No idea, but I'm also curious how many straight-up FAs there are as opposed to FAs who are feeders. In other words, how much overlap there is.

>>56853 Our current love of bone thin women with little sexual dimorphism is an ahistoric abomination and affront to nature. Most men have always seen hips, boobs and moderate fat as the fertility markers they are. The fetish is most likely due to the repression of a normal and healthy sexuality. In the same way the crypto-fags here have contorted their repressed homosexuality into some absurd and sad approximation of heteronormativity (I.e. every mod and the eurozone catholic losers)

>>56853 OP here. I think that is a good distinction. My wife's wg fantasies/preferences are definitely tied to dom/sub and teasing. On the other hand, I'm also ok with people enjoying their wg. E.g. mutual enjoyment for feeder/feedee but there's a psychological element that's missing for her. I think feeder fetish/active gaining part of the fetish is definitely a much smaller portion than people who like big butts/hips/boobs.

I think it's very hard to say for sure how common/rare this is. From my experience of being in the community online I always got the impression that it was a sausage fest. That female feedees were heavily outnumbered by male feeders. I think that is probably true IRL as well. But I also think that women (note: not including the ones who are selling content) don't really engage in the community because they don't want to get swamped by creeps in their DMs. I think women are much more likely to lurk rather than post in these communities for that reason. But in terms of my actual IRL experience? I've never met another guy who's into feederism per se. I am well known among my male friends for being a chubby chaser. Over the years, two of my friends have approached me and said "dude I fucked a fat chick for the first time and I understand now why you like them so much". But they would still prefer slim women. And that's as far as I've ever come to meeting another male FA in the wild. In terms of the women I've dated, I would say most of them had a very negative view of fat fetishism / feederism, but there were some exceptions. The first girl I met who was into this completely blindsided me by sending me nudes of herself eating when we hadn't even discussed feederism at all. That one ended up being a one night stand. There was another girl I had a brief relationship with. She unintentionally gained a shitload of weight during lockdown (before we met) and was very into body positivity. She actually wanted to keep gaining but had to start losing weight for health reasons. But she followed a few feedee people on instagram (notably BC Skylar is one I can remember) and she'd randomly send me porn of chubby girls while I was at work and shit. Finally the last girl I dated wasn't into feederism (or even fat fetishism really) but she was an SSBBW and also very into body positivity. She followed SSBBW/USSBBW people on instagram; it was always funny seeing them come up on her feed while she was scrolling when we were in like a coffee shop or whatever, and her not giving a fuck. And she had fat art on the walls in her apartment, if you can believe that.

>>56854 Let's keep a little perspective here... Most straight men don't like "bone thin" either. They like round hips, big boobs, some softness o/a, and others like girlish slimness though not "skinny" per se. They also prefer a flat or slightly curved belly, a narrow waist, and are turned off by hanging bellies, fat rolls, dimples/cellulite, etc. I.E., the stuff most FAs like, if not outright require. Some normies say "Sure, I could be into bigger women" but they mean Ashley Graham, and I'd venture that for most guys even she's an unfuckable hog. Throughout history the silhouette gets a little thicker or thinner but we always seem to revert to the Greco Roman ideal. This is not just Western culture, either. Look at ancient Indian art, or Indigenous American. Even a lot of African art features hourglass figures, with exagerrated boobs and hips but small waists. We're not atavistic keepers of the fat flame; we're anomalies, and almost always were. >>56866 I brought it up because it seems to be a larger overlap than acknowledged. I have nothing to back this up except my online observations, which aren't worth much. We need a Kinsey-type study, which isn't gonna happen. In fact I've never come across a serious study of FAs or feeders, and I've been (casually) looking for decades.

>>56884 The ancient Roman’s also thought big dicks were unattractive because they were associated with beast-like sexuality. Human culture is often diametrically opposed to our hard wired preferences.

>>56884 >>We're not atavistic keepers of the fat flame; we're anomalies We are in fact, the keepers of the flame. We are the only chosen worthy. The real anomalies are the rest of society who desire children and living skeletons; these people are disconnected from nature and God. They are subhuman, and require eradication. They are holding us back from the glorious utopia that awaits us as soon as we rid ourselves of them. >>56854 I agree with this. The repressed homosexual crypto fags are also holding us back. Bitcoin going to 100k is causing inflation and ruining our species. They too, must be eradicated if we're to ascend.

>>56889 Kisame here, I need a beast in commissions. The hell am I going to do with a kouros made of gesso as a lead adjacent to a mammoth breasted adult woman? I don't blame Satan for being the star of the show. Humans devalue themselves too.much

What bujilds are considered sexy can depend on the time period and place, the old statues of super fat women in caveman times show that plumpness was desirable due to how rare food was. When we see old painting, the women are curvier and have a bit of pudge but as pointed out, it's not like the women were super big and fat. For the interest in thin women, usually the desire is women who are thin and curvy. They have a narrow waist but also big boobs and sometimes a big butt. I imagine for part of why super fatness wasn't present in the old art is how hard it was to get super fat long ago. It may have been possible to get fat long ago, but super fat was super hard then. I imagine for beauty standards, you want something sold as possible to achieve. For FAs nowadays, maybe there are more guys who love plumper bodies IRL but they are in the closet so to speak. They could worry being ridiculed and looked at as perverts if they're open with what they find sexy. The same with women, it does feel a lot of these circles are sausage fests so to speak. The assumption is that women don't talk about what they find as sexy and aren't to pursue their sexual interests. So women into larger men seem rare. For those gay/bisexual, it's hard to know unless someone says so online. This is the case called G.I.R.L. (Guy in real life), we assume someone online to be a guy and if they say they're a woman, then they're clearly a morbidly obese neckbeard living in their parent's basement. It's hard to know who's a dude/gal/both/neither unless they say so. I wouldn't say the love of plump women will ever go away. I can see part of this as rebellion. To desire something that society says is a no no. Isn't a lot of sexual desire this? When people say no, you say yes. If society vilifies an ethnic group, they seem more desirable now.

>>56889 I understand that there is a logic that big dicks > small dicks but I don't think big dicks are hardwired as preferred. Granted I can't speak for the females of the world, but I think big dicks are more of a spectacle than obviously superior. Regarding the Roman's... I think the point that was being made was that the Greco Roman's sought out an 'ideal'... Like the "middle path" in hinduism. The roman's didn't sculpt fatties or schwartzenaggers because those were considered extremes and not best of both world's. Also, I am surprised by the bitcoin and catholic church talk, but this is a chan and I am old enough to know better, so perhaps this was all forseeable. I hope more people chime in. Maybe less conspiracy would be nice!

>>56897 > I don't think big dicks are hardwired as preferred. Secondary sex characteristics are attractive. Sexual dimorphism is part of our species, women don’t have dicks, androgynous men have small dicks, manly men have big dicks. Nature wants fertile women to fuck manly men as they display androgen profiles indicative of healthy genes and healthy bodies. > think big dicks are more of a spectacle than obviously superior. Well, Mother Nature disagreed when she put all of the orgasm inducing nerves 7 inches into the vagina. Look at the vagina like a basketball hoop, it’s made to prevent 95% of men from dunking by design. Letting average men reproduce is just was not evolutionarily beneficial to our ancestors. Ever population that gave mating preference to the highest testosterone males outlived and outcompeted the ones that thought “average men are good enough”. Most men fucking fat women are tall and healthy with high testosterone. The men scared of big women have androgen profiles and are expressing their latent homosexual preferences.

>>56898 https://psmag.com/environment/17-to-1-reproductive-success/ Basically, only the top 5% of men ever contributed to our source code. —95% of our ancestors were average women: fat, thin, ugly, hot, doesn’t matter. —The remaining 5% were men of extreme competitive ability, you can imagine how androgen profiles like being taller, stronger, smarter and harder grinding contributed to their success over other men. In fact the penis is a competitive instrument, big dicks are designed like a spoon to literally scoop away the sperm of less well endowed men and prevent them from reproducing. TLDR: Natural law dictates that average/small dicked men should be culled, or at least a castrated slave caste.

>>56899 Bro it's crazy that you shot Bin Laden how'd you do it?

>>56899 Thank you for the article, very interesting. When you dig a bit deeper into the scientists who conducted the study and it looks like the hypothesis to explain the finding isn't because big dicks are designed like spoons to scoop away the sperm of less well endowed men and prevent them from reproducing. Seems like a consolidation of wealth, power + intra clan warring + kidnapping of women of the losers is the running hypothesis. You could argue that it was the manly big dicked clans that beat everyone else out, but I somehow doubt that is the case. The papers after the 2015 one you posted that provide much more context and explanation fort the Y chromosome population bottleneck than big dicks outcompeting small ones. https://www.sciencealert.com/neolithic-y-chromosome-bottleneck-warring-patrilineal-clans https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/03/18/how-survival-of-the-fittest-became-survival-of-the-richest/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melissa_A._Wilson ^^^just a cursory search --- On the flip side, from your post history is it safe to assume that you are a well-endowed manly man whose biological urges are 100% natural unlike the brainwashed masses? Hope I wasn't just trolled.

>>56903 > When you dig a bit deeper into the scientists who conducted the study and it looks like the hypothesis to explain the finding isn't because big dicks are designed like spoons to scoop away the sperm of less well endowed men and prevent them from reproducing. I conflated two phenomena that both related to male competition to reproduce: -in nature, the healthiest and best at reproducing win out: this correlated to high testosterone profiles. This natural competition to reproduce was intensified by the agricultural era of clan based warfare to accumulate resources (women are a resource similar to food rather than an agent like men are). -society as started at the agricultural era did support the social structure of extreme inequality. At this point organized murder and theft become the primary forms of reproductive competition over other men (compared to winning the sperm race among a clan of related men engaging in gang bangs). At this point having a big dick isn’t going to change weather or not the man was a slave, dead or a warlord. Males have usurped women’s ability to screen on genetic fitness by simply enslaving and murdering the men with bigger dicks to prevent these men from cucking them. (Explain Americas race problems).

>>56903 > On the flip side, from your post history is it safe to assume that you are a well-endowed manly man whose biological urges are 100% natural unlike the brainwashed masses? Pretty much. I’m 6’3” with a 7+ inch dick, six pack and have scored 3 stands deviations higher than average for intelligence tests, make six figures comfortably, etc. I’ve dated skinny women for social clout and still choose to walk around with my fat wife. If you don’t have a big dick, it’s really really hard to explain how many women’s only orgasms I’ve given and how toxic those women are about normal men… women are nice, accommodating and open their checkbooks after seeing it but like being rich it doesn’t solve ever relationship problem but like Forrest Gump says “one less thing to worry about”. Don’t assume I’m happy tho. I’ve got an extreme personality issues since childhood trauma that prevents me from loving the normal life despite by all accounts being the exact man 90% of the coomers here wish they were. Happy people don’t constantly worry about being exceptional, they’re chubby relaxed middle managers mowing their lawn.

>>56889 So you're saying being into fat women is the default and the greco-roman ideal is a societal construct? If that's the case then throughout recorded human history we've been burying our true desires 99.9% of the time. >>56892 >We are the only chosen worthy. >>56898 >Most men fucking fat women are tall and healthy with high testosterone. >>56905 >I’m 6’3” with a 7+ inch dick, six pack Cringe

>>56969 > being into fat women is the default and the greco-roman ideal is a societal construct Right, the society of men who rape boys and were raped as boys. The same culture that considered it feminine to fuck women and that gay sex cultivated masculinity? Sounds like you’d fit right in with these pedos you fucking faggot. Go clean you room then lift some weights and stop being such a sandy vagina.

>>56971 You are peak forever alone material lol. It's genuinely sad to think a real human out there is like this and how incredibly and truly unwanted they must be

>>57010 Oh the sad truth of the world is miserable fucks like me aren’t ever alone. Toxic narcissistics just ruin the best women and move on or keep them locked in forever.

>>56971 Moron, "greco-roman ideal" doesn't mean putting Greek or Roman society (two different things separated by several centuries and a fair amount of geography) on a pedestal. I'm talking about the ideal body as depicted by the founders of Western Culture. Which has survived as the ideal body for 2000+ years with very minor exceptions. The idea men who aren't FAs are gay is even stupider. Not knowing what I meant by Greco-Roman ideal is just ignorance. Calling non-FAs gay is developmentally disabled. >>57010 They're hung up on boy fucking because it's an easy go-to for greasy little creeps who are disappointments if not outright disasters otherwise. However low their station in life, they can always look down at "the pedos." Fucking pathetic, and the worst part is that by throwing "pedo" around they devalue child rape.

>>57114 >Im a gay pedo Yes you are anon.

>>57116 So much projection... I've never seen someone this obsessed with pedophilia who didn't indulge in it themself. You're already in the closet so take dad's belt and hang yourself with it.

>>57211 > You're already in the closet so take dad's belt and hang yourself with it. Who says gay people aren’t funny, that’s a good zinger man. You could do standup.

>>56848 Are you talking specifically about WG, feederism, a preference for fat women's body types, or just finding fat women attractive at all? The last two seem to be pretty common. The plus size / BBW subreddits are some of the most subscribed to NSFW subs on the site, and that's not counting visitors who don't sub because of the stigma. Any individual kink tied to that preference I would have to think is less common since it's only a subset of the people above. But that's no different than a fetish where the person prefers a thin body type, really.

>>57326 My initial question was more geared towards WG and feederism... I think your observation that the plus size / bbw subreddits have high subscriptions points to the fact that curvy women are attractive even if curvy women are fat. I don't know if we will get any female perspectives, but my curiosity was piqued because of my wife's insistence that wg fetishes weren't that rare. She has no interest in gaining and is living the non plus size life. But the idea of gaining/being forced to gain and being teased for it is what her specific fetish is. I don't know if a lot of the female redditors who frequent those subs are happy to be plus size or would turn down the opportunity to be smaller. I understand that being validated and complimented for who you are/how you look is a desirable thing... e.g. why a lot of models don't actively gain. Agree that the active gaining component is only a subset. Just curious to get thoughts on how feeding/gaining compares to things like furries, blueberry, inflation, etc. I feel very lucky to be able to explore content with my SO. But part of that is because I. think it's rarer than my wife does.

I think feedism/stuffing is more rare, but being into big girls is ultimately not that rare