Macrophilia 201

Alright, guys. This is based off a thing I wrote about 3 years ago when I was trying to learn everything I possibly could about macrophilia. What happened was that I found out that googling “macrophilia” gave you a link to an essay near the top of the first page (Possibly the first result? I don’t remember now.) that was written by a male giantess fetishist. It was long, well-articulated, and intelligent… except for one small thing: it made the all-too-common assumption that all macrophiles were male, and that “macrophilia” was completely interchangeable with “giantess fetish”.  So I wrote to the author about it. We went back and forth on the subject for some time, becoming something resembling acquaintances. But over the course of that correspondence he did concede to being biased, and wound up giving his essay a large overhaul that made it more inclusive. The essay can be found here: Macrophilia 101It’s not required reading, especially if you’re a regular to this blog, but if for some reason everything you’ve learned about sex and sexuality has been from Everybody Loves Raymond reruns, then you might benefit from reading that first.

In the meantime, I wrote the original draft of this as a response. I’ve chipped away at it every once in a while since then in an attempt to update it, toyed with the idea of turning it into a short memoir a la Sex, Drugs, and Coco Puffsbut I’m now pretty content to just finish the damn thing, put it somewhere findable, and move on for good.


Macrophilia 200 Series

  1. Basics/Refresher
  2. Giants in Popular Media
  3. Female Socialization. Male Gaze, and Paraphilia
  4. Asexuality, Paraphilia, and Identity
  5. On “Reverse Pedophilia”, GT vs SW, and Other Writings


201: Basics/Refresher


Macrophilia is one of those things that, like zarfs1, people are readily familiar with before they’re even aware it has a name or a history.

I’m actually going to remove the “-philia” portion of the fetish name, so that we’re left with something resembling the name of a genre that isn’t purely sexual: macro. For all intents and purposes, macro (and its lesser-used sibling, micro) is older than dirt, and it is more of a genre, a set of symbols, than it is a purely sex-fueled obsession. For as long as humans have been around to wonder and fantasize about things, there has been someone who’s had a fascination with the idea of big people and little people.

As a fetish, it’s basically an attraction to things much larger than yourself. The size ratio is completely dependent on the individual in question, but it seems to be widely accepted that just being attracted to tall people doesn’t quite cut it. The ratio must be unnatural for it to count.

And really, that’s about it. There are as many different flavors of macrophilia as there are macrophiles, and the only thing that any of us have in common is that our fantasies involve weird size differences.

No really, that’s it. Well, in a sweeping generalization kind of way.

I guess to simplify the equation even further, I could say that macrophilia is just another flavor of control dynamics. Even at it’s most asexual and non-threatening, macro is a metaphor, a convoluted symbol, for something else. Some folks would argue that it’s similar to the gay porn defense: “two girls/cocks are better than one!” More is better! A cock the size of a limo is better than a realistic one, even at the cost of being able to achieve anything remotely resembling “natural” sex. To me, though, that’s still a pretty obvious power imbalance.

Power exchanges manifest themselves in many ways. You’ll find ones like, “Take my money”, or “Pee on me”, or “Make me fix dinner in handcuffs”. Macro is the mostly same thing, except it’s “I want to be smaller than you”. The main difference lies in the very thing that makes it impossible to realize: much of the appeal lies in it not often being conditional. Aside from shrink and growth fantasies, which are more about the process than the end result of size disparity, the smaller partner can’t just go “Okay, this isn’t working out. It’d like for you to not be a giant anymore.” There is no not being a giant for a giant. It is an ever-present and unconditional part of the deal. To equate it with a BDSM dynamic, it might be similar to a dyed-in-the-wool master and slave relationship. (Which is pretty funny, actually, considering that I find the BDSM usage of the term “slave” to be extremely obnoxious and wish they’d call themselves something else. But that’s neither here nor there.) As some of the slaviest of slaves will tell you, everything revolves around the will of their master, no matter what it is. That’s just the nature of the relationship, and they can’t even conceive of it being any other way.

Deep down, that’s similar to something that someone like me might ultimately crave, except replace “will” with “size”, and “master” with “giant”. The thing about slavery is that it’s really just a lifestyle paraphilia, if we’re going to assume that a (real) paraphilia not just makes up the foundation for a person’s sexuality, but is also a considerable part of their personality and behavior as well. So by that logic, I would say that there are macrophiles out there who fantasize about having relationships with a difference of size serving as part of the foundation, just as slaves desire ownership to serve as part of the foundation for their relationships. (Most folks will, of course, wish for love to serve as most, if not all, of the basis for any of their intimate and long-term relationships, but there are always exceptions.) I know I’ve fantasized about just being in a world where giants exist, or are integrated members of society, and so on. That scenario fulfills some desire inside of me to feel smaller.

Peruse any kind of medical or scientific literature, and you’ll see that fetishes are almost always described as a sexual fixation on an object or body part. I must disagree with this definition. Where does that leave the macrophile? Moreover, where does that leave the pain slut, the service sub, or the sadist? Or the asexual fetishist, especially? Aside from the common theme of power exchange, another thing that makes them all alike is the fact that the fetishism is often tied to the action and situation. So, I like to call macrophilia a situational fetish: one that is determined by the instance of being (rather, fantasizing about being) in the presence of someone very large, or that very large person being in an environment that’s too small for them, et cetera. Giants can’t exist in a vacuum; without being contrasted with the size of something else recognizable to the fetishist, their giantness theoretically can’t exist. A slime girl doesn’t need to be situated next to a normal human girl for you to know that the slime girl is made of slime, for instance. The giant must have context.

I’m going to get into this more in a later section, though. Especially the asexual part.


Those are the basics, though there’s still sizable chunks of fetish, aspects of it, that are pretty important; vital, even, depending on who you ask: other kinks and fetishes that have become intertwined with the size-play scenario.

Oftentimes these involve acts of violence, and aggressive displays of power. Because the ever-present reinforcement of power-exchange through size disparity isn’t enough for most people, they need the extra oomph of that fear-inducing, blood-pumping interaction that usually entails torture, humiliation, and sometimes even death. I’ve become guilty of entertaining fantasies along these lines in recent years myself. Not to say that there’s anything shameful about it (I got no shame, and told my husband probably a year or two ago that I would have a new no-shame policy, where if someone asks, even a friend, I won’t lie or hide about my interests). It’s just that tastes do change.

BDSM practitioners will be readily familiar with the terms “torture” and “humiliation”. To enjoy them, you are generally held to be masochistic or sadistic to a certain extent, as many macrophiles seem to be. How someone big could torture or humiliate someone small should be pretty self-evident; humiliation could occur just by virtue of being so much smaller!

This is where you start to get into some of the associated fetishes, though. Scenarios involving human waste, bodily fluids, farting… being farted on is pretty gross and degrading, isn’t it? Well, that’s the point. Insertion seems to be similar to both bondage and vore: taking someone into a very tight and confining part of the body. They might struggle, they might suffocate, they might be crushed… hell, they might even enjoy themselves for a few brief moments.

Kink circles have their own version of human sex toy scenes. Like, for instance, a female submissive-type being forced to deep throat, or a male s-type being tied down, a dick sheath slapped on him, and his dominating partner riding away. Face-sitting is also pretty popular; kind of goes hand in hand with feelings of suffocation, being crushed, and used. I’ll talk more about crush later, though.

I’ve always associated size with power, in the same way that someone into BDSM might associate… I dunno, leather pants and combat boots with an m-dom. I grew up inclined to see people that way, and forced myself to unlearn it lest it put me in a bad situation. But I still allow myself to lapse back into that comfort zone during fantasy and sometimes while enjoying popular media stuff. (Size disparity in popular culture will come later.) Growing up, it was a comfort thing. Now, after 5 years of homing in on media that piques my interest in this department, it’s got a darker flavor to it. Giants are nothing but scary villains in grown-up media; they throw their weight around, know how to use their size to hurt and cripple. As it turns out, I really like variations on that cruelty and destruction. Surprising? Probably not.


We can look like anybody. I could be your sister, your aunt, your best friend. Contrary to what Western media would have you believe, there are not two categories of fetishist: the ugly weirdo, and the lady-in-the-streets-freak-in-the-sheets vixen. Stereotypes, problematic narratives, and feminism and things are being saved for a later post.

What do we look like? Well, back when I was still a frequent poster at The Minimizer, I saw pictures of lots of other members. Granted, it was a site for microphiles (mostly men who were into doll-sized ladies, so material featuring giants was a bit scarce), but everyone looked -gasp- normal. Like, we could have a get-together in a public space and no one would be suspicious. Many of us were students, professionals, servicemen and women. Some of us were spouses and parents. We all came from different backgrounds, incomes, levels of ability, and were of many different ages and political views. We could be anywhere, we could be anyone. We are legion.

As for me, personally, I’m in my mid-20’s. I studied in New York City for 5 years, I came back and live with a family member in a temporary situation. I’m in a long-distance marriage. I’m $75k in debt from school, and I make enough money at my current job to pay my loans on my own. I love Ikea furniture. I collect and read books and other academic works on a choice few Mesoamerican cultures. I’m a foodie, craft beer, and bad movie aficionado. I’m 5’8” and 127lbs. I get diarrhea when I’m stressed out.

Like I said, we are legion.

1The little cardboard sleeves you get with cups of hot coffee


Tags: , , ,

Trackbacks / Pingbacks

  1. Macrophilia 201: Part 2 | FISTFELT - September 10, 2013
  2. Macrophilia 201: Part 3 | FISTFELT - September 26, 2013

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: