41NV

It's a shame that she closed accounts. I haven't been on Curvage until recently and just discovered her (now closed) sutracamp account's advertisement. Would've bought those videos and more. I hope that things go well for her.

I recall a thread a while back that actually identified the thin bellystuffing model, but I seem to have forgotten who she is. Given how much her content has been thrown around on free video hosting sites I figured someone would know. And apparently I need to get better at Google. Little Eater, of course.

I personally think that the intrinsic utility of the plant (material wise) and medicinal (actual medicinal) use of the plant outweighs the recreational culture that tends to surround it. Plus as stated, it doesn't seem to have health issues for recreational users. There are separate issues about availability and whether or not it should be controlled in other contexts: *Should pot be regulated like alcohol or tobacco in the household (no long-term effects have been noted in adults, but what about children that ingest or inhale it for extended periods of time)? *With all of the anti-smoking initiatives, what does that mean for recreational cannabis smokers? Wouldn't the same lobbyists go after the smoking use of cannabis, if only because of children having to deal with plumes of smoke everywhere they go? *Would cannabis be considered an herb, such that one could use it in any food without need for labeling (even if that food is going toward children)? *Can we finally crack down on small-time dealers fucking up national parks with their 'hidden-in-plain-sight' pot farms, dumping fertilizers and trash into the environment and killing animals that get too close? The major issue I have with it is the crime associated with it. And no, I don't mean the cute 'possession of pot' charges that would 'inflate' statistics. I mean the fact that illegal drug trade routes used for marijuana also happen to be used for all of the other (hard) drugs they have. The Netherlands is usually touted as an example of successful pot legalization, but they're also a major hub of drug trade entering Europe. It could be argued that legalized pot might diminish these numbers, but despite ideals of what legalized pot might accomplish, the fact of the matter is that the established drug-making organizations will have better developed cultivars, and it might be possible for them to use legal pot establishments as a front to move harder drugs. This might be mitigated with better enforcement using resources that would normally be allocated to marijuana crackdowns, but again, we can't say for sure if such things would be properly implemented (i.e Netherlands drug enforcement). Basically.....it's complicated. Would've been easier if the 60s' young voters actually participated in 'the system' and voted to legalize pot instead of being a 'vocal minority [of non-voters]' that just sat there while marijuana flooded in with drugs 'too cool for the establishment', but we can't change history now.

The reboot Lara was inherently inclined to be hyper-reactive to things; she wasn't an adventurer at the start. Hell, in the prologue she's on an "Anthropology Explorers" research ship messing with her smartphone when the boat suddenly ends up breaking in half. The game is basically a buildup to 'adventurer Lara Croft' from 'posh anthropologist Lara Croft', which isn't to say that Lara didn't end up being the sole person with the agency to take charge of her crew. And yeah, she might seem whiny, but there's a lot of really shitty adventures she has to undertake on that damned island before she becomes 'kill a sumo-wrestler size bad guy with a climbing axe' Lara Croft. By that logic, David pussied out by using a slingshot instead manning up like Goliath with a sword and shield, all non-frontline units (logistics, artillery, snipers, tank operators, aircraft pilots, etc) are pussies, infantry should fight with bayonets and officer's swords against the 'woman-like' AKM wielding insurgents and police should beat armed suspects with tonfas because that's the properly manly, time-proven technique of succeeding in combat, and all men are capable of handily defeating all women in hand-to-hand combat regardless of will to fight, resilience, or combat effectiveness of the woman involved. I'm not saying that women like that don't exist. But it's myopic to generalize that to the whole female population and then use it to justify a fictional trope as an allegory for the behavior or actions of actual women. http://www.nzedge.com/heroes/wake.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roza_Shanina http://www.quantico.usmc.mil/Sentry/StoryView.aspx?SID=1780 Going back to video games, the pervasiveness of the trope has more to do with creativity shortcuts (and to some extent hierarchical inertia from the well-established precedent) than anything, for the same reason that CSI and other shows continue to oversimplify the evidence collecting chain for narrative purposes or how 'cop dramas' consistently put two officers in one vehicle (even though SOP for most departments is one officer per patrol vehicle). But hey, you want to live in your own world, ain't my problem. Just don't bring up that 'womb' shit with a female USMC NCO.

It should just be a common sense (or just generally agreed upon) rule that we should treat each other like human beings. Yeah, objectification may occur, this is a fetishist site after all, but as organisms with the agency to think for ourselves, we should be able to curb the fap for at least a few seconds to read over what we've typed and consider how it could read before hitting 'reply'. That's about all that was asked for. There's not going to be some horde of feminists coming to chop off your balls if you don't, but it's a mutual respect thing; there is in fact a human being on the other end, because this is a forum and not just some static collection of images like in Playboy or Maxim, so we might as well acknowledge that fact (even if we do end up fapping at one of their pictures). I mean, consider that we not only have access to pictures of attractive gainers, but that we can actually interact with them; having some basic human decency in mind while posting is a fairly small price to pay for (from the viewer's end) essentially free, interactive fap material from women who genuinely enjoy gaining, and that's just from an isolationist fapper's perspective. I originally came here for the fappable material, but I can truthfully say that I've come to understand my fetish more for having been on this site, and are less likely to make an ass out of myself when confronting the issue (whether that's with a significant other, family, friends, or otherwise). So tl;dr, re-read/review your post for douchebaggery before hitting the button. This is true of any forum, and I'd go so far as to say that in some form or another, this is a problem that plagues EVERY forum. Granted, there are less hot curvy women on those other forums, but you know what I mean.

Emphasis is on the pronoun 'her'. *She* is the one doing the gaining. So there's not really much you can do other than being passively supportive when she brings up her eating habits and weight gain (i.e say something positive when she puts herself down for eating richly or when she mentions clothes she can't fit into anymore, or better yet, gift her new clothes if you know her size). Most important thing is to support whatever she decides. If she doesn't want to gain more weight, don't press the issue. She's a friend, not some piece of meat you can manipulate to your liking. I mean, you could try to strongarm her into gaining weight by inviting her out to eat frequently and insisting that she come or buying her treats, but that wouldn't really be kosher. It wouldn't really be kosher if she were your girlfriend either, if she didn't want to gain weight. You're in an odd situation, OP. You want her to gain weight, or otherwise fetishize her, but you consider her a friend and not a significant other. The only advice I can give you is to decide who she is to you and be cautious about taking any direct action. There are many ways this could go sideways. Honestly, I think it would be best if you just dropped the issue altogether.

I suppose that like most fetishes, there is some element of control from the fixation; we (and by we I mean me, because I can't really speak for anyone else) tend to fixate on that one aspect of the shape, feel, and/or heft of an overweight body, and if someone doesn't happen to fit our arbitrary ideals, we get an urge to push them or otherwise gravitate them toward that ideal. You could probably argue that this is the same for any sort of sexual attraction (lingerie, scenarios, fitness, flexibility, etc), but I guess the main difference with us FAs is how our fetish extends into daily life. Overeating is something that most people consider mundane (something permissible during special occasions or just something that happens), but for us it's arousing, as is just the state of being overweight (even without fetishized clothing or foreplay). Essentially, an FA fetish is a lifestyle fetish that has implications beyond the bedroom, and suggestions to satisfy an FA fetish thus involve some degree of a control complex of the FA involved. It's not necessarily bad, but as long as you're aware of it, you can keep it in check (which is what you've been doing). Overthinking is usually a good thing for the most part, it lets you ponder things most people ignore (of course, it sucks when working on an otherwise straightforward project, but that's a minor inconvenience).

Sounds like a bad relationship/person more than her being a big girl. Not trying to dismiss you or anything, though, from that sort of experience you probably felt some degree of emotional trauma, and scumbag brain/emotional memory logic tries to convince you that any similar circumstances (i.e girls of similar size) result in the same thing. Scumbag brain logic works for things like poisonous plants in prehistoric life, but not so much when it comes to getting the most out of life. You've already been informed of the possible health effects (which are significant and should be considered when it becomes a liability to the girl regardless of your/her sexual preference), so my advice to you is to get out there and date a big girl when it feels right. Best thing about the current population of the world (or more specifically your country) is that there are many, many more big girls who fit your needs better than that one bitch. As mentioned, most big girls eat normal portions with some extra calories tacked on elsewhere, generally not all at one sitting (think consistent intake of calories over the whole day); unless you somehow catch a girl like Azismiss (which you wouldn't unless you were looking for her, this forum of all forums should know).

QFT. This topic really belongs in serious discussion, but to grossly oversimplify a complex global issue, the problem is not production, the problem is distribution. The US produces more than enough food to feed the world over, but it costs money and requires specialized resources to ship it where it would be needed, there would be no guarantee that this aid would not go unexploited (warlords have been known to hijack UN food drops in Africa), and it ultimately does not benefit the organizations producing the food (all private sector, mind you) to do so. Yeah, in the bigger picture of things, we would ideally ship excess food to where it is needed, but this is hardly an ideal world. Consider the following: when Occupy was talking about the 99% (also an oversimplified argument, but that's another topic), they were actually talking about the top 20% of the world. That's right, even if you're 'rock bottom', homeless, and are eating out of the trash, you are still better off than 80% of the world's population, because you have social infrastructure (both in the form of government programs/charity institutions and in the form of American workforce philosophy, which is built on the idea that you can build your own 'American dream' through hard work; if there is an available position and you are qualified to do it, you will be, and in some cases employers might actually give you preference in order to help you) and even basic infrastructure (the trash you're eating out of contains more food and shelter materials than you would probably ever find in an African plain without survival skills and a good knife) that is FAR more developed than an equivalent person would have in the majority of India, China, or Africa. Yeah it sucks but it's not as simple as 'throw any spare money/food/resources at the problem until it resolves itself'; the Europeans already tried that and it's been firmly established that it doesn't work. We're talking about holistic development handicapping dating back to the colonial period, more than 300 years ago, when Europeans first planted flags onto other continents with their muskets and swords and said, 'This is our land now and we own everything in it' despite there being a pre-existing society with their own values and ownership. Even China, which is generally described as Second World (coming into First World standards), was pretty much hosed after staging the Boxer Rebellion, where the Chinese were just trying to (justifiably) kick the Europeans and their opium imports (along with cultural/religious imperialism) out of the country. They're still trying to get rid of that notion of colonialism (i.e we produce stuff for Westerners to use), and IMO, that's why they're probably the biggest threat in terms of being an opposing superpower in the world today. The question and the concepts behind them are valid, but I don't think that it does anything other than identifying an issue that is already known. If you scratch that part of the question out, the question is ultimately asking, do you feel ashamed of your preference in the very things that define this site, and the answer will pretty much always be no.

Probably your best weapon to gain weight is your own time; as long as you do your part (big breakfast, lunch, and extra-heavy dinner, with late night snacks and dessert), you should still see gaining happening. As for the job itself, I doubt that you could carry in your own bag of goodies to snack on, but if you can, do it, and make sure that they're calorie-dense (like candy bars, but also peanut butter, energy bars, and the like) and that you have enough of them to last you all day, even if you're eating one every half-hour (or even fifteen minutes). Also try this out, and look at specific food challenges; some of them offer the meal free if you can finish it all (which you can). Other than that, eat your way through their cafeteria?

The dieting thing is an option, but since she wants to stay healthy, just let her follow her cravings (stock the pantry with anything and everything she loves to eat, and take her out to dinner at her favorite places often) and then eat a 'balanced', big portion meal for dinner. The trick is to not make eating a chore; she should WANT to have that extra plate of dessert, those Oreos with milk, or that extra plate of fries, simply because they're tasty. The pleasure of food should be the primary factor, with gaining from overeating as a fringe benefit. It's the opposite of losing weight, basically. She can work out, but try to have her avoid endurance/high-intensity workouts. Jogging is still on the table and it can still be as regular as she wants (even once or twice a day), but cap it at around fifteen to twenty minutes, with a snack to greet her afterward. Generally cap workouts to 20-30 reps with max 2 sets.

Okay then, try this; make it so that your dinner is your heaviest meal within two hours of your bedtime, and reduce lunch to a single item (a sandwich, etc). Have just enough breakfast to make it to lunch without crashing. After a few days of this, your body should start to adapt to lower calories (you'll feel more able to function and less like you're starving all the time). Once it does, reintroduce richer foods first at lunch (leaving breakfast at its reduced portion) and work your way back; the important thing is to eat just beyond when you feel satisfied (enough to feel that you've eaten more than necessary), and continuing to push that boundary little by little each day. Once you can eat more at lunch than you did before you started, reintroduce breakfast at full force. A tight budget limits your options; you might be looking at peanut butter/Nutella and sliced bread to supplement the foods you're already eating. Nutella goes on nearly every grain-based carb, so you could even drizzle it onto cereal. Speaking of cereal, a potentially better alternative could be oatmeal. Sounds unappetizing, but by adding in Nutella or some other cheap but high-calorie mix-in, you could put on pounds while spending less than $15 for a jar of Nutella and oatmeal packets/can and still have a tasty snack. It's also a complex carb, which in sufficient amounts should bolster your gaining in combination with Nutella/etc. Weight gain is sort of a dodgy thing when you're working dollar-to-dollar. Technically the cheapest way to do it would be to eat fast food (which gives you fries, a burger, and a drink for around $5-6), but that way's rougher on your body. I've been trying to stick to the ideal of gaining via traditionally rich foods. For what it's worth, a Whopper has something like 780 calories, in addition to 140+ calories from fries and the 250+ calories from the drink, with the majority of calories coming from fat or sugar, and you should be able to afford it relatively easily, even on a budget. If you wanted to, you could take the small amount of money you can save up each week and then get two meals with burger, fries, and drink in one sitting for $10-12 (most sit-down restaurants charge you that for one entree). That, or Steak and Shake (double or even triple burgers with fries at $5).

You'd eat a solid breakfast (just enough to make it through the day), skimp on lunch (a sandwich at most), and then make your dinner the largest meal of the day (make it as hearty as you can within budget, with a dessert and late night snack). By the end of your late-night snack (a few bowls of ice cream, cookies and milk, a few slices of cake/brownie), your belly should feel well-fed and look a bit round. After a few days of this, you should start feeling a little bit heavier in the morning, and after a week or two, you should put on at least two pounds. The transition should be relatively seamless, although a key sign would be if you feel a bit sluggish in the morning; your body runs less efficiently on fat than on regular glucose storage, which should tell you that your metabolism is indeed slowing down. I've forgotten to ask, how much can you allot for 'gaining food' per week? EDIT: This site might also be helpful. http://askdrfeeder.dyndns.org/htgf.html