Seven8the9:
I'm at a crossroads and am looking for insight/advice.

My husband (we've known each other 8+ years) is not an FA. I'm a large woman of 246lb, and short. I also have medical conditions that make gaining weight easy and losing hard, despite medical intervention.

I confirmed this by reading his journals in which he writes about not being attracted to me when we first met (I was 20lb lighter then). And how he worries about my health. And how I've tried so many things to lose weight, but not "the obvious" of working out and "just going to the gym". He also wrote extensively of wanting an athletic partner. How it's a must for him.

It gets a bit more complicated.

I KNOW that reading his journal was wrong, and I have not in all the 8+ years. However, we are trying to conceive, with me going through fertility treatment right now. I decided to go against my morals and read the journal, to see if he truly felt ready and willing to have kids. I guess look, and you will find...

Ironically, he didn't mention any hesitations in the journal over trying for kids.

I have my own long history of body image issues, and now this is compounded by learning of his true feelings about my weight. Not to mention the weight I may gain during and after pregnancy. He's a fit guy. He's known about my weight issue, self image issues, and non-athleticism for our entire relationship. I truly thought he was an FA, but now I see he was envisioning me as "lithe and healthy" in the future.

Our sex life is good; emotionally and romantically, we are great.

It's just this one BIG area that hurts like open wound.

Do I tell him I read his journal? Do we put off having kids? It feels obvious that we should for now. Do I tell him about my desire to BE desired for my fatness? These are huge things to consider... and what was feeling like a strong bond between us now feels pretty much at risk.

Really would appreciate any advice, even if it calls me out on my shortcomings in this situation.

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!

Munchies:
I've explained the situation in detail and included sources. I am not sure if you read my sources, or there's something I am not explaining well. But the things you are talking about aren't comparable to what I am talking about.

The AI art programs are not just scraping from big publications or magazines. They are also scraping from smaller creators. I'm talking about people who make art for a living or side hustle. In fact, programs like Glaze were made specifically for these people in mind. (It's in the article.)

And if you think it's okay for these programs to scrape their hard work for the software to have data, then I have nothing more to say to you.

I’m not an admin, but I don’t think stories that focus on characters under 18 are acceptable on this site. Maybe in other settings a non-erotic story about a minor who deals with weight gain is more than fine, but on a website that eroticizes weight gain it’s going to be a big red flag. Haven’t read your story and maybe you do it in such an expert way that it’s ok, but that seems like something you need to really review closely. Feels like you might have a problem here.

UKLionheart:
Thanks for your response. I fully understand your point here and it is the reason I asked the question. I am torn because I guess that like a lot people here, I first discovered my fascination with feeding and fattening reading Hansel and Gretel as a child. And that is a story about kids who are going to be fattened and slaughtered, but it is not a sexual story. It is a very fine line. I recognise that a lot of he rewrites on here make them older teens and young adults though.

I am arguing both sides with myself here. Haha.

UKLionheart:
Yes - There are some stories I would love to reread, but I cannot find them again and the title search does not always bring them up (Or I have not remembered the name properly!)

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.

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.

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?

Munchies:
I have no idea why you are focusing on this. Two people made a comment. Another person didn't understand it. I explained.

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.

aimeecozza.com/what-is-glaze-and-how-can-it-help-protect-against-ai-scraping/

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.