person’s size, shape or mobility. Is the purpose of the fattening only to achieve a blissful state associated with eating more than the fattened person believes they can eat so that the fullness or overfullness serves a sexual purpose.

Whew!!! I bet there are more permutations and combinations, but for a ten minute brainstorming session resulting in a explosion of words that seems to do the job of showing that there are a very broad variety of types of feeding relationships there can be, without claiming any completeness or comprehensiveness. So Feeder is at best an umbrella term covering each of the above situations, and more. Many of these relationships make many people understandably very upset, nervous and fearful of dealing with someone who would be identified or identify themselves as a Feeder.

To add a further twist to this mix there are real world Feeders and those who are only fantasy Feeders, not really interested or able to deal with the person being fattened in the real world… and only interested in their fantasy of what the fattened person will be like and how they will act. Many of these fantasy Feeders are found on the internet, often talking knowledgeably(or at least apparently so) about feeding, experiences they’ve had in the past, plans for the future and plans for current targets of interest. Some folks who have a genuine interest in entering a Feeder relationship have expressed the regret that many of the people that they meet on the Internet appear sincere and legitimate in their interest in participating as a Feeder in a real world situation but then bail out or disappear when its time to convert the Internet relationship to a real world one. Perhaps it’s just a subset of the general reluctance of many people to take Internet romances into the real world, but it seems that there is a higher percentage of evaporating Internet feeders than general evaporating Internet romancers.

So, how do I go on. Well, I need to create a reliable objective non-emotional nomenclature for some of the major approaches and participants under the feeder umbrella. Without the words to distinguish among the different types of activity and relationships, broad positive or negative views on feeders and the related folks are essentially useless.

Perhaps you’ve noticed that I’ve referred not to a Feedee or Foodie or Feedie when talking about who does the eating… but the person being fattened(I thought of using the acronym PBF but that just reminded me of a peanut butter and fluff sandwich.. so I won’t use it). These other words are as sodden with baggage as the Feeder term is, so I’ve tried to not use any of them yet. But lets look at Feedee first. I distinguish this from Foodee and Foodie. I will use Feedee as a person who has elected to eat for reasons other than sustenance or enjoyment of the food or enjoyment of the act of eating. This would encompass people who want to be forced to eat, people who want to be encouraged to eat, people who eat because they want to gain weight, people who eat because they enjoy in some fashion the fact that they are eating more than they need to eat to maintain themselves(whether a predilection, preference or fetish), and people who like to don the eating more mode of action at specified times(like on a particular night, or weekend or vacation week). A Foodee is what I will call someone who eats food beyond what is necessary for sustenance because they love the act of eating or, the act of eating more than necessary is enjoyable, arousing or essential to satisfy some internal need. A Foodie for me is someone who has an interest in the quality of the food they eat. Some might call the Foodie a gourmet and the Foodee the gourmand who is more interested in the quantity of the food.

What makes these terms so interesting is that they are not mutually exclusive. A Feedee may also be a Foodee and a Foodie. But, its not necessary that a person have more than one of the titles. All the eight possible permutations of (Feedee/Not-Feedee, Foodee/Not-Foodee, Foodie/Not-Foodie) exist and are clearly represented in the FA/BBW community. The most interesting combination is the fat person who is not a Feedee, Foodee, nor Foodie. These people through either a weird dice roll of the genetic factor, a screwed up set point due to dieting or some other factor have gotten fat, but don’t seem to be interested in eating much, don’t really care about the act of eating and don’t get excited by the food they eat. I suspect they find the FA/BBW community rather odd and intrusive. And of course, most don’t believe them when they say that they really don’t eat much.

I suspect that this wonderful tripartite approach to eating is not perfect because many folks don’t really fit into these categories exactly and tend to change in and out of these categories. But, I think it at least allows us to pause and consider our relationship with food. Naturally, there are people with what society calls eating disorders who work to resist their body’s call and then overreact in ways which are dangerous to themselves either by bulimia, anorexia or nonstop gluttony. But we’ll put the first two away from discussion completely, and the third we’ll approach as we go through the types of relationships.

As a simple exercise, its now clearer that a Feeder’s relationship with a Feedee(whether a foodee or foodie too or not) would be different than a Feeder’s relationship with someone not a Feedee. The end results might look the same, but the nature of the relationship and the motivations and dynamic within the relationship would be quite different. However, a Feeder looking for a relationship in which the essential element is that the other person gain weight could likely select someone who is either a Feedee or Foodee or both and achieve a similar result. However, the Feedee would require different motivation and interaction from the Feeder than a Foodee where it is the love of food that drives the Foodee and perhaps not the weight gain(although that would likely follow).

Well, I think I want to stop here and catch my breath. As I reread what I’ve typed I see that I haven’t covered much ground and haven’t expressed any of my views in connection with Feeders, Feedees, Foodees or Foodies or the relationships they have or the ones that are attractive and interesting to me. I've tried not to attach emotional tags to any of the words as of yet. Please don't think I am cold and impassionate, but I find this area so wrought with the strongest of emotions, that I need to approach it with care, consideration and serious efforts at rational analysis.

But, I think I’ll leave it at that for now having left now at least a vocabulary to talk about these concepts and highlighting how many different behaviors and relationships can come within the umbrella concept of Feeder.

I definitely am interested in any readers comments about their thoughts about my definitions and their thoughts on the subject. Have no fear that I will express my thoughts, about which I’ve pondered long and hard(no that wasn’t intended as a bad pun), and which I think I may be able to express with some effort.


Blogger emily pound said...

Whatever the motivation, my personal opinion is that any man or woman who willingly participates in feeding a person until they are stuck in bed and unable to even roll over, is extremely sick. It doesn't matter to me whether the "Feedee" happily goes along with it and wants to eat or not. It is tantamount of putting a gun in their hand and telling them to pull the trigger.

For some reason, your post reminded me of a porn "star" I saw on a video once named "Teighlor" (I think that's how her name was spelled). My husband has a very extensive porn collection and videos with large women were included. Occasionally on these videos there would be these absolutely enormous women, and Teighlor was one of them. I believe she has passed away, I think I remember reading that somewhere. It was amazing to me that she could even stand. She must have weighed close to 1,000 pounds.

I don't understand how a man could possibly get off sexually on watching a video of a woman this size. As with feeders, I firmly believe there is no trace of sexual interest, but rather some other, deeper, aberrant need that's being satisfied by having access to these women. Control sounds like a pretty good motive.

10/2/06 9:11 AM  
Blogger hugehugefan said...

Well, the first very emotional comment has come in. I encourage all such comments along the spectrum.. but would note that I still haven't shared my views on the topic.

I also don't see it as my place to instruct people what they should believe or what they should do as much as I may disagree with what they believe or what they do. So far no one has elected me in charge of anyone but myself. I can recommend, urge, cajole and suggest what others should or shouldn't do, but I don't have the moral, legal or religious authority to force anyone to do anything.

As a side note, the woman known as Teighlor weighed between about 500 and 600 pounds during her porn career and apparently is still alive and has surfaced recently on the Dimensions Boards.

10/2/06 12:04 PM  
Blogger Charlotte said...

I like the theory that there are three aspects for a gainiac (my personal blanket term for feedee/foodie/foodee)... certainly something I've untuitively understood, if never explicitly stated.

The love of weight gain.
The love of eating.
The love of food.

Surely any given 'gainiac' would exhibit all three in variable proportions, and you'd have people who were at extremes in each category. Myself, I've known days where one aspect was more important to me than the others, only to wake up the next day with diferent feelings again. I believe that it's about 'the food', but that's just the gateway that got me hooked, lol.

As for people who aren't fond of 'feeding', well, I can think of dozens of human activities I don't really approve of. Society frowns on a lot of these (human sacrifice), but others are acceptable (hidden camera TV shows), so... anyone who finds feeding abhorent has to remember that without variety, life becomes dull. Besides, humanity thrives on labels, if all the abhorent behaviour went away, we'd simply label something more benign as 'abhorent'. (e.g., it was once normal to starve an entire population during war, now that that's (rightfully) frowned upon, we find the idea of non-lethal torture to be evil. Once torture no longer happens, I would imagine that calling the enemy bad names will be the next to go.)

11/2/06 6:03 AM  
Blogger emily pound said...

Sorry if I came off a bit angry. I just don't understand the attraction of the whole dynamic between feeder/feedee (as far as the feedee being totally immobile).

13/2/06 5:23 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm sitting here at my computer after reading the post and comments way to many times in a tizzy. If I was to read this a year ago I would think what an absolutely freakish and sick activity, the whole feeding thing, but now have totally embraced the idea in the last 6 months. I would love to feed someone and see them actually gain weight, not to immobility of course. Certainly enough to purchase new cloths though. Please and with my blessing urge, recommend and cajole me in the right directly. I already know I'm a deviant with so many aspects in my life I don't want one more thing I want to try suck me dry. I guess I'm looking for approval from the great one.

13/2/06 5:34 AM  
Blogger hugehugefan said...

Dear Anonymous:

I don't know what to say in response to your request. I've now posted my views on the feeder question, but they are only my views. It is important that each person closely examine their interests, motives and comfort zones to determine their own paths. If my writing helps you to clarify your thinking and advance your approach, that's wonderful. If you merely substitute my views for your prior views, that's not so good. I don't believe anyone should outsource their opinions and views to anyone else. That doesn't mean you can't agree with what someone else says, and in fact that's what politics is about. But, its important to be a critical reader and do the thinking yourself about what works for you and what doesn't.

But, thanks for writing in and I hope it turns out well for you.

13/2/06 11:28 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home