Use it!

I'm sick and tired of having to pop a new window over this site when my kids are in the room or I'm at work. The flag doesn't censor you as an "artist" and you do have a responsibility to flag anything with nudity! It's bad enough some of the banner ads are questionable. For myself, I don't care but when my kids are in the room or I'm at work I shouldn't have to worry about it when the safeguard is an option.

< /rant >

Well I did when I last posted a nude image in the Poser Gallery - but it had no effect. I had to add 'nudity' to the header myself instead. This may be why? Also, looking at stuff like this at work is no argument - don't look at it while you're at work. Unless you work with graphics and have a reason to be in R'osity, then your work mates wouldn't mind would they? :o) My kids can quite happily see nudity - hell, it's not porn. So what's you argument? Are your kids particualrly fragile? But as I said, I did flag - for sensitive people. :] Fish

"Well I did when I last posted a nude image in the Poser Gallery - but it had no effect. I had to add 'nudity' to the header myself instead.
This may be why?"

I think there is a problem with the flag then because there are plenty of thumbnails that don't show up and have the "nudity" text instead. Other thumbs either don't have the flag in place or it's not taking effect.

"Also, looking at stuff like this at work is no argument - don't look at it while you're at work."

With the flag in place, I should be able to. THAT'S THE POINT. I don't have a boss looking over my shoulder. I am the boss. When I'm able to surf at work it's when things are slow enough. I'm considerate of what other people may or may not wish to view. When it's just me it's no big deal.

"My kids can quite happily see nudity - hell, it's not porn.
So what's you argument? Are your kids particualrly fragile?
But as I said, I did flag - for sensitive people"

The point is it's there and it's not being used as much as it should be OR it needs fixing. I don't care what anyone here thinks of my parenting (and I won't even go into that argument) so anyone else who wants to get on their soap box about it, don't bother. If you have a problem with my not wanting my kids to see the soft porn on this site, deal with it.

FishNose, it probably didn't seem to make any difference to you because you have 'Show nudity in the galleries' set to 'Yes' in your profile. Only if you set this to 'No' are images with the nudity flag filtered out. I just checked, and the nudity filter is working for me.

heyas; i thought kendra meant the nudity flag on the posts, not the galleries. i've seen dozens of threads with nude humans that have forgotten to have that turned on. and i agree. USE IT! :)

Attached Link: http://www.artchive.com/

We have several art books in our home and my children have looked through them. There is a difference in what you will find in the works of the Impressionists and what you will find in the Poser Gallery.

The discussion wasn't about whether or not children should see nudity, it's about THIS SITE and the nudity flag which isn't being used as much as it should be. I don't recall telling anyone they shouldn't create nudes, I'm working on a Victoria Secret image myself. I am telling people to use the nudity flag.

Stick to the topic.

and this gem of a story came in my mail yesterday ;-) -- NEW YORK -- For some people at Salomon Smith Barney, it seems that no nudes is good nudes. Last year, an employee of the Citigroup unit was offended by a piece of artwork portraying images of female nudes that adorned an elevator vestibule in one of the firm's downtown Manhattan offices. So he asked that it be taken down. The artwork, titled "Two Newds," was removed, but a few months later, it reappeared. This time, more workers asked that it be taken down again. It was -- then again put back up. And again it was taken down. The owners of the office building, a pair of septuagenarian brothers, strongly disagree that the artwork is offensive or that their tenants have a right to take it down. Melvyn and Robert Kaufman, who built the 26-story office tower just off Wall Street more than 30 years ago, believe it's a matter of principle that the artwork stay. They vow to reinstall it. "What is going to be left if we give in every time somebody makes one of these ridiculous complaints?" fumes Robert Kaufman, 75 years old. Melvyn Kaufman, 78, commissioned the black-and-white silhouettes when the building opened back in 1970. Two semi-circular plexiglass panels, each about five feet tall, are attached to two exit doors at the back of a hall of elevators that serves as a building entrance. To a casual observer, the two semicircles form what looks like a big round Rorschach inkblot whose inner edges are abstract swirls. But closer scrutiny reveals that each of the mirror images is really the shadowy figure of a nude female. Many viewers don't see the nude bodies, and the brothers say they've never received a complaint about it until now. Today, the naked ladies are pitting an old-time family real-estate firm against a pair of Wall Street titans: Goldman Sachs Group, which leases the building, and Salomon Smith Barney, which sublets four floors from Goldman and has allied with its rival for this feud. Of the "Two Newds" dispute, Susan Thomson, a Salomon Smith Barney spokeswoman, says it's not a judgment about art. "It's about our commitment to creating a respectful and comfortable work environment for all employees. We regret the building owner fails to understand and respect that right." For its part, Goldman says it just wants to meet its tenant's request. "Art is very much a matter of taste and people clearly have strong opinions," says Lucas van Praag, a bank spokesman. "I think that whenever possible, we like to keep our tenants happy." The latest ruckus started when a unit of Salomon moved to the building, which the Kaufmans now co-own, in October 2001. Before the staff arrived, Eugene Clark, an attorney at the firm, toured the building. When he saw "Two Newds," he thought it might offend women in the office and asked the building's management company, Jones Lang LaSalle, to remove it. By the time the employees moved in, the piece was gone. This spring, a Kaufman engineer noticed the nudes were missing. When he reported it to the brothers, they ordered Jones Lang to put the piece back up, citing a clause in Goldman's lease that prevents the tenant from changing "the basic design of the ground floor of the building." With the reappearance of the nudes, Mr. Clark started getting complaints from women workers. "It was the talk of the office," recalls Cindy Heller, a 51-year-old vice president of accounting in Salomon's legal department. "It was inappropriate for corporate America. It was embarrassing." Mr. Clark complained to managers at Jones Lang, who removed the artwork five days later. This time, the Kaufmans were steaming. Melvyn Kaufman called Goldman, demanding that the piece be reinstated. Goldman initially resisted, but a few days later, it ordered the building managers to put "Two Newds" back up. When Salomon's Mr. Clark complained again to Jones Lang, this time he was told the artwork couldn't come down because Goldman's lease prevented it. At that point, Mr. Clark called an attorney at Goldman Sachs directly. Two days later, the piece came down again. Source: Wall Street Journal

Attached Link: http://www.artchive.com/artchive/D/delacroix/sardanpl.jpg.html

Hmmm. I didn't read where Kendra called nudity porn...

I think what Kendra is railing against isn;t so much the nudity in general, but images like, say, a recent one fo two days ago, where a woman is perched in a squat right over a spiked dildo. Images like that are clearly softcore porn. Before any fool in here points a finger and shouts "prude!", let it be known that erotica is cool with me... Hell, I love it, and have quite the collection. In short, I got nothing at all against it. OTOH, I also respect the rights of others in not having to see something of that nature. I also would never show any of my children any of the aforementioned collection. This isn't Aldous Huxley's world (though it gets closer each day, don't it?), and I myself would prefer that my children become mature adults before being bombarded with erotic imagery... they would get too much of it in advertisements and on so-called "televised entertainment" as it is. The Death of Sardanapal isn't gratuitous sex (or even gratuitous violence. It was commissioned to prove a point and to show a historical event if memory serves.) I mean, let's face facts: If it were a Poser render, Sardanapal would most likely have her legs spread wide, she's carry a come-hither (and slightly cross-eyed) look on her face even at the moment of death, a fountain of blood would be gushing out of her wide-open chest, and her killer would have a raging hard-on and would wear leather chaps with his heavily-postworked ass-crack showing through. That, and the rest of the Harem would prolly be engaged in a lesbian free-for-all orgy, but with just enough daylight seperating their genitalia to avoid an outright TOS violation. As for the historical painting itself? My kids would not only see it, but I'd fill 'em in on the history as soon as I could get the proper information. But remember - Sardanapal is a complete galaxy's worth of difference from the recently-posted render of a tattooed chick squatting over a dildo and looks just about to ram it home.

Have you considered trying a different delivery? I've noticed that when a "request" is presented in a less dictating way,it is usually better received. For example "Use it" or "I'm sick and tired of having to...." "deal with it." and "I am telling people to use the nudity flag" We've all been around long enough to know that this will usually result in folks challenging your request because of the way it's presented.(and thus straying from the original topic) Many times doing the exact opposite just out of spite. If your objective is to really get folks to use the tags,perhaps a gentle reminder or in the form of a request will yield better results,than coming across as demanding people do what you want. Just an observation. Tom <~~~ also agrees that tags should be used.

Fishnose: My kids can quite happily see nudity - hell, it's not porn.

What Poser gallery have you been browsing through?

"but lumping all nude artwork as soft porn is the beginnings of censoring the gallery completely." She didn't say a thing about porn. She said the nudity tag should be used.

"If you have a problem with my not wanting my kids to see the soft porn on this site, deal with it."

Here's where I mentioned porn. A reaction to the first reaction I received. Now I didn't say that the entire Poser gallery was porn or that all nudes were porn. But Peng is right. There is soft/borderline porn in the Poser gallery. I don't have a problem with nudes at all. I simply want to be able to choose when I view them and when my kids are in the house I'd like to trust that people are using the nudity flag for what it's there for.
This has been building up with me for a few days and the last straw was having my daughter walk up just as a poser gallery came up with two nude thumbnails not flagged. Kneejerk reaction is to yell "Use the Flag!".
If people took offense to my tone and responded to it and not the content, I'll take the blame for that.
I won't however, deal with the 'is nudity art' issue because that was never the point.
If it bothers someone that I'm careful what my kids see, that's not my problem. I won't discuss whether nudity is art or whatever bijou is going on about.
I haven't pointed anyone in particular out so if you use the nudity flag, this post has nothing to do with you. If you don't then it does.

oh i totally agree with you Kendra. I just can't figure out how Bijouchat took " use the nudity flag" and went to the louvre- to an email (s)he got, to the lecturing and pontificating on "soft porn //nudity is art" deal shrug I do not want nudity shoved in my face, so - i use the nudity filter.

I have to agree with Kendra here. Heck, half my stuff involves nudes but I Always Respect My Fellow Site Members. I too browse at work, where I seem to be most of the time, and my boss Allows us to Provided we don't surf sites of nudity. Which is why I seldom get to visit the gallery. Not all 3Ders live in Euope, some of us live in Prude-Land (USA) and are surrounded by others who think differently. Heck, when my boss made me remove my render '"Halloween Wake Up' from my desktop because the vampi "has her legs spread too wide" I had to tell him "damn, I could never take you guys to the museum, you'd try to paint clothes on all the Michael Angelo's".. This is an Inernational site and we should all be adults and use the tools (and rules) that are there. It's not a matter of being censored, it's a matter of being polite to others and showing that you are as responsible and artist as you are a good artist. (however my Christmas Greeting post got pulled and there was NO nudity; but you didn't hear me whine did you? whimper, whimper)

bijouchat: "one of my favourites, the Death of Sardanapal by Eugene Delacroix" Really? I'd prefer "woman with a Parrot" myself. But I'd have to say one of my favorite pieces is "Origin of the Harp" by Daniel Maclise As for the nudity flag - yes it should be used. Personally my kids see the art here if they are hanging around my desk - but they are 9, 13 and 15 (all will age in February) and the oldest is a talented artist himself, so I certainly won't hide any art form from him. As for work - well if you are the boss that's different I suppose - as long as you don't get on the case of employees who do the same thing BG Ultimately many forget the nudity tag, it isn't intentional - and frankly treating them like children themselves won't help. It would be nice if we had the ability to edit our posts, then those who forget could quickly fix the post. Maybe a nice bold reminder at the top of the forum?

I guess any excuse is a good excuse to get up on the old soapbox, eh? A concerned parent and employer mentions that she wishes more people would use the nudity flag, which according to this site's rules is supposed to be used anyway, and for her concern gets the privilage of having her parenting choices questioned and getting figuatively tarred-and-feathered for her views. Sweet.

I'm agreeing with her, for one. If there is any sight of an exposed boob in my images I always flag nudity.

I agree there should be a flag for nudity and there should be no nudity in the thumbnails...sometimes people forget but I just surfed the gallery and there was 5 images with nudity in the thumb let alone flagged for nudity in the image....thats the first two pages of the gallery by the way...maybe the moderators should be able to delete the thumbs and warn the people to fix their post and resubmit...by the way the nudity thing doesnt bother me...I know better than to browse the gallery when kids or people that may be offended are within eyesight

To some people's credit Jet, I did come on strong. Although I do feel strongly about it. I'd much rather see people be responsible than have to bug the mods for each and every 'forgetful person'.

Here's a question though. Should you flag the image even though the thumbnail doesn't show the nudity? Because plenty of times I've clicked a thumb only to have a nude pop up in the full version.
I think if there's nudity in the final image but not necessarily in the thumb, those images should be flagged as well. That way if nudes are a no-no wherever you are, you know which thumbnails you're safe to click and so on.

I disagree, do they have a nudity flag in the Tate or any other realworld gallery? No! There's been nudity in art for as long as there has been art & only now on the web do we feel the need to put a flag on it or cover it up. By censoring or flagging nudity we are likely to end up with a generation of young people who think the naked human body is something that should not be seen at any time just like the victorians. I'd rather have well adjusted kids who don't feel the need to resort to pornography, so for me & my kids Poser & most poser related sites are uncensored.

Just curious - and no offense ment ,but, doesn't the responsibility come "before" you come to asite that contains artwork that contains nudity? Just asking, because if what you are saying is that this site and these people and these 15,000 artists and everyone that comes here are now resposible for what your kids might see or did see because you choose to put on your computor screen at a site you choose to come to, that you knew before hand contained nudity that your kids which you knew where around and could see what you put on your screen? - does this mean we have to start making child support payments or something?

Cheryle says "I do not want nudity shoved in my face" - must be difficult to find a magazine to read, given the amount of nudity in general advertising these days. I always liked the cartoon showing a mother and child visiting an art gallery. They come to a sculpture labelled "Female Nude", and the mother covers her child's eyes. The sculpture is completely abstract!

Kendra they are supposed to use the nudity flag regardless of the thumbnail showing nudity or not. I thought if the image was flagged for nudity then the thumbnail wouldn't show either, is this not the case?

c1rcle: I disagree, do they have a nudity flag in the Tate or any other realworld gallery? No!That's because in the real world galleries you're not surrounded and being bombarded by thousands of images of naked women playing with their nipples, or in some suggestive pose to suggest their a loose women or whore.

:) There's the difference. Would you show your children porn?

ah Empress we aren't talking about porn here, We're talking about artistic nudity. But you're right there is a point I won't go beyond even though my oldest has seen far worse images thanks to having access to the internet at school, don't you just love Cybersitter :)

"We're talking about artistic nudity"

In the poser gallery? Look again. Some are artisticly nude. Others are soft porn.

And we are not in some "real world gallery" C1rcle. That's a strawman argument that makes no sense.
And Saie_Tahnn, I am not asking or telling anyone not to render nudes. I would not expect to be able to brows Renderotica with my kids in the room. A complaint like this over there would warrent the comments you posted above. Here there is a nudity flag and a TOS that says you must use it.

Therefore by setting my preferences to 'no-nudity' I am taking the "responsibility "before" (I) come to asite that contains artwork that contains nudity".
Argue that point if you will. If this site had no nudity flag this discussion would have never begun and I would not complain about people not using something that didn't exist.

Just had a look at the TOS, maybe it's because I have a bad head cold at present but I couldn't find anything to say nude images must be flagged. I did find this on the gallerries page though; "All Galleries Warning The images contained in this gallery may contain subjects that are unsuitable for younger viewers. These images are the work of talented artists who present their graphic/photo work in a variety of media, and there may be content of a mature nature included. It is hoped that all such content be done in a manner that can be considered artistic and tasteful. You have been warned, please do not proceed if you feel that you may be offended. " So I guess that puts the ball in the viewer's court. Jack

Bringing this back on topic ... We have a resource center at my worksite. We have public computers for surfing. WE have a No NUDE or offensive viewing restriction. I don't wnat to accidently bring up a dude image becuase I like to chech out R'osity on my breaks. Is that simple enough? That is the basics. Boni

Therefore by setting my preferences to 'no-nudity' I am taking the "responsibility "before" (I) No you are pushing the responsibility on rendorosity and the artists involved. you ccan't set preferances till after you come to the site. "Here there is a nudity flag and a TOS that says you must use it. If this site had no nudity flag this discussion would have never begun and I would not complain." You're defeating yourself Kendra - then what diference does it make whether they work or not?

"and no offense ment ,but, doesn't the responsibility come "before" you come to asite that contains artwork that contains nudity? " - Saih_tahnn No offense taken, Saih. When a viewer elects to check the "no nudity" preffernce, they are excercising their responsibility for their viewing choices. One of the first thing s in the upload screen, wether it's in the TOS or not is a section for uploading guidelines with: "Nudity If this image contains nudity of any type, you must check the "Nudity" checkbox, or your image may be deleted. If we receive complaints about the image, and the Nudity flag is not set, it will be deleted. So, if you think someone might be offended by your image, be safe and hit the "Nudity" checkbox. " That puts some of the personal responsibility on the artist, not just the viewer. If I ignore that, and upload an image with nudity in the pic or the thumbnail and choose to not check the nudity box so the filter can do it's job, them I'm abdicating my responsibility in the situation. Goes both ways... if I choose to ignore my responsibility in setting the falg, i've got no room to bitch if a mod or admin IM's me and tells me they deleted my image. And no real room to bitch if someone like Kendra calls me on it - I chose to ignore the upload screen, she didn't. ;]

Thank you Ironbear. :)
And Saie_Tahnn, the preference stays until I uncheck it. Like this week for instance. Knowing that the kids are home on vacation it's stayed on. When school starts again, I can change it back.

"You're defeating yourself Kendra - then what diference does it make whether they work or not? "

Because this site does have the option. That's the point. And to repeat Ironbears quote:

"Nudity
If this image contains nudity of any type, you must check the "Nudity" checkbox, or your image may be deleted."

Point taken Ironbear, always happy to stand corrected (never thought to look on the upload page). I also agree that it is the responsibility of the artist to check the nudity box if appropriate. But it is also for the viewer to realise that, for whatever reason - be it accident, ignorance or sheer bloody-mindedness on the part of the artist - the nudity box will not always be checked. Therefore the final responsibility must lay with the viewer if their boss/child sees something the viewer would rather they did not see. Jack

"I always use the nudity tag on my artwork containing nudity, but brick and mortar museums have no such filters. Children go to the Louvre everyday, and I have never heard of a child being harmed by viewing the breasts of the Venus de Milo." Bijouchat, you have my standing ovation on this point! I personally think that all these exaggerated worries about nudity are exactly THE thing that can make children grow sexuophobic and possibly even become perverted adults. There is a BIG difference between art and pornography and those who ban art (at whatever level it is) for the sake of avoiding pornography are performing exactly the kind of wrong education that will make those children excessively attracted by, and look for, pornography and morbidity when they grow up. On the contrary, teaching children to look at nudity as a NORMAL aspect of life, of which one must not be ashamed of, an aspect that co-exists with the other aspects of life... teaching them that nudity is NOT a dirty thing that one has to HIDE in a closet in order to stay "respectable", but something to live honestly and openly, helps them grow up to become well balanced and mature adult individuals. My two cents of course.

srug Joint responsibility, I agree. Including mods/admins catching stuff. But if it's not flagged, there's not a lot the viewer can do once they've excercised their filter options except IM a mod - or just not browse the galleries, which really isn't an acceptable alternative. Accident happens. We all have "brain fart moments' and forget to check flags etc. I've done it. That's why when I was working here, rule of thumb was to just toggle the flag and send whoever a polite IM reminding them to check the nudity box next time. "sheer bloody-mindedness on the part of the artist" - Happens also, but they're not leaving the mods one hell of a lot of choice but to delete the image when that's the case. Heya... unlike a lot of things we can argue about around here, the nudity flag isn't something that got handed down from on high by the admins to the members. It's in place solely because after something like a year of debates, arguments, discussions, multiple threads, and even a poll, the members here at the time decided they wanted one, and even the majority of the members who didn't [or like me who just didn't care either way] decided they could live with it. I remeber all of that controversy pretty well, because I was one of several people, along with Russ, Tim, JeffH, MikeJ, Rimrunner and a few others who had to go through a database of some 48,000+ images toggling flags and getting it into place initially. So... when I upload a pic or a freebie, I may be a bit more persnickety on making sure I toggle so some other schmuck doesn't have to come along behind me and do it. ;]

"((P.S. HI Ironbear...long time no talk to! How's tricks?))" Hey! Long time, Illusions! Man oh man... how goes? Pretty good on this end: relaxing from XMass and getting ready for new years. Heh heh... Illusions is a good check on my veracity on that one: IIRC, he was involved in most of that years worth of discussion on "should we have a nudity flag or shouldn't we?" in the forums. ;]

"must be difficult to find a magazine to read, given the amount of nudity in general advertising these days. " Yup - but- there i have a choice- i can CHOOSE which magazine i am reading. Here- even with my nudity filter checked on- it still gets shoved in my face- i have lost that choice.

No - you haven't lost a choice - you failed, by oversite or other, to include probability and possibility into the equation.

Yup. We even had a multiday weenie roast with a sixpac during that one. ;]

"...but brick and mortar museums have no such filters. Children go to the Louvre everyday, and I have never heard of a child being harmed by viewing the breasts of the Venus de Milo."

"teaching them that nudity is NOT a dirty thing that one has to HIDE in a closet in order to stay "respectable", but something to live honestly and openly,helps them grow up to become well balanced and mature adult individuals"

I wonder what makes some of you people think you have a God-given right to tell others how to raise their children? Who died and appointed you the official authority for all parenting information? Are ya'll banding together to become a composite 'Doctor Benjamin Spock for the new generation' or some such? If anyone chooses to let their children view or not view nudity, artistic, porongraphic or otherwise, what right is it of yours to same a damn thing about it? Until I see a Doctorate in Child Psychology, Pediatrics, Early Developmental Behaviour or a related field from the "Here's-how-to-raise-your-kids" chorus, their advice is going straight into the oval file in the corner of my studio...exactly where it belongs.

I'd agree no one can dictae the viewing of nudes or what have you to someone els's kids. But it's really quite simple math. Three barrels one contains milk one contains beer and one contains milk and beer seperatly and equally The chances of your kid getting beer from barrel one is 0% the chances of getting beer from the second barrl are 100% But the possibiltity and probability of getting tainted milk is much greater if you as a parent go to drink from the third barrel, even separated and filtered. It's your choice which barrel you drink from.

JettBoy: Kendra can complain about nudity showing up unexpected at her work place. When I'm at my work place, I usually work, I have not the luxury to be able to browse Renderosity, but if people is so lucky to be able to browse Renderosity at work, they surely have the right to complain about what they might see. Although it is very clearly stated, BEFORE entering the galleries here, that galleries might contain nudity. So viewers are warned. As much as Kendra has the right to speak her opinion, complaints and wishes, I do have the right to speak mine. I do not pretend to impose anyone how to raise their children. Nowhere in my post you can read a "you must do that". It's always my opinion, and I have stated clearly, that it's "my two cents". Hardly a statement that one would associate with the pretention of giving lessons to anyone, M.r Jettboy. And, I have the right to speak my opinion about the topics that show up here, yes mr. Jettboy, that's how democracy work. You have the right to trash anyone's opinion if you like, but you can not speak against anyone expressing their opinion. If you like to live in an environment where you only listen to the opinions that you agree with, or where you see only the things that you approve, then I'm afraid that the Internet is not the right place for you. You should frequent an environment where you can apply a strict control on other people's thoughts.

Let's not get the thread locked, ok?

It's a simple request based on the function of the site. If people would rather turn this into a nude-vs-artistic-vs-parenting-whatever-it-is-you-think you all go right ahead. I don't think I need to explain my childrens ages, what I do/don't let them view, or the ages I feel they might be ready.

The function of this site however is such that a nudity flag is available and I ask that people remember to use it. I'm not the only one who wants to use it on occasion and it only blocks your image for those who use the option. Not for everyone.
It's plain and simple respect.

Chill out everybody! Mostly using the nudity tag is about being respectful of other people. I know that's an odd concept in this day and age but there you are. All the flag does is mark the image in the system - people who don't want to/cannot view nudes then don't have to worry about it. Since I often check in here on my lunchbreak I have the same problem. One of the responsibilities of the moderators is to put the flag on if it isn't, but unfortunately there are only two of us and there are literally hundreds of images posted every day. I understand entirely how frustrating it is, and we're doing what we can to help the problem. Lyrra the Overworked

I always put the nudity flag on ALL my pictures showing significant parts of a human body naked. I do that precisely to respect the options of those who are disturbed by human nudity, although I do not really understand such a thing, since I make (or better said I try to make) some ART, not pornography. I would not even PUBLISH a picture that I'd feel a child would be hurted to see. No, actually I would not even MAKE such a picture. It would go against what I feel. Having that said, I can't help being worried when I see that nudity is preventively banned from artistic expression. With the emphasis on "preventively". Most of the western art, of the greater western art, relies -I would say- heavily on the representation of what would fall under the so-called "nudity flag" here. Images that would certainly raise, and not lower, the educational level of young people. Such as Michelangelo's. Such as many Greek statues. And I could go on and on. If these masterpieces were preventively banned by a prudish society, we would not be able to know, and learn from, those artworks. The whole history of art would be different. And surely not for the better. Now, I would surely not dare to compare Renderosity galleries output with such masters. That comes without saying. Yet, it's not just the matter, but also the concept, that counts. The mentality behind all this. And it's precisely the concept and mentality that are worrying me. Much more than the occasional nude picture escaping the net of the nudity flag.

You should see the looks I get from people when I show them what I make using Poser. I open the library to load one of my dinosaurs, monsters, characters, etc... And on the way there I have to first close the "People" library that's loaded with naked figures that opens by default. I try to do it fast so they don't see them. But it's pretty hard to move from library to library without getting a glimpse of one of them. They look at me like I'm some kind of pervert.

"I can't help being worried when I see that nudity is preventively banned from artistic expression."

It's not. Nothing is preventing you from posting nude images. The flag simply flags the image only for people who choose the option. Unless you feel that something so small as the occasional person occasionally using the flag is such a form of censorship to you, there is no reason to feel your form of artistic expression is being surpressed in any way. Your use of the word "banned" is way out of context. No one is "banning" anything.

orio - "I would surely not dare to compare Renderosity galleries output with such masters" Have you seen some of the woek that is here - what about bloodsong's "bathing " render or some of the others work... personelly I think you could safely compare a lot of these artists to such masters - the median has just changed not the artistry. Nor the mastery of its creation. Wouldn't you agree?

Illusions: I am not a flamer. I wrote my thoughts, which were not related to the original post of Kendra, but to what was written in the follow-ups. I was accused of wanting to impose my vision on other people, which is not. So I defended myself, politely. That's all. With regards to the original post of Kendra, I already said, that I respect the nudity flag rule. I would also like to be able to say that I do not like the mentality that leads to such rules, without being accused of wanting to flame or not understanding a thing. It's my opinion. It's my way to see the world. I do not want to impose it on the others, yet, I do want to be able to speak it without being attacked for that. I did not insult anyone in expressing my opinion. And my opinion has the same right of being here than yours or Kendra's has. This is all. You are amazed at how the discussions about nudity "degenerate". I don't think it has degenerated, only that it probably touches a sensible point where people has different opinions. I on my hand, am amazed at how someone can not handle a discussion politely and always have to invite people "taking a dollar to buy the key to understand"... well you can keep your dollar, man. I do not need it. I respect your opinion and I'd like you could respect mine. And here's where my partecipation to this thread stops.