From the Archives: Can a Feeder Take Yes For an Answer?



She could also restrict his overindulging in food to those moments when they're playing, so she gets the thrill of being the one who feeds him however much she wants to, and he gets to be submissive to her whims. Win-win!


I found @Dan's logic specious 10 years ago, and I find it no more convincing today. His answer is predicated on a no (long-term) harm, no foul argument, but he recognizes that is not likely true, and so maintains a fallback position that the loss of a few years of life is a reasonable price to pay. Of course that assumes that the loss of a couple of years is the only cost, medical, social, or personal, which I think is suspect.

Certain kinks come with the risk of physical injury, for instance, fire play, sounding, suspensions, and breath play. In some cases, the risks are so great, people are discouraged from engaging in these activities, while in other cases, special training is required to engage in the kink safely. Yet even with training negative outcomes can still happen. We are safest playing with kinks where the risks are fairly clear and straight forward to mitigate. Feeding does not seem to be in this category because there is not the same ability to understand or weigh the risks, and mitigation may not be possible. For this reason, I would discourage feeding as a kink.

I would also note that FAT acknowledges certain personal issues around exercise and eating, and that psychological background makes me further question her ability to "safely" dominate her submissive in this way.


I wonder if LW might not be able to redirect her fetish slightly. Is she specifically attracted to fat men? Or is she attracted to big men generally?

If the latter, why doesn't she get her boyfriend into powerlifting in a big way? Having big muscles is a lot healthier than having a lot of fat after all.


@2 there does seam to be an element of "actual injury" to this that doesn't exist in typical BDSM set-ups - they bruise skin rather than break bones. I know gaining 50 pounds isn't unreversible, but I suspect that even extreme weight losers face shortened lifespans compared to people who never gained significant weight to begin with, combined with the fact that it's also unlikely. Do BDSM people ever fuck around with addiction, forcing their partners to (consensually) smoke cigarettes or use narcotics? Does this mean feeding as an activity is just inherently to deleterious for a safe & sane person to engage in?


A few of the regular commenters will be pleased to read "From the Archives" in the title and, no doubt, will want to thank Dan and his team for listening to their entreaties!


Yay! "From the Archives" in the headline -- thank you Dan and editorial staff!


@3 - It really isn't about being attracted to someone's size. It's more of a power trip. The feedee is under direct control of the feeder. In the more extreme cases, where the feedee is perhaps immobile, they depend entirely on their partner to handle everyday tasks. They literally cannot function without their feeders.


Yeah I agree with @2. I think it is not so straightforward as "a few years of your life." There is potential for chronic illness (diabetes, for ex). I don't want to kink shame, but some kinks are definitely more risky and hard to practice safely.

I wish there were professional kink coaches. I wonder if there's any authorities on this kink that Dan could let readers know about? (I know he likes dropping Twitter and Instagram info for the experts.)

Seems like with some strict guidelines (like @1's suggestion) this kink could be a lot safer <3


“From the Archives” is indeed refreshingly practical.
Speaking of practicality, who says she has to feed him junk food and cream cheese? Diet may include grapes, bok choy leaves and melon cubes, one at a time. Licking hummus off her breasts, Greek yogurt off her feet, and dark chocolate for dessert are mandatory.


Happy dance for the "From the Archives" header! Thank you, Dan and Stranger staff! :-D

Sangui @7, perhaps you're correct generally, but FAT says she "finds it hot" that her boyfriend has put on weight. For her it seems to be the results of the feeding, not just the act. Otherwise the answer would be simple -- she feeds him and then he ups his workouts, with her, to work off the calories. But she says his working out will make her less attracted. I guess one thing I'd say is, if these two are still together, it's 11 years later, he's 37 and he has probably put on some weight anyway. I hope FAT was able to incorporate a "you don't overeat unless I tell you to" clause into their relationship. Though I do like CMD's idea of overfeeding him fruit salad.


A few additional thoughts having questioned whether this kink can be safely enjoyed. First, there is much higher likelihood of renegotiating mid-scene, which in this case lasts months. It is very easy to imagine FAT starting the scene seeking to increase Mr. Fat’s weight by 15 pounds, but later wanting him to increase his weight by 25. On the flip side it is also easy to imagine FAT agreeing to get him back to his original weight before starting another up cycle, but giving up when that proves impossible, and simply feeding him again. Second, FAT has no real incentive to ensure Mr. Fat loses weight. Although this isn’t sufficient to make feeding safe, it would seem to be a necessary ingredient. For instance, FAT might have to set aside money before the feeding scene to cover gym membership or personal training, or simply a penalty if she cannot get his weight back to within a small amount through diet and exercise. Lastly, and relatedly, FAT already is aware this relationship may be time limited. What happens if FAT decides to breakup with Mr. Fat after she has pushed his weight up by 40 pounds? You don’t break up with someone and leave them suspended or with your fist in their vagina, but FAT end the relationship mid-scene, and that is a further reason this type of play is problematic.


Add my voice to the thank you chorus for “from the archives”.


"From the Archives"
Thank you Dan and staff.
Now with this information in advance again, we have the option to save time and effort thinking about and writing comments to help a letter writer if knowing that it's a repeat dissuades us from spending our time that way. I appreciate the consideration.

Good on whoever it was that asked last. Personally at some point during the year plus since the link to the original letter moved to the bottom, I gave up after asking politely a bunch of times and stopped asking after once writing I was pissed off by the inconsideration.


Poor FAT wants contradictory things: for her BF to both gain, and to /not/ gain, weight. And for most people weight management isn't easy; though maybe it would be easy with her commanding it.

@10 BiDanFan
"she says his working out will make her less attracted."

Not exactly. She says "it MAY lead to your being less attracted to him." That danger could just be from him working out so much he has absolutely no (to her desirable) extra weight. Maybe she'd be perfectly happy if he only worked out enough to keep her from constantly ballooning his weight to and past the point where "he gets, like, actually fat".


That might have been the right answer 10 years ago, but now I would suggest the couple practice intermittent fasting. It's just been written up in the New England Journal as life extending.

He could either fast every second day, or try OMAD (one meal a day) which looks like gluttony when seen out of context.

Yeah, he wouldn't get fat, but then he won't get type II diabetes either. And I am of the general belief that you should keep you results of your dom/sub game away from the prying eyes of strangers. Getting fat is like wearing a dog collar 24 hours a day.


Jefmcg @ 15 - "Getting fat is like wearing a dog collar 24 hours a day."

Look around you (especially if you live in the US): getting fat is what most people do. His staying thin would attract more attention.


Obese people who are active and exercise every day have much smaller negative overall health issues then those who are sedentary. I haven't got the figures in front of me anymore, but the difference is significant - something like going from something like a 50% chance of severe physical problems within 10 years to 7%, if I remember correctly.

That difference brings it down to the "I know it's not good for me but it's worth it" range that most of us live in, I'd say. So, sure, feed him (within reason, not every day) but also make sure he works out every day in some way - swimming is one exercise where obese people can get their heart rates up without a lot of harm to the joints, for example.


The thing that jumps out at me that I'm more aware of now than I was in 2009 is that there is a real privilege dynamic in being a thin person who would never let yourself get fat, but enjoying seeing someone else become fat (a non-privileged status in our society) at your request. In that way, it has the same kind of tread-lightly-and-consciously dynamic as race play. The feeder would benefit from seriously interrogating what she's getting out of this, and how it relates to her own privilege (and potentially body image issues) as a purposefully thin person. Similarly for the gainer - what is he getting out of the relationship, and how might it be interacting with his own body issues for better or worse? Is it cathartic for him, or is he using it to scrape his own wounds in an act of self harm?


@16 But the fat stigma remains, no matter how many people are fat.

It's almost like other people being fat doesn't make it any less bad to be fat yourself, something I said last week and everyone was like nooooooooooooooooooo.


+1 for "From the Archives".

The spirit of the response is highly Rumpolean, but Mr Savage seemed to pick just about the worst way to implement it - massive swings every few months would seem to carry more of a probable cost than shaving off a year or two of BF's seventies. Perhaps he thought it some sort of karmic justice.


richardo @16

yeah, there is a reason I am learning about fasting!


"From the archives"?? Spoiler!


jefmcg @ 21 - I'm glad you are, but your diet, weight gain and ways to control it are not at issue here. What I was addressing is how your idea that one should keep the results of one's dom/sub game away from the prying eyes of strangers (which I consider a valid position) fails to apply here.

The point is: very few people in this world are even aware that there is such a practice as feeding/gaining related to sexuality. To a vast majority of people, someone who gains weight is simply eating too much/not exercising enough (just like they themselves probably do), and unless the gainer actually mentions it, absolutely no one will know that it is the result of one's dom/sub game.

It is, therefore, totally unlike wearing a dog collar 24 hours a day, since a lot of people if not most would figure out what that's about without any explanation. (That said, I'm old enough to remember when some punks wore one just to pretend that they were rebellious in some way, so there's still some leeway there.)


You can be healthy and fat and unhealthy and skinny. You can be diabetic and skinny and not diabetic and fat. There are people in the world around you who prove these things to be true.

So she can feed him, and make sure that the fats are healthy fats, the proteins are healthy proteins, the carbs are healthy carbs, the sugar is kept down, and he walks a lot or does other things to keep his circulatory system healthy.

You don't hear about healthy fat people in the U.S. - that doesn't sell well, since fat shaming is so popular, and is pushed by so many advertisers (and blog commenters). But, contrary to the cultural myths, yes, it's not difficult to stay healthy and fat. And it's healthier than the people into body modification who spend their energy trying to get close to zero body fat and building huge muscles that are of no use except for looking pretty.