I recently read a guide on deviantart on how to convince "anyone" to gaining weight. It was an uncomfortable read since the guide was aimed at how to indirectly manipulating people, so much so that the first page is dedicated to a disclaimer agreement and your typical "great power great responsibility", "dont kill the messenger" crap.

As a depravity test I am curious to know what people think of such tactics.

it's morally wrong to manipulate someone into changing their body and lifestyle against their real wishes. your partner is supposed to be your rock, the most meaningful and trusted person in your life and the mother of your future children. Feederism is fun, but a meaningful and fair relationship with your spouse is much more meaningful and forsaking that to get your dick hard is not only morally wrong, it's stupid and short-sighted too imo. keep it to roleplay/bedroom talk and don't make your partner obese without their full and informed consent :/

>>38134 (OP)
It’s indefensible, this isn’t a debate. I assume given the forum (DA) it’s for fantasy purposes.

>>38138
Its very yikes
https://www.deviantart.com/plumpum/art/How-to-Fatten-Anyone-921314556

I am a good boy that donates to charity and idc, I just want a fatter world.


>>38149

You reddit homo, that guide is as innocent as can be. Nice clickbait

Not only is it morally questionable, it's less hot. I know there aren't as many female feedees as male feeders out there but I'd rather be with a girl who wanted to be fat and could lean super hard into the whole
"Ughh I'm getting sooo fucking fat... I'm such a bloated cow. You like that don't you? Tease me" etc etc etc
Over a girl who's being fattened without consent or knowledge and thus is likely incredibly insecure. Not to mention the stress and guilt that would come from hiding this for months on end.
If you're going to put such an effort into converting a normie girl because you can't find a feedee, than spend it on trying to get her into the kink or at least indulge in it a bit rather than secretly fattening. It saves her from insecurity, you from being a horrible person and the rest of us from another fear mongering story about "le evil feeders" who conspire to secretly fatten up every woman on earth.

Just read it its fucking gay and dumb. Really low effort. Bad.

>>38166
This isnt an issue with the entertainment value or effort of the text. The issue is that it promotes being manipulative and gives clear instructions on how to be manipulative in a specific way.

>>38167
Is it really though? Women aren't retarded. If a woman has a problem with her weight or with the way in which a man treats her she has every opportunity to change her habits and break off the relationship. The "tactics" listed in the text could hardly be described as predatory or evil. If a woman enjoys indulging in the foods that she likes, and accepts the offerings given to her by an affectionate spouse, who is really to blame when she gets a little softer?
The way that you assume women to just be helpless victims who don't have any agency or self-awareness is totally patronizing and honestly gay. "Oh no I just gained 300 lbs without even realizing it! It must have been the evil man who did it to me and not my own freely-made decisions!" As if. Women know when they're getting fat. If they have a loving partner who meets their needs they just don't care. In the model laid out by deviantfag, both parties have consent, regardless of what his retarded document says.

>>38170
I have no fucking clue how you interpreted my two sentence message as me patronizing woman. If someone doesn’t want to do something, and you do subtle things to subconsciously make them change their mind. Then that is manipulation. The author urges caution when doing these subtle moves which implies that said moves must be discreet.

You should always try to convince them directly and see what they say. If you make your case and they say no then you should move on.

The document sets out guidelines to prey upon weaknesses, reduce the time they spend moving around and doing things, and develop unhealthy eating habits.

“Everyone has weaknesses, although it sounds deviant, you must exploit those weaknesses to accomplish your goal.”

“Tread cautiously, she is very vulnerable in this transitional phase. Don't push too hard or it could backfire.”

“Let's be clear, fat girls are fat because they eat high calorie foods in excess quantity and for emotional reasons, PERIOD! In steps one – three, you have started to condition her to accept high calorie foods as acceptable at times and that a small amount of weight gain is actually desirable. If you did your groundwork correctly it is time now to crank things up.”

You are honestly coping if you think this guide isnt aimed at manipulation.

It's morally abominable.

Guarantee the poster here is the OP trying to get clicks and people to buy his “premium download”. Fake and gay

>>38183
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/i8oz847p9ql9r0o5o4g7w/df8iyv0-c7f422dc-d3cd-4fe8-8024-311bf2ee80c8.pdf?rlkey=1kojpeupvuwovhrbk2wa737yk&dl=0

>>38190
I was able to circumvent the paywall and download the PDF

>>38174
All of my original arguments still stand. I'm not saying that these tactics are not technically "manipulative". What I'm asking is: how could this kind of "manipulation" be considered morally reprehensible when every single thing the woman does is HER CHOICE. Women know the consequences of eating cake and being lazy. If a woman didn't want to get fat then she wouldn't choose to do these things.

Even though the document is written to sound sneaky and pervy these are really just things that pampering loving partners do and none of these things are possible without the woman's consent every step of the way. Never do you shove the cheesecake down her throat against her will. She chooses to eat it herself with full knowledge of the consequences of doing so

>>38200
I argue that the choice is either rigged or an illusion. All of our choices are a result of causality, we never make choices in a vacuum. She didnt choose to eat the cake consciously. The decision was already made for her when the feeder started to prey upon her emotions, weaknesses, and habits.

As a broad example of this. Someone was never given the choice to sleep at night and wake up in the morning. Sure the choice exists in a vacuum, but you know for a fact that the choice is weighed against you do to circadian rhythms, your job, your prior habits formed during your school years, when other people are awake, etc.

>>38203
>the choice is either rigged or an illusion.
It isn't rigged at all. If a woman doesn't want to eat a piece of cake, she won't. Simple as that. If a woman has a problem with her partner offering her food she can choose to leave the relationship. No one is forcing her stay.

Also, your analogy about sleep is fucking retarded. I can choose to stay awake until I am physically incapable of doing so. Are you saying that women are physically incapable of refusing food when it's offered to them? Again, your perspective of women is totally infantilizing. You believe that women have absolutely zero control over their actions, so whenevthey make a decision about their body or their relationship you assume that they must be "brainwashed" and that they don't know what they're doing.

Women know that eating makes you fat. The fact that you deny them this basic level of comprehension is absolutely faggotous

>>38221
This can apply to men as well.

You completely missed the part where i said the choice to sleep still exists, but the decision to stay up is weighed against you due to various external factors.

What i am trying to explain here is that while yes the choice still exists for her to choose to get fat or not, the problem lies in that the feeder is trying to manipulate external factors in order to subconsciously convince her. Usually done through formation of habits, exploitation of knowledge of her favorite foods, and by conditioning her emotions to associate eating with being happy.

>>38237
Again you just think women are retarded and have absolutely no idea what's going on around them. Classic white knight chauvinist.

>>38238
wife: i don’t want to be fat stop leaving candy around the house for me to snack on.
you: *continues leaving candy and wife gets fat*

hurr durr she had the choice to not eat it so it’s not morally wrong to go against her wishes ackshually it would be sexist to stop bekuz that implies she iz a gremlin without free will ckekmayt white knights

what a stupid fucking argument from an idiot who doesn’t know what empathy and caring for your partner means.

>>38240
>you: *continues to leave candy and wife gets fat*

You skipped the part where she WILLINGLY EATS IT WITH HER OWN TWO HANDS

>>38243
>she WILLINGLY EATS IT WITH HER OWN TWO HANDS
after she asked you to stop doing it? are you a troll? I can't believe someone could be this stupid/unable to comprehend an argument and respond to it instead of just shouting the same point over and over. I'm going to stop responding after this since it's turning this into a schizo thread

>>38238
If we cant agree that our actions don’t happen in a vacuum. Then this conversation is a waste of time.

>>38244
The scenario that the deviantard and I are describing only works if the woman doesn't mind gaining weight. If she wants to stop gaining weight and you somehow magically force her to then yeah that's ethically wrong, but I have no idea how that would even be possible assuming that she is a responsible human.

If she wants you to stop and you keep doing it then yeah, you're a dick, and she should leave you. But that's the thing: if she wanted you to stop feeding her and you didn't, LEAVING is exactly what she would do. There is no fantasy hypothetical scenario in which the woman asks you to stop feeding her then keeps eating. I don't even know how this could occur to you.

"Oh, please babe, no more food I don't want to gain anymore weight"
"But honey I got big macs ;333"
"Oh yes let me have twelve"

This would just never happen.

If you ever did this to a woman she would leave you. The scenario deviantard describes only works if the woman doesn't mind gaining weight, in which case she would happily eat the twelve big macs and continue being happy in her relationship, because everyone knows that fast food and chocolate make you fat, ESPECIALLY every girl

>>38265
>The scenario that the deviantard and I are describing only works if the woman doesn't mind gaining weight.

"The main focus of this article will be on how to fatten someone who does not want to be fat."
This is an actual quote from the article. First sentence of paragraph 3.

I have no idea how you can't wrap your head around the basics of conditioning and manipulation. The article is outlining how to AVOID making them consciously ask that they don't want to get fat.

For the third time it is done through manipulation of HABITS, EMOTIONS, and WEAKNESSES on a SUBTLE level that is designed to quieting the subconscious alarm bells that could be going off in said person's head.

It is morally fine to fuck up these women’s bodies and lives for one reason: They’re whores.
If a woman lets you abuse her body, it’s your duty to fuck that shit up however you want.
Its a battle of the sexes, if your tall, rich and jacked enough to dictate the terms and conditions “moralities got nothing to do with it boy”.

>>38292
I'm not tall, rich, or jacked, yet I've never not had a woman when I wanted one. I see women as fellow humans and not objects to dominate. They respond positively to that — imagine. Not all of them, but enough, and by being into fat chicks that thins (npi) the herd quite a bit.

Meanwhile the ones worth being with can smell an insecure, toxic POS and will stay away no matter what he's got going on superficially. The rest are indeed whores and not worth my time.

>>38292
Thank you androgynous tit

>>38305
Quality response. You sure showed me.
>>38303
Yeah: I’d bet I got tons more ass of a higher quality by treating them like dirt.
Guys like you treat whores like queens, and ok, great flex.
If you’re not making college educated sorority girls eat cake off the floor you’re not doing it right.

>>38310
>making college educated sorority girls eat cake off the floor

That's the beauty of my method — I'm not "making" them do anything. I'm working with their natural impulse to please men who make them feel safe and special by doing pretty much whatever tf I want.

>>38303
Tell me more of your incel fantasies

>>38355
Yeah. It’s spoken like someone whose never banged a random chick because she wanted the dick. You don’t have to be nice to women to fuck them, in fact it’s much easier if you don’t respect them.

>>38134 (OP)
I think it depends on what type of manipulation is going on. If you're talking about stuff like doctoring their food with extra oils or supplements without their knowledge to trick them into gaining, then I think that is absolutely morally reprehensible. On the other hand, if you're just baking a bunch of cookies and hoping for the best, I don't think that is that bad unless they told you they're on a diet or you knew they had an eating disorder. It's not like they're forced to eat cookies just because you made them. Realistically, they would only gain like 10 lbs tops from that anyway. I doubt a non-feedee is going to eat themself into immobility just because you baked some cookies.

Generally poor taste.
However I know more than a couple feedees and gainer women that actually find the idea of being forced, tricked, or manipulated into gaining weight incredibly hot.

As with everything, consent is key. But if you're like me, and actively chatting to a woman who wants to be manipulated into further acts of gluttony, I guess it's up to you.