RobbyP:
^Wrong

FAMGM:
I think it’s a heck of a lot more than a fetish or a kink, and no it does not.

Enas:
Can you elaborate further? What else do you think it is? (asking because it's a really interesting thing, to me at least)

FAMGM:
I call myself a fat-sexual. Fat is the fundamental of my sexuality, not gender.

UKLionheart:
Hey guys. I am shit! I have been away for a long time and I know that I have GOT to finish two of my older stories. I think they are from 6 years ago. I promise I will do this.

HOWEVER, the reason for this post is that I have just completed a draft of a new story. It was supposed to be about a realistic gaining over time, but it sort of grew (as we do! haha!) into pretty much a Novella. So before I post it, I would like some feedback. There is no rush as it needs tidying up.

Points I would like feedback on:

1. Size - The story is currently 87 pages long! Is this too much?

2. I know some people want to read weight gain stories for "gratification" but this story is not written in that way. There are some references to stuffing and overfeeding, but as the story has evolved, they have become background scenes as I explored the main character's arc. I don't really think I can honestly say that this is a weight gain story as much as a story of somebody who got fat. If that makes sense?

3. It follows the main protagonist for about 12 years, I am going to say again that this is not a "gratification" story as when it starts, she is 11 years old, but the real weight gain does not start until she is about 14 and the main story takes place between 16 - 18 with a couple of "epilogue" chapters aged 21 and 23. I don't want to cross any lines regarding minors here, and I repeat, there is nothing sexual or fetishised about her gain especially when she is younger. It is more about a few chapters setting the scene.
(I did read a story on Deviant Art where the protagonist was 10 and it was weird and not enjoyable! I have purposely avoided going into details in her younger years.)

4. I have actually sort of fallen in love with my own main character. Haha. Have other writers had this experience? I am not sure if it is a good or bad thing because on one side, I want to give her a story that she deserves, but on the other hand, I don't know if it weakens my writing as I want to "protect" her. (I hope that makes sense to other writers and I am not having some sort of breakdown!)

All responses are appreciated.

Thank you

Munchies:

That said, Photoshop isn't inherently theft, unlike AI art. It's gotten so bad that artists - some of whom use Photoshop - are turning to programs like Glaze to prevent art theft.



Letters And Numbers:
I didn’t say anything about Photoshop being theft. You should reread the conversation. You were talking about artificial beauty standards and I said that Photoshop gets used interchangeably with airbrush when you’re talking about how pictures (mostly of women) online and in magazines are doctored. Which is not the software’s fault, it’s the magazine editor, etc. it’s a human problem, the software is just software. A paintbrush is just a paintbrush. They’re tools.

Munchies:
Earlier in the conversation, people, including myself, said that AI art is theft. This is why I brought it up, and why I am making the distinction.

The theft is baked into the software's programming. To talk about AI art without the theft is to paint an incomplete picture. The only way for the software to work is by scraping data - mostly without consent. The program cannot exist without it.

This is different from airbrushing (which isn't inherently Photoshop, but for the sake of arguement, we'll say that it is). The software isn't inherently one thing or another. It's a tool that humans control to achieve whatever outcome they want.

Letters And Numbers:
AI art software is 2 years old, commercially, right? If there was AI software that only scraped Getty images, for example, and had a license to do that, it would not be theft (really copyright infringement or violations of fair use statutes), correct? The fact that it doesn’t currently work this way today doesn’t mean that’s not where it’s headed. Cars in 1910 didn’t have seatbelts. They all do now, and it’s because people were damaged and standards were set. Fair use is probably the most immediate problem with AI, but also the easiest to solve. But it’s a real problem! And the current Supreme Court is very on the side of the original copyright holder as seen in the Prince/Warhol case this year. Only Kagen and Roberts dissented. There’s a 1st amendment case on the other side, too, though. If scraping scans of magazines to get images for AI is theft (it’s not, legally, it might be copyright infringement or violations of fair use statutes), so is the the kid in her bedroom cutting up magazines to make a collage. It’s just a different application, but I don’t get my blood pressure up about people making collages, even with very famous images. I don’t get upset about samples in hip hop. If the record company wants to pay to clear them, that’s great, but ultimately as the listener, I kinda don’t care about a 2 second sample. I think it’s transforming the sample into something new. I don’t think a bar band should have to pay Creedence Clearwater Revival every time they play a cover of Proud Mary. But if they’re going to commercially release an album of cover songs they probably need the mechanical rights to do so. I think Negativland is great and they made art and I don’t care that they pissed off U2’s publishing company. But they’re complicated questions. I think, at least. It’s a good discussion here, sincerely!

X_Larsson:
I am NOT a big proponent of AI technology implementations, but if we all agree it is a tool, and it seems we do, then consider this:
You focus on the "learnìng" process, where the software is tought to identify image critical elements. How is that different from how a traditional artist analyses, works and learns from the masters?
You look, create, review (edit?), make learnings and create again.
To me, it is also similar to taking photos and doing picture processing, chemically or digitally.
These current, human artists OBVIOUSLY learn by looking at the wealth of existing pictures around us, without paying anything extra. The AI does the same, but faster. Like the sewing machine or 3D printer is faster than manual labor.

In my opinion, it seems AI doing generic pictures, and doing fictional, non existing characters, we should be good, from a theft perspective.
Futuristic landscapes, or from different planets, or from space etc, with people, animals, and objects that are new to us, we are not infringing on anybody's specific work.

Munchies:

That said, Photoshop isn't inherently theft, unlike AI art. It's gotten so bad that artists - some of whom use Photoshop - are turning to programs like Glaze to prevent art theft.



Letters And Numbers:
I didn’t say anything about Photoshop being theft. You should reread the conversation. You were talking about artificial beauty standards and I said that Photoshop gets used interchangeably with airbrush when you’re talking about how pictures (mostly of women) online and in magazines are doctored. Which is not the software’s fault, it’s the magazine editor, etc. it’s a human problem, the software is just software. A paintbrush is just a paintbrush. They’re tools.

As for number two, it's been scientifically proven that unrealistic, idealized beauty standards warp people's body expectations. It's the same reason why people get mad at the Kardashians for their heavily edited and airbrushed photoshoots. Or how some men feel anxiety about their penis size because they think men should have 10 in penises.

[b]Letters And Numbers:
But that’s hardly a problem exclusive to AI art. Before AI, photoshop was the boogie man for that, and it was still just shorthand for society pushing unrealistic beauty standards. I mean half the time when I make people with AI they look like terrifying monsters with fucked up faces and limbs bending the wrong way.

Munchies:
I mean ... I drew a parallel to Photoshop.

Letters And Numbers:
Do you think the Photoshop software is a bad thing? Or is it just a tool that can be used for good things and for bad things, like any other tool?

Letters And Numbers:
If I have neuropathy and can’t draw the way I want to, but can use AI to express myself visually, I might think it’s very democratizing. It’s a tool, which isn’t inherently bad or inherently good. If people are using it to fuck over other people, that’s a human problem with human solutions.

Munchies:
Um ...
What?

This has never been an issue. Tons of artists have been making art for generations with all sorts of medical issues.

brainandlife.org/articles/four-artists-talk-about-how-their-neurologic-conditions-affect-their

There's a famous illustrator, Tom Yendell, who was born without arms. So he paints with his toes. He paints better than I, an able-bodied person, could hope.

There are scores of different ways of making art spanning cultures, centuries, and mediums. And people are trailblazing new stuff all the time. There's always a way to express yourself other than "the computer made it for me."

Letters And Numbers:
100 years ago there wasn’t indoor plumbing most places. This is a new tool. Times change. Something will come along after AI art, too, and people will get upset about it and then things will normalize.

As for number two, it's been scientifically proven that unrealistic, idealized beauty standards warp people's body expectations. It's the same reason why people get mad at the Kardashians for their heavily edited and airbrushed photoshoots. Or how some men feel anxiety about their penis size because they think men should have 10 in penises.

[b]Letters And Numbers:
But that’s hardly a problem exclusive to AI art. Before AI, photoshop was the boogie man for that, and it was still just shorthand for society pushing unrealistic beauty standards. I mean half the time when I make people with AI they look like terrifying monsters with fucked up faces and limbs bending the wrong way.