not much to say here. was wondering if people knew any Feabie users who *aren't* fucking unhinged, and are actually decent fun to chat/sleep with

>>19532 (OP)
I'd say a pretty big portion of users are decent. Like any social media the crazies always are the loudest and stand out but I've spoken to plenty of women on there long term and even met a few who were nice, normal, pleasant people. Just avoid the people on there shouting nonsense into the void and be polite when you iniate conversation and you'll meet good people on there.

90% of all the women I’ve met/slept with off of feabie were very normal, with pretty standard lives and good jobs/hobbies. Yeah some of them were wider than a damn door or could barely fit in my car but for the most part they were normal.

You can tell who the crazy ones are pretty easily.

>>19532 (OP)
The "good ones" exist and are just the regular people in your local area.
There exists nobody of note on feabie that is not cringeworthy because being noteworthy on feabie is cringe.

You can just look at red flags, and find the opposite of that.
>Doesn't constantly post their thoughts on the feed, though this does make them a bit harder to find
>Isn't on the Verified Content Creator list. Being on it isn't necessarily the mark of a bad person, but they're more likely to not be interested in, as you put it, chat/sleeping with
>Isn't closely associated with the people that are unhinged

Someone once told me I’m “too good for Feabie” lmao

I had mostly pleasant interactions with a lot of girls on there, "power user" types included. At least when I was on there (2018-2020ish) there were plenty of girls who would shell out nudes and let you call them a pig if you, like, just acted normal and made smalltalk with them for a couple days first.

>>19575
I will say the one girl who is actually as batshit nuts as bbwchan makes her out to be: ColdStone.

>>19577

Tea please

>>19571
Normally saying that oneself is "too good" for something is a red flag, but considering how garbage the people on feabie are I'm not sure this guideline applies

>>19577
Really? I remember in my time on feabie, she seemed cool and fairly down to earth. Pretty damn funny, too. Unless things are changed in the couple years since I left!

>>19575 did Rayzor figured how fucked she is yet?

>>19589

It’s a fallacy because if I was too good for Feabie I wouldn’t be on Feabie.

>>19583
Honestly yeah she was pretty witty and fun to banter with, but her mood swings and self-loathing were brutal to deal with even as a casual online friend. We used to talk and I bought her dinner a couple times, but I cut her off after she snapped at me for viewing her as some kind of feedist/sexual object. Mind you, she was the one who suggested I get her food. Truthfully I'm glad she seems to have found happiness and deleted her account; girl was a classic case of "terminally online".

Okay, one legit "good one": the absolute queen KateRugburn. I would ruin my life for that woman.

>>19834
I had Kate’s private folder, only thing I miss about that wretched website

>>19834
KateRugburn is legit. Well-adjusted person with a good job, who fattened themselves up to extreme proportions and into the kink? Amazing.

>>19846
>well adjusted
>themselves
I'll take your word for it that she is well adjusted in other aspects of her life.

>>19856
she uses she/her pronouns, people just use the singular "they" to indicate when they're talking in a general sense

May as well throw out Divine91 as one of the good ones, since I'm thinking of it.
>Genuinely pleasant to converse with, has minimal visible emotional baggage
>Doesn't treat the site as a personal blog, instead primarily opting for dad jokes more than anything else
>Has pretty much avoided every single episode of site drama
>Is pretty cute, if not generally physically unremarkable outside of height
Only issues are that she isn't really too active nowadays, and she's not primarily fixated on the kink side of things, if you care about that sort of thing.

>>19846
>KateRugburn is legit. Well-adjusted person with a good job, who fattened themselves up to extreme proportions and into the kink? Amazing.

I didn't know about this gal! She does seem hot, tell me more.

>>19873
No? Themselves is grammatically incorrect in that sentence because it's specifically about KateRugburn. It should be fattened "Herself".

>>19924
it's not grammatically incorrect, it's to signify that such a person in general is a rare, excellent find

>>19924
Jag hight Beowulf, och minne pronouns are þei/þem

>>19935
It is incorrect. Even in that context it is incorrect.

If it was general referring to many "Themselves" plural could be correct, but it says the singular "person"

But, again, it is referring to a specific person- even in the context of examining her to a "type"

>>19973
the use of a singular "they" dates back well over half a millennium. we aren't speaking French, you can use "themselves" for a singular indefinite

>>19981

Yes, "They" can be singular. They didn't say "fattening They up" they said "themselves". Themself is singular in that use. It's a common mistake as They has origins as a plural.

>>19981
A singular they is fine when you are speaking in general terms or when you don’t know the sex of the person you are speaking about.

When people refer to themselves as they/them it’s usually straight people trying to wedge their way into the lgbt community through neo pronouns or whatever.

Christ what a stupid thread derailment, even by bbwchan standards

>>20002
Stupid? No,no,no my friend... this was an incredibly intellectual discussion between giants of intellect. All of us showed our dedication to the truth and the spirit of learning.

This thread was not "Derailed"... for my friend, WE built the rails.

Weird thread.

>>19577
Weird post. The most reliable lolcow in the other thread. Weird thread altogether. Green for astroturf?