Understanding Feederism: Psychology of Erotic Weight Gain

Feederism – sometimes called feedism or erotic weight gain – is a fetish in which food and fat become central to sexual arousal pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. In feederism, one partner (the feeder) enjoys giving food to the other (the feedee) or encouraging them to gain weight, while the feedee becomes aroused by eating, being fed, and growing fatter pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. This kink often overlaps with related fetishes and dynamics: fat admiration (attraction to obese or larger bodies), stuffing (overeating to the point of fullness), and even elements of dominance and submission (D/s) power play. It’s a multifaceted paraphilia that can include nurturing intimacy on one hand, and control or erotic humiliation on the other, depending on the individuals involved. Feederism is generally considered an atypical sexual interest – a paraphilia – but its psychological roots run deep in human biology, culture, and development

Feederism in a Relationship: A Comprehensive, Ethical Guide

Explore the deep psychological roots of feederism, from neuroscience to evolution, to better understand this complex and often misunderstood fetish.

Feederism.orgClair Horwell

Despite sensational media portrayals (for example, the horror film Feed which depicted non-consensual force-feeding), real-world feederism spans a range from mild and consensual to extreme en.wikipedia.org. Many participants see it not as a mere kink but as part of their identity or lifestyle en.wikipedia.org. Understanding why this fetish exists – without sugarcoating (pun intended) its risks or indulging in simplistic explanations – can help those who experience it to better understand themselves. In this deep dive, we’ll explore feederism through multiple lenses: the neuroscience of sexual arousal and fetish formation, evolutionary psychology theories (such as signaling abundance or fertility and issues of control), comparisons to other fetishes (including body-focused fetishes and D/s dynamics, even noting analogous feeding rituals in animals), developmental psychology insights (early life experiences, attachment, etc.), psychological risks and comorbidities (compulsivity, body image issues, shame, relationship problems), and how psychology/psychiatry classifies these kinks (from historical perspectives to the modern DSM). Throughout, we’ll draw on peer-reviewed research and expert commentary – being direct and analytical – to peel back the layers of this complex fetish.

The Neuroscience of Sexual Arousal and Fetish Formation

Sexual arousal is fundamentally a brain phenomenon. Regardless of the trigger – be it a conventional stimulus like a romantic touch or an unconventional one like a partner eating an entire cake – the pleasure centers of the brain are what register the turn-on. At the core is the reward circuit, where the neurotransmitter dopamine plays a key role in “flipping the switch” of pleasure and desire yourtango.com. When something pleasurable happens (like genital stimulation or eating rich food), dopamine surges in areas like the ventral tegmental area (VTA) and nucleus accumbens, reinforcing whatever stimuli accompanied the pleasure yourtango.com. Over time, this conditioning can literally wire the brain to expect pleasure from those stimuli, creating a learned association yourtango.com. Fetishes are believed to arise in part through this kind of classical conditioning: an originally neutral or non-sexual stimulus gets repeatedly paired with sexual arousal until the brain eroticizes it en.wikipedia.org. In experimental settings, scientists have demonstrated how human males can be conditioned to become aroused by completely arbitrary cues – like a certain geometric shape or an item like a boot – if those are consistently paired with sexual imagery en.wikipedia.org. In other words, the brain’s reward system doesn’t inherently “know” what is a normal versus an odd turn-on; it learns by association and reinforcement en.wikipedia.org.

Feederism can be viewed through this lens of conditioning. Imagine a young person who, during formative years, discovers that the act of eating to fullness or seeing someone gorge on food evokes a strange excitement. If that excitement is followed by masturbation or sexual fantasy, the brain may link the two. Over repeated experiences, the neural pathways for food-related cues and sexual arousal become intertwined. From a neuroscience standpoint, this is plausible because the circuits for hunger and satiety intersect with those for sexual gratification in the brain. The hypothalamus – a deep-brain region – has distinct nuclei governing appetite and sex, but they are closely connected jstage.jst.go.jpjstage.jst.go.jp. For example, the lateral hypothalamus (often called the “feeding center”) not only drives eating behavior but also can trigger sexual behavior when stimulated jstage.jst.go.jpjstage.jst.go.jp. Conversely, the ventromedial hypothalamus (a satiety center) influences female sexual receptivity and, when activated, can suppress feeding jstage.jst.go.jp. This suggests that the brain’s control of eating and mating is intertwined: when one drive is in overdrive, it can modulate the other. It’s no stretch to imagine that in some individuals, these signals cross in enduring ways – so that food, fullness, and fatness become eroticized. Indeed, both food and sex activate strong dopamine release, and people often describe both as primal pleasures. Psychological observations note that people sometimes unconsciously substitute one for the other: for instance, feeling “starved” for affection can lead to overeating for comfort yourtango.com. The brain interprets both eating and sexual intimacy as rewarding, often causing overlapping cravings yourtango.com. In feederism, these normally parallel tracks of pleasure converge.

Another neuro perspective on fetishes is the idea of “cross-wiring” in the sensory cortex. A famous hypothesis by neuroscientist V.S. Ramachandran notes that the brain region processing sensations from the feet lies adjacent to the region for genital sensations – potentially explaining why foot fetishes are among the most common (some accidental neural linkage might make foot stimulation arouse the genitals) en.wikipedia.org. While feederism hasn’t been pinpointed to a specific cortical quirk, it’s intriguing to consider analogous cross-activation: the sensations of oral consumption and stomach fullness (which involve vagus nerve signals, gastrointestinal hormones, etc.) could feasibly become meshed with sexual arousal pathways in susceptible brains. Even without a literal neural adjacency, the brain’s plasticity during puberty – when sexual interests solidify – means intense experiences or fantasies at that time can imprint strongly. Notably, many people with feederism report that their fetish “has been with me for as long as I can remember”, often tracing back to childhood or early teen years when some image or story about eating and getting fat first turned them on collectionscanada.gc.cacollectionscanada.gc.ca. In essence, the neuroscience suggests that feederism, like any fetish, arises from the brain pairing sexual pleasure with specific cues (in this case, food and fatness) and then reinforcing those links until they become a persistent erotic fixation. The “lovemap” – John Money’s term for an individual’s sexual template – gets etched with patterns that might seem bizarre to others, but to the person’s brain, it’s simply what triggers the cascade of arousal. Over time, pursuing these stimuli can become self-reinforcing: dopamine is released, the fetishist feels a “high”, but then needs more stimulation as the brain acclimates yourtango.com. This can lead to escalation, where ever more food, weight gain or extreme feeding scenarios are sought to recapture the same thrill – a cycle seen in many behavioral addictions and kinks alikeyourtango.com.

Evolutionary Psychology: Abundance, Fertility, and Control

From an evolutionary standpoint, feederism appears counter-intuitive at first glance – after all, extreme obesity can hinder health and fertility. However, evolutionary psychology often finds that sexual preferences today can be mismatches or exaggerations of yesterday’s adaptive traits. One prominent theory by Quinsey and Lalumière (1995) posits that many paraphilias are “exaggerated manifestations of more normative and functional mate selection preferences.” pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov In plainer terms, what turns fetishists on might be a blown-up version of something that had real survival or reproductive value for our ancestors. How could this apply to feederism? Consider that for much of human history, food was scarce and starvation a real threat. In that context, a well-nourished body would be a sign of health, fertility, and access to resources. For a man to be attracted to a plump, well-fed woman may have once indicated he’d chosen a mate likely to survive hard times and bear healthy children (women need a certain level of body fat for regular ovulation and sustaining pregnancy) yourtango.com. And for a woman, a man who can provide ample food (or who is well-fed himself) might signal status and capability as a provider. In many cultures, fatness was historically a beauty ideal and a symbol of prosperity. For example, in Mauritania the practice of “Leblouh” involves force-feeding girls to achieve an obese physique for marriage, under the belief that fatter women are more attractive and indicate the family’s wealth youtube.com. Similarly, in some Pacific island cultures and historical epochs of Europe, voluptuous figures signified abundance and desirability. Feederism could be viewed as taking this ancient preference for “signals of abundance” to a fetishistic extreme – reveling not just in a well-fed partner, but in the process of feeding and fattening them beyond what is practical in modern times.

Evolutionary reasoning also introduces the idea of fertility symbols. Certain bodily features associated with fertility – breasts, hips, buttocks – are composed largely of fat. The hourglass figure (a low waist-to-hip ratio) is often cited as attractive to men because it unconsciously signals youth and reproductive potential. Some researchers have even speculated that early human females evolved deposit of fat on hips and buttocks as “honest signals” of energy reserves (one extreme example being steatopygia, the accumulation of fat on the buttocks, found attractive in some groups) deepblue.lib.umich.edudeepblue.lib.umich.edu. A fetish for fat amplifies these fertility cues beyond the norm; a feeder or fat admirer isn’t just content with a curvy figure – they may idealize supersize curves or enormous bellies as hyper-feminine, motherly, or fertile imagery. There’s also a possible subconscious echo of pregnancy: a stuffed, swollen belly from a big meal can resemble a pregnant belly, potentially triggering nurturing or sexual responses related to reproduction. This overlaps with the subset of feederism fantasies where the growing belly is explicitly eroticized, not unlike a pregnancy fetish (except the “baby” is a food baby). Such an attraction can be seen as a “supernormal stimulus” effect – a concept from ethology where animals are drawn to exaggerated versions of natural stimuli. (For instance, certain birds will prefer an artificially large, bright-colored egg over their own normal egg, because the exaggerated features hijack their instinct.) Likewise, an extremely obese body might act as a supernormal stimulus for those whose brains are primed to find body fat arousing: it’s more of the desirable trait (softness, curviness, evidence of caloric surplus) than one would ever encounter in a state of nature, thus provoking a stronger-than-normal sexual response. What might have been an evolutionary advantage in moderation (preferring well-fed mates) becomes, in a modern food-plenty environment, an intense fetishistic focus.

Another evolutionary angle is power and mate control. Sexual behaviors often have a strategy aspect – ensuring paternity/maternity, mate retention, etc. Feederism sometimes entails one partner (typically the feeder) encouraging the other to grow very large, even to the point of immobility in extreme cases. One could speculate that, in a dark twist, this reflects a primitive impulse to “secure” a mate by limiting their mobility or attractiveness to others (a form of mate guarding). If a partner becomes obese enough, they might be less likely to leave or attract rival mates, which could unconsciously appeal to a deeply insecure or possessive part of the feeder’s psyche. Some have likened this to an extreme form of resource investment and control: by providing excessive food, the feeder demonstrates provisioning capability (an attractive trait ancestrally) while also creating a dependency. The historical practice of fattening a bride in some cultures can be seen in this light – it’s ostensibly about making her beautiful, but it also makes her reliant and symbolizes the husband’s dominance or the family’s control. In an Australian study, feederism was debated as “transgressive behavior or same old patriarchal sex”, with the authors noting that the dynamic often mirrors traditional gender power imbalances (usually a man encouraging a woman to gain weight) en.wikipedia.org. They argue that by objectifying and obsessing over the woman’s weight, feederism may reinforce gender inequality and the idea that a woman’s value lies in her physical appearance and subservience to a partner’s desires en.wikipedia.orgen.wikipedia.org. In this view, the fetish is less a quirky evolutionary offshoot and more an exaggeration of age-old patriarchal control – essentially “fattening as fetish” where women’s bodies are literally molded by male desire.

On a more positive note, evolutionary biology also recognizes courtship feeding in nature as a bonding behavior. Many bird species engage in courtship feeding: a male bird will fetch food and tenderly feed the female as part of pair bonding and mate selection. For instance, male terns and cardinals regularly offer food to females; in species like the common tern, the male feeding the female continues through her egg-laying, improving her nutrition and directly boosting reproductive success (females that are fed more lay larger or more eggs) web.stanford.eduweb.stanford.edu. In some birds, the act of the male placing a seed or insect into the female’s beak is a prelude to mating – a ritual that strengthens the bond and signals commitment web.stanford.edu. Evolutionary theorists propose that courtship feeding evolved for multiple reasons: to show the male’s ability to provide, to help the female conserve energy for offspring, and to cement a trusting relationship theraptorlab.wordpress.com theraptorlab.wordpress.com. Humans are certainly not birds, but we share the intuitive association between feeding and affection. “The way to a man’s heart is through his stomach,” the old saying goes – and conversely, many people find it romantic to feed their partner bites of dessert or prepare them a feast. In the language of love, cooking for someone or sharing food is nurturing. Feederism could be seen as sexualizing this nurturing impulse. It takes a behavior that likely has deep evolutionary roots (provisioning food to a loved one) and turns the dial up: the feeder derives erotic pleasure from providing (and sometimes over-providing) sustenance, while the feedee eroticizes the act of receiving it and physically embodying that abundance. In an evolutionary frame, this might tap into primal feelings of security and care – survival assured through your mate’s generosity, to the point that it actually becomes sexually exciting.

In summary, while no one is suggesting our caveman ancestors were engaging in feederism per se, the fetish may owe its existence to several evolutionary threads woven together: a natural attraction to signs of health and plenty, a potential (if controversial) undercurrent of mate control, and the tender dynamics of nurturance in pair-bonding. Feederism exaggerates the significance of food and fat in mating, turning what were once practical or ritualistic aspects of love into the centerpiece of sexual play.

Parallels with Other Paraphilias and Sexual Dynamics

Understanding feederism is easier when we compare and contrast it to other, more well-known kinks and paraphilias. In many ways, feederism is a mash-up of multiple fetishistic elements applied to one context (food and fat). Let’s break down some overlaps:

• Dominance and Submission (D/s): A significant number of feederism relationships have a power-exchange flavor. The feeder often holds a dominant role – they control what, when, and how much the feedee eats – while the feedee adopts a submissive role, relinquishing control and submitting their body to change. This dynamic mirrors classic D/s in BDSM: the dominant enjoys power and influence over the submissive, and the submissive may enjoy feelings of surrender, service, or even objectification. In feederism, food is the instrument of control. As one clinical report put it, feeders derive pleasure “more often because of the relationship of domination, control and dependency that [the feeding] holds” cambridge.org. Having a partner utterly dependent on you for sustenance, perhaps even to the point of immobility, is an extreme form of control. Some scenarios involve force-feeding, tying the feedee up or setting strict rules – blending into sadomasochistic territory where the feeder’s role can become almost sadistic (deriving pleasure from the “suffering” of the feedee’s overindulgence or discomfort), and the feedee’s role masochistic (deriving pleasure from being overstuffed, humiliated, or physically restrained). However, not all feederism is that extreme; some couples frame it in gentler terms of caregiver and receiver, which can resemble a “Daddy/Mommy” and submissive little dynamic or a service-oriented D/s (the feeder as a service top pampering the bottom with food). The key overlap is the exchange of power and the erotic thrill derived from it. Both feederism and D/s play hinge on consent and negotiation in healthy expressions – partners agree on limits (how full, how heavy to grow, etc.) much like a safeword in BDSM. But when consent is lacking or pushed, feederism can become outright abuse. There have been cases, for instance, of a husband covertly or coercively fattening his wife, leading to severe emotional distress and even clinical depression in the wife cambridge.orgcambridge.org. This parallels the worst-case scenarios of abusive domination found in domestic violence. Thus, feederism can oscillate between a mutually satisfying D/s erotic script and a dangerous tool of control. It’s important to distinguish feederism from simple “fat admiration”: liking larger partners (sometimes called adipophilia) does not inherently involve a power differential, whereas feederism often does cambridge.org. In fact, clinicians have noted a need to separate “fat lovers” from true “feeder” dynamics – the former are attracted to fat but don’t necessarily enforce weight gain, while the latter fixate on the act of feeding/fattening with that control element cambridge.org.
• Partialism and Body-Focused Fetishes: Partialism is a fetish focused on a specific body part or feature (like feet, hair, or in this case, body fat). Feederism has strong partialist aspects – the belly is often a primary locus of arousal. Feedees and feeders may be mesmerized by a swollen stomach after a big meal, stretch marks, the jiggle of fat, or sheer body mass. In the clinical literature, feederism is sometimes discussed as a subtype of morphophilia, which means sexual attraction to a particular body shape or trait pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. In morphophilia’s taxonomy, someone could be specifically attracted to obesity (analogous to how others might be attracted to an extreme like amputation – acrotomophilia – or dwarfism, etc.). Indeed, “fat fetishism” or adipophilia (love of fat) is the broad partialism term for being turned on by overweight or obese bodies en.wikipedia.org. Feederism usually implies adipophilia plus the active feeding component. We can compare this to, say, a breast fetish – an individual obsessed with large breasts may encourage a partner to get breast implants or derive sexual pleasure from anything involving breasts. Similarly, a feeder is obsessed with large bellies and overall mass, and they derive sexual pleasure from behaviors that increase those. There are also overlaps with the “squashing” fetish, where someone (often a smaller person) enjoys being sat on or crushed under a very large person’s weight en.wikipedia.org. Squashing fetishists explicitly sexualize the heaviness of a fat partner – the pressure and even risk of being smothered become the thrill. Some feedees enjoy using their added weight to “dominate” in that way, thus flipping the usual script (the feedee becomes the top when squashing, even though they might be the bottom in being fed). Another related practice is “hogging”, which is more derogatory – it refers to certain men who seek out intoxicated or vulnerable fat women for sexual encounters as a kind of cruel game en.wikipedia.org. While hogging isn’t feederism, it shows a darker social paraphilia where fat women are fetishized and humiliated (treated as conquests). It underscores that some fetishes involving fat intersect with humiliation and degradation. Feederism can involve humiliation as a kink: for example, a feeder might tease the feedee about being “piggy” or “gluttonous,” and both partners find this mock degradation arousing. In essence, feederism can encompass worship of the body (revering the belly like a sexual altar) or degradation of the body (taunting the partner for their loss of control) – or an odd mix of both. This is similar to other body fetishes: e.g., foot fetishists might either worship feet or enjoy “dirtying” them in humiliation play; feederism has that duality with fat.
• Food Play (Sitophilia) and Other “Consumption” Fetishes: Feederism is distinct from but related to sitophilia, which is sexual arousal from food in a more general sense. Sitophilic play might include using foods in foreplay (e.g. licking chocolate syrup off a body, incorporating fruits into sex acts) or otherwise enjoying food textures and tastes as part of sex. Feederism takes a more specific route: it’s not just eating food during sex, it’s eating to facilitate weight gain and deriving erotic charge from that transformation. Nonetheless, feederism scenes often do involve what one might call gastronomic eroticism – moans of pleasure from tasting rich foods, the sensuality of a dripping ice cream or a messy feast, hand-feeding each other in a slow, erotic manner. These are aspects any couple might find sexy occasionally, but feederism makes it the main course, so to speak. There are also extreme “consumption” fetishes to compare: vorarephilia (vore) is a rare fetish where someone is aroused by the fantasy of devouring or being devoured entirely (obviously not acted out in reality). This is more of a psychological fantasy fetish, but interestingly, it shares the theme of consumption with feederism – in a symbolic sense, the idea of being consumed or consuming someone blurs the line between sex and appetite. Feederism doesn’t go that far, but some fantasies within feederism narratives might include hyperbolic ideas of a feedee who “can’t stop growing until they burst” or a feeder who wants to “consume” their partner with food. These are symbolic and metaphorical, yet they show how closely linked food and sex can become in some imaginations. Another obscure overlap is with the inflation fetish – where people get aroused by the idea of inflating like a balloon (with air, water, etc.). The classic example is the “blueberry inflation” scene from Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory, which, perhaps not coincidentally, has been cited by some feedees as an early spark of their fetish collectionscanada.gc.ca. In that scene, a girl swells into a giant blueberry; for a young viewer with latent feedist tendencies, it’s a heady mix of gluttony, transformation, and helplessness. Indeed, a participant in one study recalled “getting erections when watching the ‘blueberry’ scene in Willy Wonka” and reading Roald Dahl’s descriptions of force-feeding in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, finding it intensely exciting collectionscanada.gc.cacollectionscanada.gc.ca. This highlights how feederism relates to extreme body transformation fetishes at large, whether by fantastical means (inflation) or real means (fat gain).
• Nurturing/Caretaking Fantasies: On the opposite side of the spectrum from humiliation lies the nurturing aspect. Feeding someone is fundamentally a caring act – we feed infants, children, the sick, or the elderly to take care of them. Some feeder/feedee couples emphasize a gentle, loving dynamic where feeding is an expression of love and attention. This can have parallels with aspects of Adult Baby/Diaper Lover (AB/DL) fetish or age-play, though feederism participants are usually not explicitly roleplaying age difference. Still, a feedee being spoon-fed, praised for finishing their meal, and treated in an indulgent manner can evoke a regressive comfort – tapping into childhood feelings of being cared for by a parental figure. The psychological appeal here is that the feedee feels deeply safe and looked after; the feeder feels trusted and needed. This nurturing kink is akin to those who enjoy playing “nurse and patient” or other caregiver scenarios in sex. The power dynamic in this case is not about sadism but about responsibility and trust. Many feeders describe a genuine pleasure in fostering their partner’s growth, almost like tending a cherished plant or pet, except the “growth” is the partner’s body. They may take pride in their feedee’s gains, seeing it as a joint achievement that symbolizes their bond. It’s worth noting that in the gay gainer community (where typically both partners are male and may both be gaining), this mutual encouragement is often framed as a shared project or identity rather than a one-sided domination en.wikipedia.orgen.wikipedia.org. Terms like gainer (one who gains intentionally) and encourager (one who encourages another to gain) are common, and sometimes both partners switch roles or gain together. This emphasis on encouragement and care shows that feederism isn’t monolithic; for some it’s mostly about lust and control, for others it’s about emotional intimacy and feeling accepted in one’s body.

In summary, feederism intersects with a web of other paraphilias: it has the power-play of BDSM, the body-focus of partialism, the sensory indulgence of food play, and even hints of transformative or taboo fantasies seen in more outlandish kinks. It both overlaps with these categories and yet is unique in combining them around the central motif of food-as-foreplay and fat-as-sexual-endpoint. This overlap is recognized in psychological literature – there’s debate whether feederism is a distinct paraphilia or just a thematic variation of known ones (for instance, is a female feedee essentially engaging in a form of sexual masochism by allowing herself to be fattened and embarrassed, or is she chiefly a morphophiliac who loves fat on bodies? pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov). The likely answer is “a bit of both,” varying by individual. Understanding these parallels helps demystify feederism: rather than a wholly alien concept, it can be seen as an extreme amalgam of familiar sexual themes – control, pleasure, the body as an object of desire, and the intimate act of sharing sustenance.

Developmental Psychology: Early Life Experiences and Attachment

People who develop feederism often recount strikingly early origins for their fetish. Unlike some sexual interests that one might stumble upon in adulthood, feederism tendencies frequently trace back to childhood or puberty, hinting at deep developmental influences. Qualitative research and interviews with self-identified feeders and feedees reveal a common refrain: “I’ve been into this for as long as I can remember… before it was classified and had a name.” collectionscanada.gc.ca Many report that childhood experiences or fantasies planted the first seeds of arousal connected to eating or fat bodies. For example, one feeder in a study remembered that in kindergarten he was fascinated by a chubby girl in his class and “fantasized about keeping her in my playhouse in the backyard and feeding her while she got fatter and fatter.” collectionscanada.gc.ca This same individual even admitted “trying to ‘accidentally’ touch the bellies” of his overweight mother and neighbor as a child, showing an early tactile curiosity toward fat collectionscanada.gc.ca. Another interviewee described “playing ‘fat’” in preschool – stuffing pillows under clothes to appear bigger – and even rubbing against the bed while imagining being fat, a prepubescent form of arousal collectionscanada.gc.ca. These anecdotes suggest that, well before formal sexual maturity, there was a pre-sexual excitement or comfort associated with fatness and feeding scenarios for these individuals. When puberty hit, those fantasies became sexualized explicitly (e.g. the boy who used to stuff his shirt later masturbated about it when he was a teen collectionscanada.gc.ca). Essentially, the fetish “roots” intertwine with early imagination and play, indicating a possible imprinting-like process.

Psychologically, why would a child develop such fascinations? Several hypotheses arise:

• Associative Learning in Childhood: Children are keen observers of what gets attention or causes emotional reactions. If a child notices, for instance, that fatness or overeating elicits strong responses (positive or negative) from adults, it could become imbued with psychological significance. One participant recalled a “very fat neighbor who was fascinating” to him as a child collectionscanada.gc.ca. Perhaps he noticed how others reacted to this neighbor, or simply the visual of an extremely large body was intriguing and a bit taboo. Taboos often have a way of later turning into turn-ons; the forbidden or bizarre can be exciting once the body’s capacity for arousal kicks in. Additionally, children’s media sometimes contain scenes that inadvertently serve as fetish fuel. Feederism enthusiasts frequently cite examples like cartoon characters who overeat or get blown up like balloons, which spurred unusual excitement or fixation. One interviewee mentioned “an episode of ‘Our Gang’ (The Little Rascals) about the kids stealing a box of ‘cheesed apples’ and eating them all. The result was belly inflation. That fascinated me.”collectionscanada.gc.ca , collectionscanada.gc.ca Another got fixated on the gluttonous imagery in storybooks, noting “dog-eared children’s books that made mention of weight gain, force-feeding, or embarrassing reaction to fatness” that he reread obsessively collectionscanada.gc.ca collectionscanada.gc.ca. These examples illustrate accidental early conditioning – the child experiences a mix of curiosity, excitement, maybe a bit of fear or guilt (“why do I like this?”), which only amplifies the intrigue. When puberty and hormones arrive, those mental images are already primed with emotional charge, making them ripe targets for sexualization. It’s akin to how someone might fetishize an object like a shoe if, during childhood, that object was present in moments of emotional intensity or nascent arousal. The neural pathways for sexual pleasure can get tied to whatever is present during key developmental moments.
• Oral Stage and Nurture Dynamics: Classic psychoanalytic theory (Freud’s stages of development) might frame feederism in terms of an oral fixation. Freud proposed that if an infant’s or toddler’s needs in the oral stage (feeding, sucking, mouth-centered gratification) are not properly met or are overindulged, they might develop an oral fixation later – manifesting in behaviors like excessive eating, drinking, smoking, or even oral forms of sexuality. One could speculate that a feeder or feedee might have an unresolved oral-stage issue: the act of eating or feeding is tied to comfort and anxiety relief at a deep level. Turning it sexual could be an evolution of that fixation. While Freud’s theories are largely historical and not empirically proven, the general idea that childhood feeding experiences shape adult feelings has some intuitive appeal. If someone, for instance, felt unloved but noticed that food was a reliable source of pleasure (or the only time they felt safe was when eating grandma’s cookies), they might later seek that same comfort through sexual channels – essentially merging love, comfort, and food into one. In some feederism relationships, the feedee indeed describes a feeling of being “babied” or deeply cared for when fed, scratching a childhood itch for unconditional acceptance. Attachment theory plays into this as well: a person with an insecure attachment might use food or controlling food as a way to cope with fear of abandonment. A feeder might reason unconsciously that if they make their partner dependent (even physically) by fattening them, the partner won’t leave, thus soothing abandonment fears – a pattern that could stem from early parental attachment issues. On the flip side, a feedee might crave being taken care of utterly (like they perhaps weren’t as a child), and thus find solace in surrendering to a feeder’s control, much like a child surrenders to a parent’s care. In these ways, feederism can symbolically replay or compensate for early life dynamics: food = love is a message many of us get early (think of being given treats when you’re sad, or the central role of feeding in parent-infant bonding). Feedees often report a mix of shame and thrill that is reminiscent of adolescent feelings – one woman said, “I can remember being extremely ashamed of myself for it [the fetish] and hating myself… I can remember how hard it was to come out.” collectionscanada.gc.ca She described eventually accepting her desires and even feeling “proud” of them after finding others who share it collectionscanada.gc.ca. The language of “coming out” suggests that for years these individuals carry a secret that formed early, one tied to their core identity, much like sexual orientation or other deeply ingrained traits.
• Stigma and Self-Identity Formation: Developmentally, when a child or teen realizes their turn-ons are very different from their peers’, it can create a sense of otherness that actually reinforces the fetish. They might withdraw socially or keep the interest hidden, nurturing it in isolation. Nearly all fetishists, including feeders/feedees, describe a moment of discovering “I’m not alone – there are others like me.” With the rise of the internet, many found online communities in young adulthood, which was transformative: “Many feel or felt ashamed, embarrassed or weird about their desires and stigmatized identity, and they began to feel less isolated when finding websites online that catered to their stigmatized interest.” collectionscanada.gc.ca. This suggests that in late adolescence or early adulthood, the social context can either alleviate or exacerbate psychological conflict around the fetish. Those who found a community could integrate the fetish into a positive self-concept (e.g., proudly calling themselves a “gainer” or “feedee”), whereas those who didn’t might continue to experience it as a source of anxiety or compulsion. Importantly, just because a fetish is rooted in childhood doesn’t mean it was caused by a single traumatic event or anything so clear-cut. In many cases, it seems to be an aggregation of subtle influences (a mix of inherent temperament, random experiences, family attitudes to food and bodies, etc.). Some feeders/feedees explicitly say they had normal childhoods and can’t pinpoint why they have this fetish – it just clicked for them early on. Modern psychology would frame this as the result of a unique personal developmental path, where a confluence of factors produced a specific erotic focus. It’s analogous to how one person becomes gay, another straight, another kinky – by the time we’re aware of our sexuality, much of its direction has already been set by a stew of biology and experience.

To illustrate, consider attachment to food as comfort: If a child faced emotional neglect but food was plentiful, they might overeat for dopamine and solace, inadvertently sexualizing that coping mechanism later. Or consider early empowerment or disempowerment around food: if a child was strictly food-policed by parents, they might fantasize about rebellion through gluttony (we see in some feederism narratives a focus on “forbidden” eating, which is very tantalizing). Alternatively, if a child was praised for eating or being “big and strong,” they could associate gaining weight with approval and love. These formative scripts can morph into sexual scripts. Developmental psychology also notes the role of fantasy in adolescence – teens often weave elaborate sexual fantasies to explore desires. A budding feedee at 14 might construct vivid stories of being stranded on an island with an endless food supply and a loving feeder, or a feeder teen might write secret erotica about force-feeding a crush. These private fantasies become the playground where the fetish develops complexity and personal meaning.

In sum, feederism’s developmental roots lie in a complex interplay of early exposures, emotional associations, and the sexual maturation process. Many feederism enthusiasts recount almost idyllic origin stories (“I remember watching X and feeling a tingle I didn’t understand”) combined with periods of confusion or shame (hiding it during teen years), and finally integration (embracing it upon finding others or a willing partner). It’s a testament to how our minds can connect dots in surprising ways: something as innocent as a childhood cartoon or a neighbor’s plump belly can, in the privacy of one’s young mind, become the nucleus of a lifelong fetish. And while each person’s story is unique, the patterns of early fascination, secrecy, and eventual self-acceptance are common themes in developmental accounts of feederism.

Psychological Risks and Comorbidities

Feederism may be pleasurable for those involved, but it comes with a host of potential psychological and physical risks. When a sexual interest is as deeply intertwined with eating and body image as feederism is, the line between a consensual fetish and harmful behavior can sometimes blur. Here we outline some key risks and co-occurring issues:

• Health Consequences and Ethical Concerns: The most obvious risk is to physical health. Intentional weight gain, especially to obesity or severe obesity, carries known medical dangers: cardiovascular strain, diabetes, joint problems, reduced mobility, and shorter lifespan, to name a few. Some feedees aim for “immobility” – becoming so large they can barely move – which is extremely dangerous. While research shows most in the feedism community keep immobility as a fantasy rather than a reality en.wikipedia.org, there are documented cases where feeders pushed partners to gain to the point of serious impairment cambridge.org. A feedee might feel pressured (or self-driven by the fetish) to continue gaining even when their rational mind knows it’s harming them. This resembles the dynamic of an eating disorder, except in service of sexual gratification. Indeed, psychiatrists have noted feederism’s dual nature as both a fetishistic behavior and a “disturbance of eating” in some cases cambridge.org. Unlike anorexia or bulimia, the goal here is weight increase, but the compulsive, out-of-control quality can be parallel. Feedees may binge eat far beyond satiety because it’s “hot” to do so, potentially triggering or exacerbating binge-eating disorder tendencies. They might ignore bodily signals to stop, overriding them with fetishistic drive. Meanwhile, feeders can fall into a pattern of addictive behavior as well – constantly seeking to push the weight higher, the portions larger, much like an addict needs a bigger dose. This can lead to escalation, as the brain becomes desensitized and craves more intense stimuli yourtango.com. What started as excitement over a 20-pound gain may evolve into needing a 100-pound gain for the same thrill, for example. Both partners might collude in rationalizing these extremes (“it’s our kink, it’s what we do”), potentially to the detriment of long-term wellbeing.
• Body Dysmorphia and Self-Image Issues: Feederism can create a confusing relationship with one’s own body or one’s partner’s body. In mainstream society, there is strong fat stigma – many people with extra weight experience shame or body dysmorphic disorder (BDD) tendencies (obsessive negative thoughts about their appearance). In feederism, there’s a paradox: the feedee is encouraged to embrace being fat and even take erotic pride in it, yet they are not immune to broader social messages that fat is ugly or unhealthy. This can lead to compartmentalization: in fetish context, their fat is a source of arousal and praise; in public context, it might be a source of embarrassment or health worry. Such cognitive dissonance can be stressful. Some feedees likely do develop a form of dysmorphia where they see their body very differently depending on context – perhaps feeling “not fat enough” when aroused (mirroring how someone with muscle dysmorphia might feel never muscular enough), but at other times feeling “too fat” or hideous when around others. Likewise, feeders might struggle if their preference becomes extreme; they might no longer feel attraction unless their partner is at a very high weight, essentially conditioning their arousal to a narrow window. This can strain a relationship, especially if the feedee’s enthusiasm for gaining fluctuates. If a feedee decides to lose weight for health, the feeder may lose interest or even feel betrayed. Conversely, if the feedee’s health declines, the feeder may feel guilt and conflict: the very body that turns them on is causing suffering. These scenarios can spiral into relationship dysfunction, guilt, and resentment.
• Shame, Secrecy, and Mental Health: As noted earlier, many people with this fetish experience periods of intense shame and secrecy. Hiding an important part of oneself can contribute to depression and anxiety. One woman’s account of hating herself for her desires until she accepted them is telling collectionscanada.gc.ca. Internalized shame can come from various sources: societal fatphobia (“what’s wrong with me that I want to be/get someone fat?!”), the feeling that needing a “bizarre” stimulus like feederism means something is wrong with one’s sexuality, or simply fearing judgment from loved ones. This can lead to double lives – someone might appear to diet and conform in public but secretly binge and gain in private for their fetish. Living with such a split can erode self-esteem and authenticity. There’s also the aspect of consent and emotional well-being: if one partner is more into feederism than the other, the less enthusiastic partner may go along out of love but feel conflicted or used. This can cause emotional distress and resentment. For instance, a case study in Europe recounted a 43-year-old woman who became overweight because of the imposed feeding of her husband, and she ended up with depressive episodes cambridge.org. She hadn’t truly consented in her heart; she complied, and it harmed her mental health. Such outcomes are not uncommon if boundaries and true desires aren’t respected. Even within consensual play, a feedee might later feel regret or shame (“I enjoyed it in the moment, but now I feel disgusting or worry I went too far”). This oscillation can be emotionally taxing.
• Comorbid Sexual or Behavioral Issues: It’s not unusual for someone into feederism to have other kinks or psychological conditions. Hypersexuality or compulsive sexual behavior might co-occur – i.e., an addictive pattern not just with feeding but with pornography, masturbation, etc. If feederism becomes the only or primary route to sexual satisfaction, it might limit one’s ability to enjoy any intimacy outside that niche, which could be problematic if, say, a partner is ill or unavailable (the person might then engage in risky behaviors or extreme porn consumption to get their “fix”). On the flip side, some feedists may suppress their fetish and try to live a “vanilla” life, which can lead to sexual dysfunction (e.g., difficulty getting aroused or orgasming without the fetish stimulus present). In terms of eating-related comorbidities: a feedee might develop binge eating disorder or food addiction, as the lines between fetish play and everyday eating blur. A feeder could develop co-dependent tendencies or even something reminiscent of Munchausen by proxy (deriving emotional gratification from “caring” for someone by making them ill, though in this case it’s sexual gratification by making them fat/unhealthy). These comparisons highlight how feederism can entangle with unhealthy psychological patterns if not kept in check.
• Social and Relationship Strains: Beyond the couple, there’s the social impact. A feedee who gains a lot may face social isolation not just because of weight bias but because their life increasingly revolves around eating and limited mobility. They may withdraw from activities they once enjoyed. Their dependency on the feeder can isolate them (perhaps unintentionally serving the feeder’s desire to have them all to themselves). Family and friends may react with alarm or disgust if they suspect what’s going on, leading to conflict or ultimatums. All this can exacerbate feelings of alienation or “us against the world” mentality in the couple, which sometimes feeds into further fetish activity as a coping mechanism. Additionally, if the relationship ends, the aftermath can be hard: a significantly obese feedee might struggle to lose weight or find a new partner who appreciates their size; the feeder might struggle to find another willing feedee, leading to frustration or risky behavior to fulfill their fetish (e.g., paying someone to gain weight, or manipulating a new partner).

In the psychological literature, feederism isn’t classified as a mental disorder on its own unless it causes clinically significant distress or impairment. When it does, it could be diagnosed under Other Specified Paraphilic Disorder (for example, “paraphilia (feeding fetish) causing harm”). The “harm” here can be self-harm (health impairment) or harm to another (coercion). Therapists who encounter feederism dynamics have to assess consent levels, the health impacts, and the individuals’ feelings about their behavior. There are reports of cases where psychiatric intervention was sought: for instance, if a feedee becomes depressed or a feeder’s behavior verges into abuse, therapy (individual or couples) is warranted cambridge.org cambridge.org.

Coping with shame is a big part of mitigating risk. As noted, many have found solace in communities – turning shame into pride or at least acceptance (“I’m not a monster for wanting this; others feel it too”). That social support can improve mental health. However, an insular community can also sometimes normalize extreme behavior (“everyone else is pushing limits, so maybe we should too”), so it’s a double-edged sword. Some feederism forums emphasize healthy gain and mutual respect, while others glorify reckless weight gain. The influence of these subcultures can amplify or reduce risks.

In summary, while feederism can be a source of intense pleasure and intimacy, it rides a fine line. The same factors that make it exciting – taboo, excess, transformation – also create potential for negative outcomes. Participants need to be very self-aware and communicative. Key mitigations include setting clear limits (for weight/health), having safewords or check-ins during feeding play, maintaining some life outside the fetish (so it doesn’t consume one’s identity), and ideally involving healthcare professionals when weight crosses into dangerous territory. And importantly, addressing the emotional underpinnings: working through any shame or anxiety in therapy, and making sure both partners are genuinely on the same page. Without these precautions, feederism can quickly spiral from a consensual kink into a physically harmful or psychologically destructive cycle. As one psychiatric review concluded, “food imposition can lead to an addiction [to] control” that often requires professional intervention to untangle cambridge.org. Recognizing these risks is not meant to demonize feederism, but to “no sugarcoating” (pun perhaps intended) acknowledge that this fetish, more than many others, carries serious baggage that must be managed responsibly.

Classification in Psychological Literature (DSM and Beyond)

In the realm of psychology and psychiatry, feederism occupies an interesting spot. It’s undoubtedly a paraphilia – meaning an atypical sexual interest – but it’s not one of the commonly listed ones like fetishistic disorder or sexual masochism. Historically, the clinical focus of paraphilias was on more commonly encountered or more legally troubling behaviors (e.g., pedophilia, exhibitionism, fetishism focused on objects, etc.). Feederism, being relatively rare and not often leading to clinical attention unless something goes wrong, doesn’t have a specific name in diagnostic manuals. So how is it classified when it does come up?

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) prior to DSM-5 used the term Paraphilia to denote unusual sexual interests, and Paraphilic Disorder when those interests cause distress or harm. DSM-IV, for instance, included “Fetishism” but explicitly defined it as involving non-living objects or very specific body parts, and introduced “Partialism” for exclusive focus on body partsen.wikipedia.org. One might think feederism could qualify as partialism (attraction to body fat) or as a form of fetishism (attraction to a behavior – feeding). However, DSM criteria were somewhat narrow. DSM-5 (published in 2013) redefined paraphilia more broadly as any persistent, intense sexual interest other than genital stimulation with consenting human partners emedicine.medscape.com, and importantly distinguished that having an unusual sexual interest is not in itself a disorder. It’s only a Paraphilic Disorder if the person feels personal distress about it or if it involves non-consenting individuals or threat of harm. Under DSM-5, feederism would be considered a paraphilia (atypical interest in feeding and gaining), and it would be diagnosed as Other Specified Paraphilic Disorder if someone came to clinical attention because of it (for example, “OSPD, fetishistic feeding behavior, in full remission” or whatever specifics). There is no entry titled “Feederism” in DSM-5, just as there isn’t for many niche fetishes. It falls under the umbrella that captures atypical kinks that clinicians might encounter.

In the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11), which is another diagnostic system, there is a general category for paraphilic disorders as well, with specific named ones and a space for “Other paraphilic disorder involving solitary behavior or consenting individuals” – feederism would slot there if it needed coding. Essentially, the classification is catch-all; the clinician would note the nature of the paraphilia in description.

Psychologically, experts have indeed attempted to categorize feederism using existing frameworks. A case study by Terry & Vasey (2011) explicitly questioned whether female feederism is “a unique paraphilia or a thematic variation” of either morphophilia or sexual masochism pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. Morphophilia refers to erotic obsession with a particular body shape or size (for example, gerontophilia – attraction to the elderly, acromotophilia – attraction to amputees, etc., are all sub-types). If feederism were morphophilia, its closest cousin would be fat admiration (adipophilia) – i.e., the sexual preference for obese bodies. Indeed, many feeders and feedees do have a baseline adipophilia: they are attracted to fat people. In that sense, feederism could be seen as morphophilia with an active component (you don’t just like fat, you like creating fat). On the other hand, from the feedee’s perspective, some see parallels to masochism: a feedee might enjoy discomfort, being overstuffed, being humiliated or being rendered helpless by weight – all of which can be masochistic (deriving pleasure from pain/humiliation). A feedee relinquishing control and being “forced” (even if consensually) to overeat might be experiencing a form of sexual submission or masochism. The literature doesn’t pin it definitively in one camp because feederism can vary so much by scenario. Likely, it often straddles categories – a bit of partialism (for fat), a bit of masochism (for the sub), a bit of fetishism for a specific act (feeding).

Notably, fat fetishism as a broader term has been recognized in sexological discussions. The List of Paraphilias often cites “fat fetishism / adipophilia” and “feederism” as entries, indicating these concepts have entered the academic and clinical vocabulary en.wikipedia.org. They are defined roughly as attraction to overweight or obese people, and arousal from feeding/gaining weight, respectively en.wikipedia.org. This means clinicians and researchers do acknowledge them, even if they are not in the DSM. For instance, the Routledge Companion to Beauty Politics discusses feederism and related practices, noting how these subcultures reflect certain gender and power dynamics en.wikipedia.org. There’s also emerging research: one study in Archives of Sexual Behavior tried to test if feederism is an “exaggeration of a normative mate preference” (we discussed this under evolution) pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. Another paper in European Psychiatry (2008) treated it as a form of “physical and psychological violence” in an abusive context cambridge.org, which underscores that psychiatrists have seen cases severe enough to present as pathology (usually, it’s the negative outcomes like depression or health collapse that bring it to attention).

Historically, fetishistic interests involving body size would have been lumped into generic categories like “Sexual Deviations – Not Otherwise Specified” in older DSM editions. Only a handful of paraphilias were explicitly named in, say, DSM-III or DSM-IV. It wasn’t until the 21st century that academic case reports of feederism appeared (the earliest known in 2009/2011 by Terry & Vasey pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov). So one could say feederism is “recently described” in the literature, though undoubtedly it existed long before under the radar. It didn’t catch the eye of the early sexologists like Krafft-Ebing or Havelock Ellis (they documented a lot of fetishes, but nothing about feeding or fat fetish in their 19th-century texts, likely because the cultural context then highly valued plumpness – it wouldn’t be seen as a “perversion” if a man liked a voluptuous woman, and force-feeding would have been too niche to surface without modern communities).

In modern sexology, feederism is sometimes framed within discussions of the BDSM spectrum or fetish subcultures. For example, the Psychology Today article by Mark Griffiths (2015), “The Fat Fetish, Explained”, explores feederism for a popular audience en.wikipedia.org. Griffiths notes that many within the community see it not as a disorder but as an orientation or identity – something ingrained, not chosen en.wikipedia.org. This aligns with how we now approach paraphilias: not automatically pathologizing unless it causes issues. Indeed, “many within the gainer and feedism communities report viewing [their fetish] more as a lifestyle, identity or sexual orientation” rather than a kinky pastime en.wikipedia.org. That sentiment is important; it parallels how, for instance, the BDSM community fought for the idea that their kink can be a healthy lifestyle, not inherently a sign of mental illness. Feederism, being rarer, doesn’t have the same level of societal understanding, but participants often feel that this is just who I am. From a classification perspective, this means clinicians should approach it respectfully: the goal isn’t to “cure” someone of liking feederism (unless they want to change), but to help them engage in it safely and resolve any internal conflicts.

There have been some attempts to formally categorize subtypes of feederism in research. A Master’s thesis by Bestard (2008) created a “Feederism Continuum” and explored differences between people who identify more as feeders vs. feedees, men vs. women in the community, etc. It also looked at stigma management. While not DSM-level classification, this sociological approach classifies roles and identities within feederism rather than diagnosing it. For instance, terms like “gainers” (those actively gaining weight for pleasure) and “encouragers” (similar to feeders, often used in the gay community context) are part of an internal classification system within the subculture en.wikipedia.org. Understanding these roles is important for professionals too, because the psychology of a feeder might differ from a feedee in significant ways (e.g., one is more about control, the other about submission or self-image).

In summary, feederism in the clinical literature is recognized as a paraphilia but not an official distinct diagnosis. It intersects with categories of fetishism, partialism, and possibly coercive paraphilias if non-consensual. Historically omitted from manuals, it now finds a place in academic case reports and discussions of “other paraphilias.” Any formal classification will usually describe it along the lines of “sexual arousal from feeding another person or oneself to the point of weight gain”. The DSM-5’s stance would be: if the person with this interest is distressed by it or it’s causing harm (e.g., severe health issues, non-consensual abuse), then it’s a paraphilic disorder to be addressed; if they’re not distressed and it’s consensual, then it’s simply an atypical variation of human sexuality – no treatment needed except perhaps support or education. This nuanced view is a step forward from older pathological models. It allows feederism to be talked about openly and studied, rather than just condemned. And indeed, the growing body of work (no pun intended) on feederism in psychology and sociology is bringing it out of the shadows. By classifying and examining it, professionals can better help those who have this fetish to navigate it in a healthy, consensual way, or provide therapy if they wish to modulate their behaviors.

Expert Perspectives and Community Insights

To ground our understanding, let’s look at what experts and those with lived experience have said about feederism. The academic research on feederism, while limited, provides some intriguing insights, and the testimonies of community members shed light on the subjective experience.

Scientific and Clinical Perspectives: Early academic case studies, such as the work by Lesley Terry and Paul Vasey, aimed to document feederism in a rigorous way. In 2011, they published a case report of a woman feedee, noting the ambiguity in categorizing her fetish: was it unique or a variant of known paraphilias? pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov They pointed out that “very little is known about this population” pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov – underlining how understudied feederism was at the time. By 2012, Terry et al. conducted a laboratory study showing non-fetishists pictures of feeding and weight gain scenarios to see if there’s a “normal” arousal component to it. They found that, physiologically, people without the fetish did not get genitally aroused by feeding imagery, though both men and women subjectively rated those images as a bit more arousing than completely neutral images pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. This suggests a spark of common interest (on a mental level, many people find the idea of food in romance at least somewhat appealing), but the full sexualization – the genital arousal – seems to be unique to actual feedists. The researchers discussed the “discordance” between physical and psychological arousal in this context and suggested that feederism indeed appears to be an exaggerated sexual interest not present in most people pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. From an evolutionary angle, they didn’t find strong evidence that everyone is secretly turned on by feeding – it’s more nuanced. Kelly Suschinsky, one of the co-authors, has done related work on sexual concordance (agreement of mind and body arousal) and feederism was an interesting test case for that.

Another perspective comes from clinical psychiatry cases like the Portuguese team (Mateus et al., 2008) who described feederism in the context of an eating disorder clinic cambridge.orgcambridge.org. They emphasized that feeders often have a domination aspect and that it can be a form of “addiction to control” requiring a systemic therapy approach cambridge.org. They also made a clear note to differentiate feederism from simple fat admiration cambridge.org – a reminder that not everyone attracted to plus-size individuals is into the fetishistic feeding aspect. This is echoed by sexologists who note that many couples simply have a preference for a bigger partner (just as others prefer a certain hair color, etc.) with no interest in deliberate weight change or feeding.

Dr. Mark Griffiths, a psychologist known for researching unusual addictions and behaviors, wrote a popular summary citing that feederism is “very popular among a minority of men” and explored its various forms en.wikipedia.org. He outlined sub-practices like squashing and noted the prevalence of feederism especially in heterosexual relationships with male feeders and female feedees en.wikipedia.org, though also acknowledging the significant feederism subculture in gay male communities (gainers and encourages) en.wikipedia.org. Griffiths and others have observed that these practices can mirror societal power structures (male dominance, female submission)en.wikipedia.org, but also sometimes invert them (e.g., a smaller male feedee with a dominant big female feeder is less common but possible).

Sociologist Kathy Charles (2015) analyzed feederism in context of media and society. She pointed out how media portrayals often cast it as taboo and extreme en.wikipedia.org, which influences how the public perceives it. Mainstream coverage tends to sensationalize immobile feedees or abusive feeders, whereas in reality, research “has shown that the overwhelming majority of feedism relationships are fully consensual and immobility is mostly kept as a fantasy.” en.wikipedia.org. This is an important corrective from an expert: despite the edge cases that get attention, consent and mutual enjoyment are the norm in feederism circles, not violent coercion. Charles’s work, along with community surveys, suggests that many couples set practical limits (like stopping gaining at a certain point) and emphasize the shared pleasure rather than unilateral control.

From a sex therapy perspective, some therapists have weighed in through articles or blogs. The consensus is that if both partners are happy and aware of the risks, the fetish can be part of a healthy sex life, but issues arise if there’s coercion, severe health decline, or debilitating shame. Treatment for those seeking help might involve techniques used for other fetishes or compulsions: for instance, cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) to address maladaptive thoughts (“I can only be loved if I’m fatter” or “I must feed my partner or they won’t stay”), or couples therapy to negotiate conflicts (perhaps one partner wants to dial it back, the other doesn’t). There isn’t a specific “feederism therapy protocol,” so clinicians adapt from adjacent issues like treating a fetish causing marital problems or treating an eating disorder, depending on the angle.

Voices from the Community: Many feeders and feedees have shared their experiences on forums, interviews, and even academic studies (like the thesis by Bestard, which collected firsthand accounts). Some key themes emerge:

• Relief at Discovering Others: A pivotal moment for a lot of people was finding a website, forum, or magazine that mentioned feederism. They describe the enormous relief of “I’m not the only one!”. This often happened in late teens or adulthood. Before that, many felt like “aliens” with a bizarre secret. One person said they “learned to only discuss this interest with…” those who understand, indicating careful disclosure collectionscanada.gc.ca. This parallels other stigmatized identities – finding a community reduces isolation and can improve mental well-being.
• Rationales and Self-Understanding: Feedees often explain what they get out of it in emotional terms: feeling loved unconditionally, sexually adored despite (or because of) their size, experiencing the euphoria of indulgence without judgment, and thrill from pushing limits. One feedee framed it as “a fetish or fascination where two people… [indulge together].” collectionscanada.gc.ca. Feeders sometimes express a mix of nurturing and selfish delight: a common sentiment is “I love to see my partner happy and satisfied, and growing bigger because of my care.” At the same time, they may also acknowledge a dominant streak: “It’s a turn-on that I have this power to transform their body.” In the Bestard study, respondents highlighted fantasy as huge – many said the reality is often tamer, but their fantasy life is rich with exaggerated scenarios (like gaining to immense sizes, or being kept like a pampered pet – things they might not literally do but love to imagine) collectionscanada.gc.ca collectionscanada.gc.ca. That separation of fantasy and reality is a coping strategy; it lets them enjoy the mental thrill without necessarily crossing certain lines in real life.
• Stigma Management: People in the feederism community develop ways to handle stigma. Some choose to be “out” about it in their social circles, others keep it strictly secret. In the thesis, some noted they “use discretion in discussing feederism” except with those they trust collectionscanada.gc.ca. A few have even become minor public figures or educators on the topic, writing blogs or giving interviews to demystify it. Within the community, there can unfortunately be in-fighting or judgment too – for example, some might criticize those who go to health-threatening extremes, while others say “don’t kink-shame, even if I want to be immobile it’s my choice.” Community norms often encourage respecting limits and promoting safe feeding (e.g., advice like ensuring the feedee gets medical checkups, or balancing high-calorie foods with some nutrition).
• Relation to Empowerment or Oppression: Interestingly, different individuals interpret feederism’s impact on them in opposite ways. Some feedee women feel empowered – they reject society’s dictate to be thin and instead take ownership of their body by making it as they and their partner desire. They relish being treated like a goddess of gluttony, worshipped for what others vilify. This can be body-positive in a countercultural way. On the flip side, other women (and feminist commentators like Saguy en.wikipedia.org) feel it’s disempowering, that it reduces them to an object (a living sex doll of fat) and panders to an even more controlling male gaze. Both perceptions can be valid depending on the relationship’s dynamics. The crucial factor is consent and whose idea it was. A woman who chooses to indulge and grow may feel liberated; a woman who is pressured by a partner will feel oppressed. Therefore, community voices stress autonomy: the best feederism scenarios are those where the feedee is enthusiastically on board and has agency in the process (even if the fetish role is “submissive,” they’ve chosen that role freely).
• Psychological Motifs: Some feedees describe the fetish in terms of craving and fulfilment – that the desire to be filled (emotionally and physically) is at the core. Some feeders describe it in terms of creation and achievement – like they are artists and the canvas is the partner’s body, each pound gained is a reward. These are quite poetic interpretations that show how people integrate the fetish into their personal meaning-making. For certain couples, feederism is deeply intertwined with their romantic bond: they might say “It’s how we express love. Baking him his favorite pie and seeing his bliss – that is our intimacy.” These qualitative perspectives highlight that for participants, feederism is often much more than a kink you do occasionally; it can be central to the relationship’s identity.

One notable insight from research is that feederism doesn’t typically stem from sexual abuse or trauma. Unlike some paraphilias where there’s a higher incidence of childhood sexual trauma (e.g., some studies found correlations for hypersexual behaviors), feederism appears more connected to those benign early fascinations we discussed than to abuse. In fact, one study explicitly found “no associations between sexual attraction and disordered eating” in feeders; i.e., having this fetish didn’t necessarily mean the person had an eating disorder in the clinical sense researchgate.net (though case reports show it can sometimes lead to disordered eating outcomes, it’s not driven by the same psychology as anorexia/bulimia). It also noted that awareness of sociocultural norms valuing thinness was present – feeders/feedees KNOW their desire is counter-cultural, and they live in the same world of ubiquitous diet messages – yet they pursue it anywaט. This awareness can cause cognitive dissonance, but many resolve it by compartmentalizing (public vs private life as mentioned) or by embracing a subcultural identity (like being part of the fat acceptance movement or “body positivity,” where larger bodies are celebrated).

To wrap up expert and insider perspectives: communication and consent emerge as the non-negotiable foundation for any healthy feederism practice. Experts emphasize negotiating limits and monitoring health, and community members emphasize trust and understanding. A feedee entrusts not just their body but often their whole life trajectory to a feeder if they engage deeply (significant weight gain can affect career, family relations, etc.), so it’s a profound act of trust. When that trust is respected, some describe feederism as intensely bonding: “We have this secret world where every meal is foreplay and every pound is like a shared secret,” one couple might say. Psychologist Danielle Lindemann, who studied fetishes, noted that fetishes can serve as a powerful form of intimacy because it’s something very private and specific you share with only one or a few people – almost like a language only you two speak. That can increase relationship cohesion.

In sum, experts provide frameworks to understand feederism (tying it to known theories, cautioning about risks) and community voices give flesh to those bones (pun intended). Both converge on a view of feederism as multi-dimensional: it has its thrilling, fulfilling side and its dangerous, challenging side. It can be “just another way consenting adults find pleasure,” or it can become pathological – context and execution determine the outcome. The goal for many is to maximize the former and avoid the latter, using knowledge (like what we’re compiling in this article) to navigate it.

Conclusion and Self-Reflection

Feederism is a vivid example of how diverse and complex human sexuality can be. It entwines basic drives – hunger, intimacy, pleasure, power – into a singular fetish that can bewilder outsiders yet feel completely “right” to those who experience it. We’ve journeyed through neuroscience, evolution, psychology, and personal narratives to unravel the roots of this kink. What emerges is that feederism is not a random aberration; it’s an exaggerated echo of very human themes: the joy of food, the allure of abundance, the comfort of care, the thrill of transgression, and the intimate dance of dominance and submission. Understanding these foundations can help reduce the shame or confusion a person might feel about having such desires. It situates feederism as part of the natural spectrum of sexuality – not an alien impulse, but one that touches on ancient wiring (our brain’s reward learning), deep-seated symbols (food as love, fat as fertility), and personal life stories (childhood experiences and emotional needs).

For those who have feederism as part of their lives, either as a private fantasy or a shared practice, it’s crucial to engage in self-reflection. Here are some frameworks and questions that might help individuals reflect on their own psychology and navigate their fetish in a healthy way:

• Identify the Core Appeals: Ask yourself what aspect of feederism excites you the most. Is it the sensory pleasure of eating and fullness? The visual of a growing belly or thicker thighs (aesthetic attraction to fat)? The power exchange of controlling or surrendering? Or the emotional aspect of being cared for or needed? Recognizing your primary drivers can help you communicate with a partner and also understand your own motivations. For instance, if the emotional nurturing is key, you’ll want a partner who truly provides that warm, loving vibe – not just someone who force-feeds you mechanically. If the power dynamic is key, you’ll explore the consensual BDSM side more deeply. Knowing your core appeal also lets you find alternative expressions if needed (e.g., if health prevents active gaining, maybe roleplay or padding can satisfy the visual aspect without actual weight gain).
• Trace the Personal Roots: Reflect on your life history to see if you can connect any dots. Did you have significant experiences around food or weight growing up? How was food used in your family – as love, reward, punishment? What were early memories that made you feel something akin to what you now find arousing? This isn’t to pathologize your fetish, but to personalize it. Understanding, for example, that “I often felt lonely as a kid, and I remember sneaking snacks to feel better; now being fed by someone who loves me hits that same spot in my soul” can be an empowering insight. It frames the fetish as part of your coping and relational blueprint. Likewise, a feeder might recall “I was always made to feel small or helpless in childhood – perhaps having this authority now in a sexual way is why it’s so intoxicating”. These connections can guide you in healing any old wounds (maybe through therapy) or at least being conscious so that the fetish play doesn’t become a maladaptive crutch. The goal is to engage in feederism out of positive desire, not negative compulsion.
• Assess the Impact on Well-Being: It’s important to honestly assess if feederism is adding to your life or starting to detract from it. Ask yourself and your partner: Is this fetish strengthening our bond or creating tension? Are we both still healthy – physically and mentally? Do we still have a life outside of this (other interests, social connections), or has it become all-consuming? Periodically take stock. If you find, for example, that your social anxiety has worsened because of weight gain, or one partner is feeling objectified rather than loved, those are yellow flags. You might need to recalibrate (slow down the gaining, incorporate more non-fetish intimacy, etc.). Conversely, if you find it’s brought you confidence (maybe the feedee feels sexier and more desired than ever) or brought you closer (“we communicate and trust deeply because of this”), that’s a green light that you’re on a healthy track. Use such check-ins to ensure informed consent is ongoing – what was okay a year ago might need adjustment now. Open dialogue is key: a feedee should feel safe to say “I think I need a break from gaining” and a feeder should feel safe to express their needs too (“I miss that aspect, how can we satisfy it in a different way maybe?”).
• Balance Fantasy and Reality: Acknowledge the difference between what you fantasize and what you actually want. It’s okay – normal, in fact – for fantasies to be more extreme. You might get turned on by stories of someone being fattened to immobility or by imagining yourself double your current weight. But you may have zero real intention of going there. Recognize that line. Couples can even make it fun: enjoy the wild fantasies in dirty talk or roleplay (“I’m gonna feed you until you can’t walk, you’d like that, wouldn’t you?”) while both understand that in real life, you have a mutual limit of, say, X weight or Y level of fullness. Treat fantasy like a sandbox where anything goes, and reality as a negotiated space where you pick and choose the elements that are safe and satisfying. Problems arise when people blur the two without agreement – e.g., a feeder starts pushing the feedee towards the fantasy goal without recalibrating to reality constraints. Regularly revisit what your real goals are (if any; some just go with the flow). Are you aiming for a certain size? How will you know when to stop? Is this a short-term exploration, or do you see it as a lifelong lifestyle? These conversations prevent drift into unintended territory.
• Manage Shame and Seek Support if Needed: If you still struggle with shame or guilt, consider confiding in a trusted friend, joining online forums under a pseudonym to talk with peers, or seeking a kink-aware therapist. There are therapists who understand alternative sexualities and won’t pathologize you for having this fetish. Therapy can help if, for instance, you feel guilt after every feeding session, or if you’re a secret feedee hiding it from a spouse and it’s eating at you. On the flip side, if you feel perfectly at peace with your kink but face external judgment (family, doctors, etc.), it can help to have a support network that affirms you. Ultimately, owning your desire (“yes, it’s unusual, but it’s part of me”) tends to reduce its power to cause shame. Think of it similarly to how LGBTQ individuals often go through a process of pride – fetishists can too, in their own way. As long as you are careful and consensual, you have the right to pursue what makes you happy sexually.
• Plan for the Future: Especially for feederism, because it can involve long-term body changes, it’s wise to discuss future scenarios. What if the feedee develops health issues – how will the feeder adjust? What if the feeder loses interest or can’t participate (will the feedee continue alone or want to lose weight)? If the couple wants children, how would pregnancy and child-rearing mesh with feederism activities (practical stuff like, can the feedee be active enough for childcare if very large)? While it might feel unsexy to talk about these, doing so shows mutual care beyond fetish kicks. It ensures that feederism exists in your life by choice, not inertia.

In conclusion, feederism’s psychological foundations are a tapestry of human cravings – for food, for love, for control, for pleasure. By examining the threads (neuroscience, evolution, personal history, social context), we see that nothing about it is inexplicable or “crazy”; it all ties back to the ways humans are wired to seek reward, form bonds, and find meaning. For those who find themselves drawn to this fetish, knowledge truly is power. It allows you to contextualize your desires (“I’m aroused by X because it links to Y in me, and that’s okay”), to communicate them without as much fear, and to practice them in safer, more fulfilling ways. Whether one ultimately embraces feederism as a lifestyle or decides to dial it back, understanding its roots helps in making informed, authentic choices.

In the end, the measure of feederism (or any kink) should be: Does it bring net happiness and connection for those involved, or net harm and isolation? With open eyes and honest hearts, it’s possible to maximize the former. Feederism, like the richest of desserts, can be a source of exquisite pleasure – but one must savor it mindfully to avoid the pitfalls of overindulgence. By learning its psychological recipe, we can better support those who partake, ensuring that their experiences are as healthy and empowering as they are intensely satisfying.

Sources:

• Terry, L.L., & Vasey, P.L. (2011). Feederism in a woman. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40(3), 639-645. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
• Terry, L.L. et al. (2012). Feederism: an exaggeration of a normative mate selection preference? Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41(1), 249-260. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
• Bestard, A.D. (2008). Feederism: An exploratory study into the stigma of erotic weight gain. (Master’s thesis, University of Waterloo). collectionscanada.gc.ca collectionscanada.gc.ca
• Mateus, M.A. et al. (2008). Feeders: Eating or sexual disorder? European Psychiatry, 23(S2), S184. cambridge.orgcambridge.org
• Fat Fetishism (Adipophilia) and Feederism. Wikipedia: List of Paraphilias. en.wikipedia.org (for term definitions)
• Saguy, A.C. (2012). What’s Wrong with Fat? (context of societal views; quoted in Routledge Companion to Beauty Politics) en.wikipedia.org
• Charles, K., & Palkowski, M. (2015). Feederism: Eating, Weight Gain, and Sexual Pleasure. (Chapter in an anthology on sexuality; as referenced in Fat Fetishism Wikipedia) en.wikipedia.orgen.wikipedia.org
• Beccia, C. (2023). “Got Kink? The Strange Neuroscience of Fetishes.” Medium. (Discusses conditioning and brain region theories) en.wikipedia.orgen.wikipedia.org
• Courtship Feeding in Birds. Stanford University & BTO reports on how male birds feed females during mating. web.stanford.edu (for evolutionary analogy)
• Participant quotes from Bestard (2008) interviews on childhood origins and stigma. collectionscanada.gc.ca collectionscanada.gc.ca
• Diagnostic Criteria. DSM-5, APA (2013): Paraphilic Disorders (distinction between paraphilia vs disorder) en.wikipedia.orgen.wikipedia.org.