- Joined
- Aug 7, 2024
I am rather surprised that every time I gaze upon the Q&A section there's a big debate about eating pussy, yet looking here in the Kinkiwi thread there's not as much talk of it!
KINKiwis - A thread for genuine kink/fetish information and discussion
- Thread starter femboy fart huffer
- Start date
-
Want to keep track of this thread?
Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
Create account
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2025
Eating pussy the topic. Such antics are strange to me and confuse me. Is it really sucking dick but backwards?
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2024
You are literally just describing feederism. That's just half of the bp.
For a more serious post that's kinda more on the theme I had in mind. Mostly just coming from this post. Once again people on this site have a strange understanding of fetish content despite it making up half this site. So I guess welcome to fetish vs not fetish class 101.
For some reason there isn't an archive of all of his porn. But the first three images of pyrocynical's fat furry porn I found manage to get across everything.
So here's an image created by pix13punch on twitter posted in the sjw art thread that people decided was fetish material.
This image just isn't fetish material though, not to say it's impossible for a fat fetishist to wank over but that the intention is not sexual. For this person specifically it's just inclusive and the typical terminally online true and honest social justice warrior.
Now. Here's some of pyrocynical's fetish porn, shit he openly admits he commissioned with the exclusive intent of sexual gratification. For reference he has talked about this on the tbh podcast and I've seen other people talking about it in other contexts before you cunts fucking uhmmm source????? the fat furry porn analysis.
Example one. A fat furry that is so fat he is unable to carry out normal tasks.
Even if you were to remove the text and background you would probably be able to instantly clock this as fetish art fucking hopefully. One of the main reasons why is the focus. The focus of punch's image isn't really the fatness. Nothing brings your focus or attention to any attributes of being fat. The fatness is just there. Compare that to this. The focus isn't just on the fatness of the paedophile, the focus is also on how helpless the paedophile is and how it impacts his life. He isn't just fat. He is so fat that he is unable to pull his pants up. That's the focus. That's the fetish. The fetish isn't just for being fat, the fetish is for being fat and how that would feel and impact your life. That combined with the explicit statement of helplessness. The sexual appeal of this image is in how helpless being fat would make you. This is kinda why I say that fetishes can be grouped into general categories based on the type of feeling. This one specifically being about the helplessness and loss of control.
Example two. A fat paedophile is fed by his scammer girlfriend. And a fat dragon also eating more food.
The part here that's the fetish is not quite as literally central as the last one. But the main theme of these is that an already overwhelmingly fat furry is eating more. The appeal is the concept of gaining more weight. It's kinda like the coomer captions and shit like that where the eroiticised part is 'getting worse'. It's erotic because of this idk how to phrase it but fat is hot and giving in to that base desire to keep eating and becoming worse is hot, if the last image was based in fetishising helplessness these are more based in fetishised jealousy or cuckoldry. The first image has a bit of both, not only is he getting worse by eating more but he actively needs assistance to do so. He has already eaten himself to helplessness and yet gets worse. There's also some sort of something else going on that I also don't really know how to describe. The desire for transformation. To watch something normal become big and fat just how you like it, almost to have control over someone in that way. The fetishised part isn't just the fat, it's not the helplessness of being fat, instead it is the active action of eating more food and becoming fatter.
Example three. A femboy haired creature with a fat ass kneads the paedophile's fat stomach. Here's what your 6000usd went towards mystery video processing upgrading paypig.
The other thing of note is how the boundary of the images are conforming to the fatness. The video has to be physically larger in frame size to accommodate the entire belly. Because the belly is the fetish and thus the focus. The sandwich image, despite the focus of the image being his belly and the sandwich, the image still has to extend further to the right to accommodate his fat ass. In all of them there is some specific action, the fat is either the focus of the image or the result/cause of the focus of the image.
Now compared to this.
Yes. The first thing you see is the belly. But there's no extra focus on it. It's not drawn to a higher quality and is being covered. There is no otherwise undue glorification of the belly. It simply exists. Even then, if you crop this image to not include the drawing on the right the focal point is more the bra which doesn't have massive fat tits.
There's no focus on how being this fat would feel nor how you would get here or how it would impact you. There is no undue focus on the stomach. There's no focus on being helpless or transforming or the tactile experience. The image doesn't extend or conform to the fatness, the character is curvy but not to the point of forcing the rest of the image to accommodate that fatness (ie it's just a 1:1 square format). There are certainly other images this person has made that do come closer to fetish porn but this just doesn't, the comment itself does give fetishy vibes though. The composition is not fetishistic. The subject is not fetishised. The context around the image is not fetishistic.
It's hard to explain exactly why but this image specifically simply does not give off the vibe that it was drawn and posted with one hand.
These images from the same artist do come much closer to something that feels like fetish art.
This one because it is taking something normal and expanding it. There's the normal dress and here's how it would look after I *feeds you until your nice and big and round uwu*ed it. That and the way that the focus is drawn more towards the dress and thus the fatness just from it being more detailed and obviously having more attention paid to it in the creation process. As well as it taking up the entire page.
This one too for some of the same reasons. But also because the side view seems to emphasise how fat this character is. There isn't any extra information about the character, this tells us nothing about their hair or hat or clothing that the first image didn't tell us. The only thing we gain from the side view is a more explicit idea of exactly how fat this character is.
But even then I would not say that these are fat fetish art. I would say that they more easily could be. Admittedly I don't have a fat fetish or understand on any deeper level the appeal so I'm not exactly an expert. But the thing is the context around them isn't sexual. The person isn't talking about the fatness. They're not mentioning it. They mention the account is suggestive, seemingly for the bikini images and such, there's no 'hey I draw fat fetish art', admittedly self identification isn't exactly reliable especially when their display name is literally just a trans flag. They just seem to genuinely be the type of person that thinks this body type needs more representation and so on. They don't see this as a fetish, they see it as something normal. Not in the sense of 'I've gooned so hard that fat furries are normal' but that they never saw it that way to begin with. These two images are in the unfortunate middleground between 'drawing fat people' and 'drawing fat people ;3'. Think people that draw a character laying belly down on a sofa with their feet in the air, there's plenty of foot fetish art with that concept but it's also a popular pose for normal art. It's entirely based on the vibe and smell of cum coming from those feet that dictates if it's fetish art or not.
The artist also drew this.
Once again notice how despite being fat they aren't very curvy? They have a rather rectangular outline. They also don't really show off the fat that much. The clothes aren't really bulging and tearing from the fat. The fishnets in the middle one aren't even digging in, something that even normal artists would draw. The fatness is merely just a character trait, it just exists. The character is just fat. Not 'just fat btw add me on discord to erp', just fat.
And once again the surrounding context matters. Here's some of their other posts.
The conclusion is that this user is simply just black. This isn't a fetish. This is just a normal and attractive body type. That's it. Not everything with a fat bitch is fat fetish art. Sometimes they are simply just fat.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2020
I was surprised it hit 69... And nobody said anything about it
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2025
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2020
Some things are too deviant even for the Kink thread.
jeanblunt
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2026
I was watching this video about one of the cam girls that exposed Bryon Noem's fetishes and other activities.
Around 20 minutes Lydia says "We face social media discrimination" and "We get our accounts deleted all the time" when referring to sex workers. Since porn plays a role in fetishes, I am posting this here but am I the only who thinks that this is kinda stupid? Social media has heavy advertising for kids to use their platform. Posting sexual content as a sex worker on a social media platform while it will reach people who are adults it will also reach kids. While banning porn will backfire, I don't understand why people like this claim discrimination when its in a very public digital setting. Would you go out butt naked in public where all flocks can see you? Probably not unless you live in California.
pro drivor
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2024
look dawg this was a very informative post, 'preciate it, but please for the sake of everyone's eyes and sanity USE THE SPOILER FUNCTION
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2024
Snitches get
It's pretty common to see. People have this assumption that the tos of a site should follow what they believe to be common sense. These people have a warped view of common sense and so think they're being oppressed or whatever bullshit. It's not that they face 'discrimination' it's that they post porn to a non porn site and so get their accounts deleted for breaking the tos. People also bitch a lot about how the platform will censor the onlyfans links they put in the comments and how it is specifically targeting sex workers and bla bla bla without realising that an account posting loads of links in a comment section looks a lot like spam and that's why it gets removed. It's just low iq unwarranted self important delusions of grandeur. It's basically the whore's version of bitching that your facebook account got deleted when you spammed nigger in a public comment section. That and it gives them something that vaguely looks oppressive to fight against instead of the reality that their life is just sticking a dildo in their pussy for a few minutes every day and recording it.
jeanblunt
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2026
She does say that sex workers face discrimination in other fields like banking and whatever. Which sex work (in some states) is legal to do but when your line of work is something controversial. Yeah its wrong for you to not be able to have business accounts but its the same reason why a bank might refuse allowing someone like Nick Fuentes or dispensaries. They publicly have a controversial opinion/job which may hurt the businesses' reputation.
If money is the only thing you care about, you need to find what you truly value instead of doing porn or selling dope.
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2024
There is nothing that a person can do legally that is worse than what a bank does already. Usury is one of the most immoral but legal things you can do. Banks don't really give a shit. If you give them money then they're not going to ask questions. Just say you work as an online content creator or massager.
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2021
With regards to this, sexual services should probably have protections against exposure for clients, in the same way a therapist does.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2022
no lol this is leftoid cope
attractiveness is hard-coded into peoples instincts by biology.
>symmetric features
>health markers
>dimorphic markers (masculine features in men, feminine features in women)
>youth in women
>strength and height in men
>light skin
these preferences are universal, they're found in all populations around the globe, with minor variations at best
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2024
No it's not.
Obesity used to be attractive. People who are the size of the average builder used to be attractive. A beer belly used to be sexy. Then when food became no longer incredibly expensive and scarce it became being thin that was super attractive. Thinking being thin was attractive used to be such a foreign concept in Japan that it was literally unheard of for anyone in the entire country to be anorexic until sailors introduced it. White skin used to be attractive to the point of smearing yourself with toxic white paint. Now people pay thousands to go on a holiday to get a tan or lay in a uv pod to get a fake one. Unless you're Asian then white skin is more attractive but that's dependent on culture. Why is such a stereotype that black men like fat bitches? Other than because they find it attractive.
There are certain things that are universally attractive like the things you listed. There are also things that are culturally dependent.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2022
that is not attraction, that is social signaling.
fatties never were attractive. being fat (and having a fat wife) was a status symbol because it was a sign of wealth.
thinking this is the same as attraction is brainless retardation. it's like seeing elon musk bang dozens of groupies and concluding "girls are very attracted to chubby middle aged autists!"
Irreedemable Ret. 2
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2025
The levels of sexual dimorphism among men and women that is considered attractive (Men more so) varies considerably by culture and socioeconomic status of the countries. It's not an universal marker.
Also there is a difference between just being chubby and having your own gravitational pull.
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2024
Then why are black men more attracted to fat women despite it no longer being a sign of wealth?
Why are Asians more attracted to white skin despite that not being a sign of wealth anymore either?
Why did the entirety of 2010s media in the west focus so much on the belly other than it being seen as attractive? Long legs and a flat belly used to be the peak of attractive, now it's thick asses.
There's a difference between beauty standards and social signaling. Those beauty standards are different between cultures and so the things those cultures find attractive are different. Attraction isn't some fucking hard coded autistic you must meet all these criteria. It's fluid and changes. Are you going to tell me that what you thought was attractive as a kid is attractive now? People think a lot of things are attractive. Some people just like blondes. That's not some hard coded rule in your biology that's just what you personally find attractive.
Once again. There are universal things. There are things that are more genetically hard coded to be attractive. But that is not the only things people find attractive.
>IMPLYING
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2022
It took a while but yeah. (Post page 50, I think)
There's some performative/virtue signal-like posts of people complaining about the content/ideas, even though the thread isn't about celebrating or sharing their own, but actual discussion. You could discuss the harms of X/Y/Z, or why someone likes a particular thing in a purely clinical light, without the haranguing over pornography or some such. A lot of people are vulnerable to something called Splitting, where something can only be good or only be bad, with zero in-between.
To me, the value of this discussion is that learning the how and why of something is how you can avoid, if need be. There's also just a general fascination in learning and discussing the reasons too. It's never just "because it's hot," there can be a genuine underlying reason the person might like something that they don't even realise. Main issue is the number of possibilities could be too complex to take account of.
I agree with this in a lot of instances but do to how things work it can be dismissed entirely. I still want to reply to this entire post, but in particular it's less, "X directly resulted in Y," and more, "X resulted in Y, which may or may not have lead to Z." I think revisionism is extremely common though if someone feels a degree of shame for their fetish/kink and want to make themselves completely blameless for it.
It wouldn't account for all fetishes given hypersexuality isn't just a childhood thing, you can induce it as an adult via frequent porn usage and such. Some fetishes are described as addictions in some contexts and I think it's the most apt. You can build up a dependency/tolerance to certain content via continued exposure as an adult, and then said content is now a "kink" to you as it can serve a passive function in arousing you.
I do think Childhood experiences might factor into positive or negatively-formed paraphilia.
For instance, if someone's parent disciplined them physically, but then hugged/soothed them after, that might legit screw up some wires in the brain. Your brain is releasing endorphins for the pain and a parent hugging releases oxytocin and so now your brain is associating being spanked/receiving pain with physical affection. If someone as a child received very little physical contact from their parent except in instances of harm, then some brain-wiring may associate natural parental love with being hurt. It'd go some way to explain why doms and dominatrixes are a thing, since they're effectively acting as some facsimile of someone's parent, as they can act the role of carer/decision-maker or someone who gives them the pain they've come to associate with "love" in a sense.
Autism or some shade of light autism probably explains a the origins of a lot of fetishes along with psychosis, and then social contagion helps proliferate them. Someone who develops an autistic fixation on something is likely going to end up perceiving that connection to be of some other nature, especially if their fixation relieves stress or it occupied a huge chunk of their thought.
Delusions can be affected by a broader societal context, which also affect daydreaming. So in the context of social contagion, someone who ends up ruminating about something may end up exploring it in every capacity, which can have negative context if it's possible to explore it sexually.
"Daydreaming" is also a mundane-sounding thing, but in the context of the above: Daydreaming + hypersexuallity = fostering a (perceived) real connection with certain people/things in a sexual context and reinforcing certain ideas. This is especially potent because daydreaming is often what the brain does when in its "default" state so if someone's head is seeded with a particular thought, they may spend half their day thinking about it.
Daydreaming social interactions can give the brain near-identical social fulfilment too, which is why watching people interact on a screen could offer you more or less similar fulfilment to talking to people in person can. It's pretty much the explanation for how/why online social interaction is even engaging, because as far as your brain is concerned the interaction is real, which can (for some) apply to their fantasies/daydreams.
(Sorry for just dumping Wikipedia extracts but maybe it's marginally better than dumping walls of text or something.)
It's weird here how I agree with you but I think the part in bold is why the part I italicised is possible. It's so complex that trying to navigate to a possible sole cause is very difficult, maybe even impossible. But due to the difficulty, it's often easier to reduce it to, "Just because."
To me if someone can point the origin of their vore fetish to the Star Wars sandworm (which might be a retroactive revisionism, but let's pretend it isn't), then I'd instead focus on the exact context he viewed the scene. A while back I spoke about how someone who has a fetish/kink for diapers might be due association with other, pleasant childhood memories or an attempt to replicate them in the present as a sort of placebo. The brain is very easy to gaslight, even if you're aware of the fact you're lying to yourself.
If you tell yourself you like something diapers because they relieve stress because of X-reason, it's probably going to work, especially if you're also doing dopamine/endorphin-releasing "acts" during the process.
With the part I underlined, the main issue I have with psychology is the opposite. I think everything can have an answer, it's just the pursuit of said answer is to have some sort of "fix" or ulterior motive, whereas I think there's value in just knowing it.