Flux tends to gravitate towards a single face archetype for both sexes. For women it's a narrow face with a very slightly cleft chin. Men almost always appear with a very short cut beard or stubble. r/stablediffusion calls it the "flux face", and there are several LoRAs that aim to steer the model away from them.
Flux will not adhere to your detailed description of a woman's face nearly as well as it does for a man, and it doesn't adhere to text descriptions of faces well in general. This is not a technical limitation, this was a choice in the captioning of the model's dataset and maybe other more sophisticated decisions like loss. It exhibits similar flaws with its representation of male versus female celebrities; it also exhibits this flaw when you use language that describes male celebrities versus female celebrities appearances.
I found Flux will barely pay attention to a celebrity name. I like Flux but it makes all realistic human men and women look the same. I tried using celebrity names and it barely made a difference.
what they really mean is that it's not useful for generating lewd imagery of women. It was likely nerfed in this regard on purpose because BFL didn't want to be associated with that (however legal it may be).
I'm not sure why you're being downvoted because I think this is a misconception that's worth clearing up. There is no aspect of what I'm doing that is lewd or lewd adjacent. I just want control of a character's face for making art for an open source game. While I do not totally understand what specific decisions Flux made that would make their model weak in the regard of specifying the appearance of someone's face, one thing is clear: the humanities people are right, this is like a great example of how censorship and Big Prude has impacted artmaking.
It is actually making it harder to use the technology to represent women characters, which is so ironic. That said, I could just lEaRn tO dRaW or pAy aN aRtIsT right? The discourse around this is so shitty.
I appreciate that you think downvotes shouldn't be used so liberally on this site (i.e. purely for disagreement). I _have_ checked this comment somewhat rigorously since I posted it and it's only ever hovered at around 1-2 points, but never below 0. So not sure what you're referring to.
In any case, I believe that you're not generating lewd photos (I hope you don't blame me too much for being surprised though, it's _incredibly_ common). I still imagine the reason you're having trouble though is _because_ such descriptions are relatively adjacent enough for whatever censoring measures they used to nerf lewd outputs.
Censorship is kinda bullshit. But, it's a very expensive toy that they have given away for free (the lesser models, anyway). You can use a LORA (or hell, train your own presumably million-dollar model) to remove these restrictions.
It's more frustrating when you're paying for it and it's behind an API you have no control over. Which, I realize BFL is doing for their pro model - but this isn't anywhere near as egregious as, say, the level of censoring done behind the API for the DALL-E models. And, at the very least it is understandable from a _company_ perspective. They have both legal and public relations concerns to manage. To say that they should just ignore those facets of running a company feels a little entitled to me.
