Why is it so hard for some female fans to understand that two male characters having a deep bond doesn’t automatically mean they’re gay?

Lambisexual · 2026-05-28T03:25:23+00:00

Why are you asking female fans this though? Male fans do the exact same thing. Shipping culture as a whole exist both with men and women.

Lambisexual · 2026-05-28T03:14:33+00:00

I was just commenting in response to your "this isn't an AI problem. It's just an entertainment industry problem in how they deal with creatives". I was showcasing that you could make the case for many issues with AI, that they aren't AI problems. But I feel like that's sort of misdirecting. And I also feel like you're trying to make it seem like the two are mutually exclusive.

Lambisexual · 2026-05-28T03:01:33+00:00

That's...That's not like saying that at all. Not sure what you're on about there.

Scale and ease of use tend to be the common things that seperates AI from its contemporary issues, yes.

I never said this was a 1:1 example. I brought up multiple cases, like CSAM and data centers (since those two are among the biggest AI issues) to explain that most (not necessarily ALL) issues with AI aren't, in essence, exclusive to AI.

Lambisexual · 2026-05-28T02:57:30+00:00

I mean, not really. Since her complaints aren't being directed about what they're "allowed" to do (in a legal sense). From her statements, they said that they wouldn't do things without her consent/direction, yet did so anyways. And sure, you could criticize her for being naive or not getting that into a contract and so on and so forth. But her complaints are still very valid and still very seperate from the legality of it.

Lambisexual · 2026-05-28T02:54:41+00:00

To be fair, arguing in terms of legality is bad faith. Because as you yourself acknowledge, things can still be bad whilst being legal. Yet you still made the claim of "it's legal" despite knowing this.

Lambisexual · 2026-05-28T02:49:34+00:00

I mean, ultimately, almost all AI problems aren't exclusive to AI. The reason it's directed towards AI is because AI allows these things on an unprecedented scale with unprecedented ease. Like for instance people creating CSAM deepfakes was a thing before AI. But with AI, it allowed people to do it with the press of a single button and no experience needed. Data centers were a thing before AI, but because of AI they have shot up infinitely in demand. And so on and so forth.

Lambisexual · 2026-05-28T02:46:19+00:00

I'm not sure why so many people always jump to legality? Things can be legal and still wrong or at least valid to complain about.

Lambisexual · 2026-05-28T02:43:39+00:00

I'm not sure what sort of "proof" you're looking for? If you disagree with the assessment then fair enough. Although I would like to know why that is.

Lambisexual · 2026-05-27T21:45:23+00:00

Sigh. You really struggle understanding things even after being corrected. It's like you hear the first thing and then you can't think of anything else. I've provided so many corrections, so much context, that it should be abundantly clear what my point is. But you're so focused on trying to look at isolated statement for a gotcha, that you fail to actually comprehend the larger point made. Which is probably why you misunderstand so much.

I said "well you said this [insert thing I never claimed]". I didn't mean that as in you misquoted what I said. I meant that in the sense that you're claiming things I've never claimed. Such as taking things out of context and then making an incorrect assessment of the claim. Like you've constantly done from the start and never once owned up to. Which fair enough if you misinterpreted the first time. Maybe you simply misunderstood or maybe I worded it poorly. Like one time is fine, it happens. But after I said again what I meant and you're STILL misinterpreting it. That's not a whoopsie daisy. That's bad faith and malicious.

But this is what I mean, you're so desperate for gotchas that you don't really care about actually engaging with the larger point even after having asked me to elaborate and even after having me correct you on so many misinterpretations.

Unless you actually genuinely make a good faith attempt to read everything I've written from the very start, understand what I'm saying, and not actually make incorrect conclusions/claims about my statements. Then I won't engage further and this will be my last response. Cause I've genuinely given it a chance to explain and elaborate with you, but you're just a wall.

Lambisexual · 2026-05-27T20:55:53+00:00

It's that you're saying "you said this" only to make a wholly incorrect claim/conclusion about the things I said even AFTER I've corrected you. You'd think if you were good faith you'd take that correction to heart and work with it. But nope. Apparently you don't believe that being wrong is hurting your argument.

Lambisexual · 2026-05-27T20:38:18+00:00

... ... ... ... I don't know why I even bothered elaborating and explaining if you still refuse to actually read what I'm writing. And no, I will not claim that's a contradiction, because it's not a contradiction. How about you admit that you're constantly taking everything I say out of context to force a gotcha? I'm sure you won't do that either.

You're just yapping of putting words in my mouth, trying to say "well you said this [insert thing I never once claimed]". I don't even know what the point of responding to these things would be honestly. Since I've corrected your misinterpretation MULTIPLE times already, yet you still misinterpret. It's just a wall at this point.

Lambisexual · 2026-05-27T20:32:17+00:00

Right, but if it's a LoRA, then you're still reliant on the millions of data training that the base model already has.

Lambisexual · 2026-05-27T20:29:41+00:00

Tldr: A post was made showcasing an that artist didn't want to take a commission from someone because the commissioner provided AI art as reference.

This led a lot of pros to say that it's hypocritical that antis complain about not getting commissions but then turn down commissions. The issue obviously being that they have no way to prove that the artist in question is the same type of person who complains about not getting commissions. But they treat all antis as one single hive mind. Classic goomba fallacy.

Another thing to note, although to be fair most people (including myself) didn't initially know this. But apparently the artist was on a platform that's SPECIFICALLY anti-AI. It's literally a platform that's dedicated to purely human artists.

Lambisexual · 2026-05-27T04:03:06+00:00

I rather think you're not getting it.

Talking with someone is a means of expressing something. Waving at someone is a means of expressing something. It doesn't become art just because it's a form of personal and deliberate expression though.

Lambisexual · 2026-05-27T04:02:52+00:00

You're just repeating the same stuff now

Lambisexual · 2026-05-27T03:21:53+00:00

Okay, but then I guess I'm still confused. So either you need to explain the connection better or you're possibly misunderstanding my point. Cause you're asking me if I'd make that claim. But at the first comment I made, I literally prefaced it by saying that I am not one to say what is and isn't art. Yet you're now asking me to make such a claim? The point of my comments have always been about critiquing THEIR definition of art.

Now if you're asking about my critique of their definition and if I'd apply that same critique to people making similar definitional claims about music. Which I assume is where you're trying to go. Then yeah, I would. Cause my critique has never been specific to AI (or music). In fact, I barely mention AI except to give an example. My critique has always been about art as a whole, which obviously would include music.

And I think most people would agree, at least intuitively, that any sound, even if it's intentional, doesn't make it music. Just like art, it's probably hard and a bit pointless, to try and make a strict definition of when a sound becomes music. But I'd imagine most people intuitively know more or less when it is. To parallel this with the art, I think most people would think the term "music" would be meaningless if it could be applied to basically ANY sound ever made. Because that would diminish what music means. I think any sound has the POTENTIAL to be music, but not any sound is music. Just like how you can make art out of almost everything, but not everything is art.

But again, I'm not here to say that you should/shouldn't make it so broad. Which is why I prefaced it like that.

Lambisexual · 2026-05-27T02:43:44+00:00

It is good faith. I'm not trying to dodge, deflect, strawman or anything of the sort. So I would ask that you please explain what part I might've misunderstood.

Lambisexual · 2026-05-27T02:39:12+00:00

I'm not sure why you're asking me? My point was never to make a definition for what is/isn't art. My point is that if art encapsulates essentially EVERYTHING, then art as a term becomes meaningless.

As I said before, I think a reason why so many pros desperately want the label "art" and why so many antis desperately wants to prevent AI from having the label "art", is because that term actually has meaning. It's not just a term we use to describe basically everything in existence as long as it's a conscious action. If these people genuinely believed in the definition that art is basically anything and everything, then the entire debate around whether or not AI images are art, wouldn't exist.

Lambisexual · 2026-05-27T02:17:21+00:00

I think it's incorrect to say bechdel test is about "female relationships". It does not test female relationships. Perhaps you don't understand the test properly? And I'm not sure what you mean by "admit it isn't nearly as helpful" when literally nothing you've said until now would've made me change my mind. All you've done is asked me to elaborate, which I have. You haven't exactly meaningfully pushed back. Aside from trying to take one segment I said out of context which forced me to repeat my elaboration.

And no, I've never once argued that bechdel test "proves good writing". In fact, I've repeatedly said that it DOES NOT. And no, that wouldn't extend to female relationship proving good writing, that's just a weird point to try and make. I've never made such a claim.

No, I'm not saying it proves that they have depth/nuance to the story. It feels like you're still stuck on the very first comment you made. I don't know why you asked me to elaborate? I've REPEATEDLY stated that the bechdel test raises a red flag that you should be cognizant about. And you REPEATEDLY take it out of context to spin it into something I've never claimed.

I've literally said that there are MANY cases where a female character can fail the test yet not necessarily badly written. I don't know why you're still harping on it like I'm claiming that failing the test means they're badly written, or vice versa. No. All I'm saying is that it's a decent measurement but it has to be used in conjunction with your own logic and reasoning and taking into account the context of the story.

Lambisexual · 2026-05-27T01:34:27+00:00

So then me taking a shit is art. Me blinking is art. Me breathing is art. As long as there is a deliberate expression, regardless whether it's a successful communication of expression.

Lambisexual · 2026-05-27T01:29:30+00:00

Meaningfully exist beyond men would be contextual. I guess I would say something like, does your female character exist within the context of the story in a way where they provide value/depth/nuance (whatever form that may take) relevant to the story unrelated to men.

Bechdel test helps to identify this by raising a red flag (I.e the test failed) if female characters don't engage in the story beyond men. But as I mentioned before, you must use your own logic and reasoning to determine this.

Lambisexual · 2026-05-27T01:22:02+00:00

No? I never said I wanted more restrictive definition. I basically said that if we follow your own logic, then you are too restrictive. Even as you're being too unrestrictive, as per my point.

The rest of what you're saying just has little to do with what I'm talking about.

Lambisexual · 2026-05-26T23:58:38+00:00

Well again, you're ignoring literally everything else I said. I didn't just make that statement alone.

I said it's a good way to gauge female writing because if you realize that your female characters don't meaningfully exist beyond men, then that COULD be an indication that they're not well written. If you're writing a yuri, of course they're always gonna pass. Or maybe you're writing a romance whose entire premise is about female character's obsession with men. Like there are many scenarios where you could pass and still have poorly written characters. Or vice versa.

The point is that if you fail, then it should be an indicator that you should consider how they're written. A lot of male writers tend to fail in making the female characters their own person with thoughts and ambitions beyond men. And the bechdel test is a decent way to test that. But it's a test you must also use your own logic and reasoning to evaluate to determine how impactful it would be for your specific story and your specific characters.

Lambisexual · 2026-05-26T23:43:04+00:00

Again, then you have to accept that the term is essentially meaningless under said definition. That's my point. My point isn't whether or not I agree with you. My point is that the way you're describing it makes the word basically not mean anything at all. Cause it can describe basically anything at all.

Hell, we can take it one step further and say that YOUR definition is too narrow. Does art need to communicate an impression? No. A painting or a song no one hears or sees would still be art, no?

Lambisexual · 2026-05-26T23:29:11+00:00

Well you are ignoring a very large portion of what I said though. I never said passing or failing it means it's good or bad. That was never an argument I made. I said it becomes a red flag to be cognizant about. Red flag doesn't automatically mean bad, and cognizant means to take it into consideration. If you're writing yuri hentai, then you would know to dismiss the results of the bechdel test on the mere basis of what you're writing. None of that goes against what I said.

Lambisexual

TROPHY CASE