Talk:Fat fetishism

Proposal to make weight gain fetish its own page, and not linked here
Should weight gain fetishism link here? Although they are related, and (most) people with a WG fetish also have a fat fetish, they're actually 2 different things. Not all people, some might even say a significant number, that have a fat fetish and/or are sexually attracted to fat partners get off on the idea of their partner (or themselves) getting fatter/gaining weight. Also, some people who are into WG fetish fantasize about skinny people gaining weight, and sometimes these amounts of weight aren't really enough to consider the partner fat. Weight gain fetish is strictly about the gaining of the weight, and not the end result, although I'd dare say most WG fetishists are also fat fetishists. C4bl3Fl4m3 13:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with this one mattbuck 21:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * As I said below. Feederism should be a seperate encyclopedia article, for sure. The article as it stands is a mess anyway with original research and references to non-notable people, websites and ideas.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 21:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey all, I'd like to make an article for "Gaining and Feeding". I've just made a sub-section on this page for now, but my hope is to collect enough info to make the page. Does anyone have a problem with me doing that? Any foreseeable issues? jedlev 9:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Hey all, so I've just made a new article for "Gaining and Feeding". If that's an area you're interested in, please check it out and help me flesh that page out! jedlev 1:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Cow?
I've _never_ heard of this term, ever, and I've been around the scene for nearly a decade now. MarkRose 02:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Likewise. It may be a nickname among a tight group of community friends, but idioms of an extreme minority have no place in an encyclopedia. Sketchvg 19:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to make fat admiration a separate page, and not a subsection
Primary argument: Fat admiration is a superclass, and fat fetishism is a subclass thereof. It makes little sense to bundle fat admiration as a subsection under fat fetishism.

Secondary argument: Fetishism implies...

a) Sexual exclusivity b) Sexual objectification (as opposed to the physical trait being a mere complimentary object)

... which most people, including many FAs, consider to be derogatory overtones. (sig added ->) Sketchvg 22:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Fat admiration was a separate page. I moved it here and created it as a section of fat fetishism because both preferences are based in sexual attraction to fat people.  Sure, it's derogatory to want a person only for bodily attributes, and it seems that fat admirers are perhaps more loving and respectful in their affections, but clearly both fat fetishists and fat admirers would pick a fat partner over a skinny partner based purely on that person's fatness.  Joie de Vivre 18:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed, both preferences are based in a sexual attraction to fat people. But, as I explained in my primary argument, fet fetishism is a particular subset that adds qualifiers to simple sexual attraction. Those qualifiers are exclusivity and gross objectification. The backwards classification of a superset under a subset is reason enough to separate the pages even without any discussion of how this misrepresents the majority of FAs.


 * In addition, "Clearly ... fat admirers would pick a fat partner over a skinny partner based purely on that person's fatness" is in extreme dispute here, and it's exactly this misinterpretation that is being perpetuated, at the moment, by this fallacious Wikipedia page. It's akin to saying "Clearly, a man who prefers a thin woman would pick a thin partner over a chunky partner based purely on that person's thinness," or "Clearly, a woman who prefers red-haired men would pick a red-haired man over a brown-haired man based purely on that man's hair color." Notice how silly both sound, and you'll notice why most FAs abhor such an exclusive and objectifying stigma. It's both unfair and unjustified to label all FAs as fetishists. Sketchvg 22:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Look, I am open to civilly discussing this with you, so I would appreciate it if you would reduce the defensiveness in your tone.


 * That said, I think your descriptions of sexual preferences are pretty accurate. Certainly it's obvious that what I meant when I said "purely" is that the initial attraction is based on the person's fatness.  The very definition of "physical preference" is "preferring one set of physical characteristics over another".  It doesn't sound "silly" at all, when you consider that if a male FA saw a bunch of women at a party, he'd be more likely to hit on a fat woman than a thin woman.


 * Consider this: If a white guy has a sexual preference for Asian women, he might try to strike up a conversation with an Asian woman at a party.  Granted, one guy might seek out Asian women because he has an "exclusive and objectifying" sexual fetish for Asian women.  Another guy might prefer the way Asian women look, and he might aim to find one he can have a relationship with.  But is the first guy a "Asian fetishist", and the second an "Asian admirer"?  They both have a sexual preference for Asian women, based solely on the Asian woman's racial background (and often regardless of her cultural upbringing.)


 * Frankly, your argument is even less substantial than some of the justifications that a hypothetical "Asian admirer" might use -- that they supposedly appreciate "Asian culture" (whatever that is) or "history" or "traditions" -- because fat admirers are attracted to FAT PEOPLE, who are not part of some cultural group, but are simply physically bigger than average. Whether fat people all have some sort of shared experience would be entirely based on the cultural environment they were raised in, because otherwise they have nothing in common except being fat.


 * Like it or not, if a person is a fat admirer, they are "exclusive" and "objectifying" because that's what physical preferences do, they divide people based on looks. The FAs and the FFs are essentially the same in terms of the basic sexual attraction to fat people.  Those "qualifiers" of "exclusive" and "objectifying", if brought to an extreme, might result in fetishism, but where do you draw the line?  Is an FF just a socially maladjusted FA?


 * I don't think that quibbling over the distinction between a fetish and a -philia bears much merit in this instance, especially since the -philia of fatness has nothing like "an appreciation for the culture" to hide behind.   It's convenient to demand that FAs be defined as "not FFs", but on what grounds?  What is an FA, that an FF is not?


 * Do you have any attributable sources that clearly defines what an FA actually is -- other than "not an FF, they're bad"? Do you have any such sources that make a clear distinction between the two groups?  Now would be a good time to share them.  Joie de Vivre 23:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Frankly, I think the issue here is that FFs and FAs are in fact so similar that you want to try to distance the fat fetishists in an attempt to justify fat admiratione. I don't think that either preference needs justification.  I don't think there's anything wrong with having a preference for a certain body type, even to the point where that body type is the only type you like.  However, I think it's ridiculous to try to whitewash over the discriminatory aspect of picking someone based on looks that is inherent in "fat admiration".  Joie de Vivre 23:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You ask, in your Asian analogy, "But is the first guy an 'Asian fetishist,' and the second one [not]?" The answer is, unequivocally, "Yes." The first man grossly objectifies to the degree that sexual satisfaction is exclusively requisite on the fetish, whereas the second man does not. That's a crisp distinction, and any claim of the two being "so similar" is severely misguided.


 * I'll restate an earlier example: In many cultures, it's common for a heterosexual man to prefer a women with a moderately athletic build. Yet you'll find that many of these folks are completely sexually satisfied with partners who do not have such a trait. That's because their "fitness admiration" is not grossly objectifying to the point of exclusivity. A true fetishist cannot be sexually satisfied under those circumstances, unless he has an active imagination during intimacy.


 * That is the difference, and it's not only discrete as I hope I've shown, but also quite important. For one example, it's a social virtue to find satisfaction in "inner beauty," and to not be grossly preoccupied with outer objects. The latter is, according to most people, including most FAs, a character fault and an unhealthy fixation.


 * These culturally-authoritative web resources, though not formal attributions, explicitly make the same distinction I'm making:


 * Dimensions Magazine FAQ
 * Urban Dictionary: "FA"


 * My impetus is not justification for fat admiration -- it's insuring that FAs are accurately represented as mere trait admirers rather than misrepresented as people with an exclusive physical fixation.


 * Regardless of all this, however, you are glossing over my primary argument. The secondary argument (regarding the difference between admiration and fetishism) was just that -- a supplement. The primary argument, as I said before, should warrant a page division (or reorganization) completely regardless of the subsequently-mentioned issue. It is, again, that a subclass of a superclass should not be the parent article, with the superclass represented only as a subsection. It's as nonsensical as having a subsection called "Animals" in the scorpion entry. Sketchvg 01:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Can you verify the factuality of your opinion that fat admiration is a superclass, containing fat fetishism? Urban Dictionary certainly doesn't meet WP:Attribution, and in my opinion, a magazine that started out as a newsletter put out by the National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance isn't particularly neutral, either.


 * You might be interested to know that this young Asian woman doesn't make any distinction, "crisp" or otherwise, between the "fetish" or "admiration" expressed by men who are attracted to her based on her race. It's all the same to her. Joie de Vivre 16:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * As I said, my citation wasn't a formal attribution. But the Urban Dictionary entry clearly demonstrates that my definition has popular support.


 * Dimensions Magazine started out as an NAAFA spin-off newsletter, but that's where the ties to NAAFA end. Indeed, Dimensions is not neutral at all, but not in the way you imply. Instead, it's the opposite: it's fetishist tolerant. If you look elsewhere on the web site, you'll find a pornography subforum and even a vast library of feeder fiction (feederism is explicitly condemned by the NAAFA). As a site that caters to and accepts fetishists, they would be the least likely to unfairly conflate the two. The fact that they outline a distinction indicates that even among those completely tolerant of fetishists, who do not impute upon fetishism any derogatory overtones, a true distinction is understood.


 * Here's how classes work. The most general classes have the least constrictive qualifiers. Derived classes thereof have additional constrictive qualifiers that make them a particular "kind" of the superclass. It's is-a derivation. FAs constitute the most general population of folks who prefer fatter people over thinner people. The only constrictive qualifier is the sexual tendency toward a certain physical trait. Fat fetishists are FAs with more constrictive qualifiers: namely, gross objectification of fat (or implications thereof) to the degree that it becomes an exclusive and sexually-necessary fixation.


 * Subclassifying is-a relationships according to constrictive qualifiers is how every organizational hierarchy, from object-oriented software programming, to scientific classification, to encyclopedias, works. The class "fat admirers" is-a "people" with a qualifier that culls its master population. The class "fat fetishists" is-a "fat admirers" with a qualifier that culls its master population. If you tried to go in reverse, for instance claiming that "fat admirers" is-a "fat fetishists" with a qualifier (the qualifier being "they are not exclusive and grossly fixated"), you wouldn't be using a constrictive qualifier that culls the population -- instead, you'd be citing a qualifier that increases the population, which is indicative of a backwards hierarchy.


 * Sketchvg 19:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * What exactly do you want to happen here? Joie de Vivre 20:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm in favor of separating "fat fetishism" from "fat admiration" altogether. Sketchvg has already outlined the difference between a preference (such as brunettes versus blondes, or fatter versus slimmer partners) and a fetish. Qit el-Remel  —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 12:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm in favour of keeping these part of the same topic. They don't seem to have individual notability seperate from one another.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 21:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * There's not enough info on them to make them different articles, better to keep them together than have two stubs which will never be expanded. mattbuck 09:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Feederism should be a seperate article
I strongly believe that feederism should be a seperate article, perhaps with a summary here and a link to it in this article. Feederism is just a small part of fat fetishism.-h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 21:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * In fact, this whole page needs to be split up into seperate articles again. It was a bad idea to have merge all of these topics into the same page.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 07:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that feederism should be a separate article. The way this has been incorporated could confuse people into thinking that all fat fetishists are feeders. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zyrcona (talk • contribs) 15:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree. Especially since the media-advertised superthin look has made the term 'fat' ambiguous to say the least. Preference for somewhat curvy women (say, 155cm/65kg, 165/73, or 180/80) or stockier builds has nothing whatsoever in common with psychologically dominating an already obese person into becoming morbidly obese to the point of health issues or loss of mobility. I used the example of women here simply because there seems to be much more discrimination against average-figured women than against men. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aadieu (talk • contribs) 20:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this article needs to be split up again. It deals with fundamentally seperate topics, and at the moment makes no clear distinction between them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.116.52.163 (talk) 17:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

some references...
There are some scholarly references for this phenomenon, like these... Geo Swan (talk) 23:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * http://www.springerlink.com/index/243703127hg7k1p8.pdf
 * http://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&lr=&id=DVpjtanQYnwC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=fat++fetish&ots=8GGWTDC5x1&sig=h98fAWc89DOU6HF_LGVvP9N-3u4

Unverified claims
Numerous problems with unverified information on this page: "usually women" in first paragraph. No known quantitative research to justify this and no reference given. "Fat fetishists may be aroused by gaining weight" incorrect as weight gain fetishism is a subgenre or possibly separate body modification fetish and not representative of the whole. "Fat fetishism sometimes involves elements of sadomasochism." No reference given, and not aware of any evidence, either anecdotal or statistical, that would support this. The references to feederism in the first paragraph would be better in the feederism section lower down the page if this really can't be given its own page. Zyrcona (talk) 22:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The link you provided is a mirror/fork of Wikipedia, meaning that we cannot use it to verify your claim that feederism is a "separate fetish" or should not be mentioned as part of fat fetishism. Defining feederism as a type of fat fetishism, it is accurate to state that "fat fetishists may be aroused by gaining weight", and it is significant enough to warrant mention in the lede.  The cn template can be used to identify statements that need sourcing. Whatever404 (talk) 16:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The term FFA (Female Fat Admirer) would not exist if fat fetishism did not usually focus on women. I agree that everything else is an issue.24.218.109.83 (talk) 00:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Appreciator/Maintainer?
Has anyone heard these terms used before? It seems like terms some guy just made up for this article or something.24.218.109.83 (talk) 00:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have heard of the term of "Maintainer" before, specifically on | Growing Guysand | Beefyfrat, but I have yet to have heard "Appreciator" Before.--Fumitol (talk) 01:29, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

NAAFA's condemnation of feederism is dishonest. For many years NAAFA had/has a very close relationship with Conrad Blickenstorfer of Penn Computing who is the owner of Dimension Magazine. Dimensions magazine is dedicated to the practice of feederism. Blickenstorfer served on the NAAFA board of directors. The New American Fat Acceptance (NAFAM) movement does endorse feederism and its mysterious leaders, Fat Bastard was once a gainer and co founder Proud FA is known in Fat Acceptance circles as the Dean of Feederism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Balldez (talk • contribs) 00:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Popular Culture item in Sources section?
This is in the Sources section:

In the RTE TV series Katherine Lynch's Wonderwoman, one of the characters had a Polish boyfriend who chose a larger woman over her and she referred to him as a feeder by saying "I'd only landed myself with a bleeding feeder."

It looks like it got put in the wrong spot.74.196.205.92 (talk) 00:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

A philia?
Under Philias there is no mention of "preference for obese or fat people". I'm surprised if there isn't a Latin word for lovers of overweight persons. As there probably is for attraction for thin person, too. Anybody? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.95.80.39 (talk) 14:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Suggestions:

obesophilia, crassophilia (from "crassus"), carnatophilia ("carnatus") — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:8A8D:FE80:60E8:2BFB:82B2:AB40 (talk) 21:36, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * It's adipophilia, from adipātus = fat (hence adipose tissue). Though I strongly suspect this word has yet to make its way into scientific literature… 95.160.155.131 (talk) 17:01, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Expert?

 * I am a fat admirer, but this article doesn't have many sources.  Erpert  Who is this guy? 18:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Causes
Is there any information on causes of fat fetishism, other fetishes on here have causes listed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.82.243 (talk) 13:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

There are many causes of fetishes. would individual cases be appropriate to put here? or are you looking for statistics? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vw222 (talk • contribs)


 * If they're reported on by reliable sources, then yes. --ChiveFungi (talk) 01:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Graph explanations
I'm a bit surprised, because the maximum of attractiveness in the control group (non fat fetichist) seems to be at BMI 18. And it's considered (slightly) under the normal weigth. So men prefer lean girls? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:8A8D:FE80:60E8:2BFB:82B2:AB40 (talk) 21:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Opening sentence
Okay, I take issue with this. Just because you're attracted to someone who is overweight does not mean you have a fat fetish. My partners all have feet but I don't have a foot fetish. It's really off to suggest that people have to have this fetish to be attracted to people of a certain weight. I'd change it to something like "attracted to overweight or obese people because of their size/weight" or something similar but I don't want to wade through thousands of articles of this to find a better citation. Pigammon (talk) 21:00, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

more peer reviewed infromation and additional community photos
This page needs additional information or the use of community art to improve the quality of this page. I have noticed that this page has suffered from random deletions. Including the photo of a big beautiful woman (BBW) woman. Recent changes and deletions are not appealing to community standards. Even worse it seems that many of the deletions come with no desire to improve the content and information on this page. If you are going to delete content on this page, please replace it. Don't just prune. In fact, until this page has better content, avoid pruning anything at all unless it goes against our community standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegirlpower (talk • contribs)
 * This page can use additional information, but not additional images. The image that is being re-added is up for deletion on WikiCommons for possible copyright infringmement. Please do not re-add until that discussion is resolved. Thank you. -- ‖ Ebyabe talk - Repel All Boarders  ‖ 06:24, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Revert of edits
I honestly don't understand the complaint of. Why do you think the sources are unreliable? I used several different academic papers. For example, a book I used has been published by Palgrave Macmillan. I'd like to discuss this. Throwawiki (talk) 20:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC)


 * For future reference, this is regarding this revert.
 * As I said in the edit summary, it's too difficult to separate the good from the bad.
 * Grommr is not a reliable source, and neither is Feabie. I think this has already been discussed. The NAAFA source is a primary source, and the significance of this obscure document should be supported by a reliable, independent source.
 * One issue is that most of the rest of this is based on only a single source, which was already cited:
 * This source may be reliable in some contexts, but needs to be handled carefully. To put it another way, it is not necessarily strong enough for multiple subsections. A graduate thesis is comparatively weak, and is weaker than a dissertation, which is weaker then something published in a reputable academic journal. This is explained in WP:SCHOLARSHIP.
 * A new source added was:
 * This is an interesting find. I don't know anything about the journal Fat Studies, but assuming it's reputable, it still needs to be summarized more broadly. I don't see why this source was only used for info on feederism, since that is clearly not the main point of the article. The source mentions "feeder" on 3 out of 20 pages. In context it is about fat fetishism on the internet, specifically regarding camming. Your summary of this source was not entirely neutral, nor strictly faithful to what the source was saying. Instead of looking for information about "feederism" and adding only that, look at what the entire source is saying and summarize proportionately. For example, p. 15-16 contrasts feederism and "squishing" as submissive and dominant, and uses this to discuss why a cam model might choose one type of work over the other. This is an interesting point that helps readers contextualize feederism as part of the topic of fat fetishism, but it still probably wouldn't belong under the "feederism" subsection, since it's about more than that.
 * As for African countries such a Mauritania and Nigeria, Africa is not monolithic, so this needs to be handled better. Use sources to explain exactly how Leblouh connects to "fat fetishism". If this cannot be done, a link in the see also section would probably be sufficient.
 * Hopefully that's enough for now. Grayfell (talk) 21:31, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. I agree that Feabie and Grommr are indeed not reliable. Considering they have a relatively large audience, I would consider moving a link to their survey to the exernal link section per the fourth point of WP:ELMAYBE. I have added some information, using a significant more reliable source. Throwawiki (talk) 23:26, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for discussing this on talk, but this is disproportionate coverage based on obscure sources.
 * Your recent additions again introduce excessive detail as a subsection of the "feederism" section. I do not see any specific reason for a multi-paragraph subsection for this information, especially two separate, generic paragraphs for Dimensions. From your past comments, you have been active on that forum and wiki, which is a conflict of interest. I accept your past comments that you are not compensated for editing, but this is still a conflict of interest regardless. Please propose changes here before editing on that topic, as was previously explained on your talk page. Grayfell (talk) 00:21, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. I don't get your point about the source being "obscure". It might not had a wide circulation, but it is definitely reliable. I think that an overview about online communities is beneficial to the Wikipedia reader who is interested in this subject. I have not been active on Dimensions, I have only documented their site somewhere else. I don't think that is a COI. I don't really see why the paragraph about relevant websites should be removed, especially because they are in depth reviewed by other reliable sources. Throwawiki (talk) 00:34, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for discussing this on talk, but this is disproportionate coverage based on obscure sources.
 * Your recent additions again introduce excessive detail as a subsection of the "feederism" section. I do not see any specific reason for a multi-paragraph subsection for this information, especially two separate, generic paragraphs for Dimensions. From your past comments, you have been active on that forum and wiki, which is a conflict of interest. I accept your past comments that you are not compensated for editing, but this is still a conflict of interest regardless. Please propose changes here before editing on that topic, as was previously explained on your talk page. Grayfell (talk) 00:21, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. I don't get your point about the source being "obscure". It might not had a wide circulation, but it is definitely reliable. I think that an overview about online communities is beneficial to the Wikipedia reader who is interested in this subject. I have not been active on Dimensions, I have only documented their site somewhere else. I don't think that is a COI. I don't really see why the paragraph about relevant websites should be removed, especially because they are in depth reviewed by other reliable sources. Throwawiki (talk) 00:34, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

You have documented their site elsewhere based on original research. Original research is not appropriate on Wikipedia, so there is a strong risk that your familiarity with a specific aspect of this topic might interfere with your ability to edit this neutrally, and this issue appears to have happened in the past.

So let's look at another specific example to show what I'm talking about. Regarding this edit, the NAAFA's website is not a third party source for the NAAFA's material, so the only useful source is Charles & Pakowski 2015. Right now the article uses this book six different times, and your additions would increase that significantly. That means this is the most cited source in the article. There is nothing inherently wrong with this, but it's a warning sign. This article is not exclusively about feederism, and using this one source for even more details is not appropriate, because it fails to differentiate between "beneficial" content and trivia. Using obscure archives of defunct primary sources is an additional red flag that this is being included based on personal opinion, not as an assessment of all existing sources. This article is about "fat fetishism" as an entire topic. Focusing on one specific subset of this fetish is disproportionate, and this will distract and potentially irritate readers looking for an overview of the topic.

As for being reviewed in depth, this would need to be contextualized. The content you added was not in depth, it was pretty shallow and promotionally written. This doesn't belong if it cannot be summarized in a neutral, formal tone.

Look again at the Jones article above. Look at what that source is saying in total, because it's useful. Look at the abstract and summary paragraphs and use that to determine what that source thinks is most important. Summarize that. It doesn't focus on feederism, so what does it focus on? Does the article summarize this and the Charles source, or does it cherry-pick? That's how the article should be expanded. Grayfell (talk) 05:15, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Physical attraction


I have removed this image, as the cited source doesn't specifically link this attraction to fetishization. While the source does discuss fetishism, it doesn't do so in connection to these statistics, making the chart's inclusion here WP:SYNTH. Grayfell (talk) 00:30, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
Cworrell09 (talk) 03:53, 16 September 2021 (UTC)I think this article can be updated as some of the sources are from early as 1999. Being that some of the sources are up to 20+ years old, I think that finding new research and neutral information on fat fetishism would be ideal in order to make the entire article more accurate. I also think something missing from this article is the lack of intersectionality and sort of how the idea of fat fetishism can be related to different sexualities, especially in the queer community. Something else that is missing is how fetishism can be subtly displayed in media, not just porn, like in television, and movies.

Ssbbw
huge weight gaining Lorlenaakin69 (talk) 10:35, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

History?
Fat fetishism isn’t very recent if that one statue tells us anything… Wolfquack (talk) 17:24, 2 December 2023 (UTC)


 * there is way more than that one statue --Mewtu (talk) 23:46, 21 December 2023 (UTC)