Thu, Nov 28, 12:22 PM CST

Renderosity Forums / Poser - OFFICIAL



Welcome to the Poser - OFFICIAL Forum

Forum Coordinators: RedPhantom

Poser - OFFICIAL F.A.Q (Last Updated: 2024 Nov 28 11:20 am)



Subject: Need "nudity" opinions


pizazz ( ) posted Sat, 08 February 2003 at 1:16 PM · edited Thu, 28 November 2024 at 12:20 PM

file_45155.jpg

I did this image for the Valentine competition. Mods wanted me to post it here and get opinions on the lower breast showing... Does it appear as nudity to you??


GraphicFoxx ( ) posted Sat, 08 February 2003 at 1:31 PM

I'd say no


Kendra ( ) posted Sat, 08 February 2003 at 1:39 PM

Technically, no. No nudity.

Personal opinion, I check the nudity flag when my figure has no covering over the breast but the arms are blocking the view and only the sides are showing because it's suggested. But that's just in the gallery.

...... Kendra


genny ( ) posted Sat, 08 February 2003 at 1:40 PM

No, I don't think there should be a problem at all. (: Genny PS.....Great image, BTW. (:


lmckenzie ( ) posted Sat, 08 February 2003 at 1:56 PM

Don't know whether to be flattered they want our opinion or dismayed there is even a question. In a word, NO. The idea that having her 90% naked but the question of nudity depending on the bottoms of her breasts is a little strange to me but that's just my opinion. If there has to be some percent of breast showing formula or the tops or the sides etc., it's going to become a subjective nightmare. The only objective criteria you can have here is nipple/areola visible = nudity, otherwise, no. In anticipation of the next question, pubic hair/labia visible = nudity otherwise, we'll have to dig out the photogrammetry software and protractors and start measuring the percentage of mons showing as calculated from the incident angle of apex of the labia majora bisected by the slope of the hip bone connected to da thigh bone... Which remeinds me of an old line about the angle of the dangle but that's another story. Seriously though, I don't see nudity here Pizazz, but the Taliban would have rocked your world (literally) by now, so it's all a matter of opinion. BTW, the picture rocks! What lighting did you use?

"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." - H. L. Mencken


_dodger ( ) posted Sat, 08 February 2003 at 2:04 PM

Nope, no nudity. She could wear that out in public in all US states. Even Utah. Unless there are visible genitalia, rectal area, or nipple (for females) or visible genitalia, genitalia covered only by a condom, or rectal area (for males), it's not nudity. She could have nothing more than little spangly pasties and it still wouldn't be nudity. In some states nipples are even allowed for females, as it's a sexist approach to take the stance that a man can bare his chest but a woman can't, especially as breasts are no more used in procreation by a woman than in a man, just nine months afterwards.


ladynimue ( ) posted Sat, 08 February 2003 at 2:58 PM

This does NOT need a nudity button clicked... You are A-OK to run it as is :) ladynimue


Crescent ( ) posted Sat, 08 February 2003 at 3:04 PM

Here's how I look at it: if your boss (or HR representative) walks by and sees that picture, will they admire it or scream about sexual harassment lawsuits? Putting pasties on breasts isn't really covering anything (it just looks like the nipples are discolored), nor is a thong (that's just butt floss). If it has enough material to make a decent bikini, then it's not nudity. If you need a magnifying glass to find the material, then it's nudity. Personal opinion: I'm stringent on the nudity flag, and I think there's enough there to be a non-nude pic. Cheers!


ChuckEvans ( ) posted Sat, 08 February 2003 at 3:17 PM

I wouldn't think it qualified as nudity either. Sexy? Yes. But, lots of sexy Valentine's day cards are made and purchased.

Now, you didn't solicit other comments but since it's for a contest, I want to try to help a bit. She looks a bit "stiff" to me. If it were up to me, I think I'd try to bend her at the waist a bit so she looked a bit more casual or natural. Best thing to do is get in that position yourself or have someone else do it and take a look.

Good luck !

 ![turkey.gif](http://www.chuck-n-michelle.net/images/turkey.gif)  Sure, you can strive to fly with the eagles but turkeys don't get sucked into jet engines.


Gini ( ) posted Sat, 08 February 2003 at 4:10 PM

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=320688&Start=1&Artist=Gini&ByArtist=Yes

Well I certainly wouldn't call that nudity either. But the fact your image is being being put to public opinion confuses me because there is only marginally more lower breast showing in my image (see link) which WAS rejected on the grounds of lower breast showing. The posted rules do state something along the lines that no breast from the nipple down is to show . Bathing suits in Brazil, the south of France , to name but two places, show more than either of these images AND there is a valentine image posted that isn't exactly an opaque breast covering. The rules also say something about that too. So , MODS, please make up your minds !

" Try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations."
-Monty Python


ladynimue ( ) posted Sat, 08 February 2003 at 4:15 PM

As I stated above, this is not a problem as far as the nudity button is concerned :) Great image and good luck with the contest :) ladynimue


Gini ( ) posted Sat, 08 February 2003 at 4:25 PM

If pizzaz' image and the see-thru top image are acceptable , please ladynimue ,could you explain to me why my image was rejected ? I think I'm not understanding something about the rules. thankyou.

" Try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations."
-Monty Python


SamTherapy ( ) posted Sat, 08 February 2003 at 4:30 PM

I thought the max image size was 800 x 600.

Coppula eam se non posit acceptera jocularum.

My Store

My Gallery


hauksdottir ( ) posted Sat, 08 February 2003 at 4:32 PM

Gini's picture ought not to be rejected, either. :sheesh:


voodoo ( ) posted Sat, 08 February 2003 at 4:32 PM

This is too funny. Exactly how many square inches of breast needs to be showing before it is nudity?


Gini ( ) posted Sat, 08 February 2003 at 4:43 PM

I've got my tape measure at the ready ! But actually in the TOS -"...any portion therof below the top of the nipple." Lack of consistancy here is what I take issue with.

" Try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations."
-Monty Python


SnowSultan ( ) posted Sat, 08 February 2003 at 4:56 PM

But what about anything below the bottom of the nipple?...that's the question now. :) Reversage (which is when coverage ends below the nipple, like in that free As Shanim shirt) and underbreast (which is basically reversage in a bikini) should be clarified before this turns into another debate that have members screaming and merchants leaving. ;) And don't laugh, those are actual terms that I and a number of other people have used for describing those states of undress in the process of sorting and categorization of such imagery. ;D SnowS

my DeviantArt page: http://snowsultan.deviantart.com/

 

I do not speak as a representative of DAZ, I speak only as a long-time member here. Be nice (and quit lying about DAZ) and I'll be nice too.


kbennett ( ) posted Sat, 08 February 2003 at 4:59 PM

Folks, please don't go off the deep end with us. Eric's putting a good deal of time into this and it's also the first Poser Forum Challenge that I've been involved with. I've just taken a look at all of the entries and there are several that don't comply with all of the rules. I've contacted Eric already and we'll get this all sorted out asap. Consistency is always an issue, and that's why we put in some very strict rules on nudity, violence etc. The more explicit we are with the rules the less room there is for inconsistency. Gini: your entry had naked breast 'below the top of the nipple' so was outside the rules. pizazz: yours does too. Whilst both of these images are fine for the galleries and yes, here in the forum too, the challenge rules are more stringent. After this first challenge is over we're going to be asking for feedback on how it went and what rule changes you feel may be in order. We may relax the nudity rule a little, but if we do it won't be by a lot. We want to keep the challenges entirely family friendly so that even yougsters might enter. I know the deadline is looming, but give us a day or so to iron things out. Please? Kevin.


Scarab ( ) posted Sat, 08 February 2003 at 5:00 PM

OH!.....you wanted an opinion on a picture!....sorry... ....guess I should put my clothes back on, huh?.... Scarab<-feeling a draft....


Dave-So ( ) posted Sat, 08 February 2003 at 5:19 PM

I'm at a loss for words... really

Humankind has not woven the web of life. We are but one thread within it.
Whatever we do to the web, we do to ourselves. All things are bound together.
All things connect......Chief Seattle, 1854



EricofSD ( ) posted Sat, 08 February 2003 at 5:43 PM

Attached Link: http://market.renderosity.com/%7Epzr/backroom/challengerules.htm

Oh, I have no doubt the definitions will need tweaking. We have some time before the March challenge will start. (And EricofSD might need some tweaking too LOL). The full rules with the definitions are at the link above and available by link through the challenge page. I don't think we need to get out the rulers and measure. I've enjoyed all the images whether they were approved or not and I hope we keep this going.


SWAMP ( ) posted Sat, 08 February 2003 at 6:04 PM

..but,but...what if she has the "nipple gone" dial set to max...then,then.....it would be OK?..... Oh Crap....bringing in the sheep,bringing in the sheep,we shall come rejoicing... REV.SWAMP


Gini ( ) posted Sat, 08 February 2003 at 6:04 PM

I totally understood why my mermaid was rejected ( after I read through the TOS properly which I hadn't at first and it is very clear down at the bottom about what is meant by 'nudity' in this instance ) . It was just that now when I saw a couple of images that were allowed through the same nudity rules that she wasn't- well, I got a bit peeved. Didn't mean to start a rumpus - just wanted the same rules applied to all. Thankyou.

" Try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations."
-Monty Python


kbennett ( ) posted Sat, 08 February 2003 at 6:11 PM

No worries Gini, sometimes things slip by us and we need a kick in the pants to put things straight ;)


pizazz ( ) posted Sat, 08 February 2003 at 6:56 PM

I read the TOS on page two of the TOS - Put it all on one page, please. I'm just surprised that you guys are being sooo careful about pictures that are not in the gallery- you have to really know where to look to find these images. Anyway, I just posted her in the Poser Gallery - I'm going to do a V3 Male for the Valentine Challenge - DOES HIS CHEST HAVE TO BE COVERED?? (Being a smart a$$ here)


EricofSD ( ) posted Sat, 08 February 2003 at 7:28 PM

Swamp, the nipple gone dial I think would not work because the image would still have to have an opaque covering below the top of that area. Pizazz, The idea was to put the general rules/definitions on one page and the specific theme description on the challenge page. Might have overlapped on this one a bit. Good idea there.


lmckenzie ( ) posted Sat, 08 February 2003 at 7:35 PM

Hmmm, I assume this means that a render that used a picture from classical art in the background would be taboo, even if Vicky were wearing a burka. They can make up whatever rules they want but when you would ban images (by this definition) that shows the amount of cleavage in the average evening dress is a little whacky, but whatever folks. I hope none of the kiddies ever watch the news and see the red carpet at the Oscars (or ever leave the house for that matter). Maybe we need special challenges for the children, a better way for them to show their work and a little less restrictive for the adults. BTW does anyone know how many children (if any) actually participate? Just curious.

"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." - H. L. Mencken


voodoo ( ) posted Sat, 08 February 2003 at 7:41 PM

Maybe if everyone was as offended by war as they were by a nipple, there wouldn't be any wars.


_dodger ( ) posted Sat, 08 February 2003 at 8:06 PM

Hey, Chuck: The quote's supposed to be 'You can fly with the eagles, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.' B^)


ChuckEvans ( ) posted Sat, 08 February 2003 at 8:09 PM

Weasels? LOL I guess I read it somewhere else where two birds were contrasted. Message671414.jpg


lmckenzie ( ) posted Sat, 08 February 2003 at 8:11 PM

"Maybe if everyone was as offended by war as they were by a nipple, there wouldn't be any wars." Well, Voodoo, seeing as how we're sitting on top of the world's largest reserves of silicone, I'd say be worried. If the UN gives Pamela Anderson 30 days to give up her weapons, I say turn her over.

"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." - H. L. Mencken


_dodger ( ) posted Sat, 08 February 2003 at 8:13 PM

I am no longer going to respond to this thread. I am officially at this point not going to support Renderosity challenges. It's not enough that they'e relatively pointless -- now they have the added benefit of also being full of crap.


Gini ( ) posted Sat, 08 February 2003 at 8:23 PM

Imackenzie- you just make me laugh ! I'm ending my night on that one. Thankyou. (still LOL ...)

" Try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations."
-Monty Python


pizazz ( ) posted Sat, 08 February 2003 at 8:40 PM

You are my kind of guy!! Call it like you see it.


AprilYSH ( ) posted Sat, 08 February 2003 at 9:03 PM

lmao @ voodoo & lmckenzie

[ Store | Freebies | Profile ]

a sweet disorder in the dress kindles in clothes a wantoness,
do more bewitch me than when art is too precise in every part


Simderella ( ) posted Sat, 08 February 2003 at 9:14 PM

why would breasts be offensive... i really hate they way a womans nude body is viewed as dirty or offensive... steps down from soap box

My Gallery


davo ( ) posted Sat, 08 February 2003 at 9:24 PM

It's a lovely image Pizazz, certainly no nudity that I can see.


praxis22 ( ) posted Sat, 08 February 2003 at 10:19 PM

So that's what nudity looks like, and here I though it involved more skin... :)


pdxjims ( ) posted Sat, 08 February 2003 at 10:22 PM

No nudity. What difference if it's the lower, upper or both showing, so long as the nipple isn't bare. There are a number of tube tops on the street in summer that are just as revealing (more so) than this. Is the picture in good taste? Yes. It's very nice and along the lines of a 1940's WWII pinup. Racy to be sure, but not revealing. You can't even tell she has nipples. Some people may be offended by it, but then I'm offended by a lot things that most people aren't (just about any kind of violence or blood). If we have to have a definition of upper female nudity, then it should be nipples. I'm not fond of the fact that we do have to differentiate between male and female definitions of nudity. To me, it's always meant genitalia. Luckily, I don't have to worry about this. I pose female figures so badly that I'd be embarrased to post a female nude. I'm not even sure how a breast is supposed to be posed. Ah, lack of experience... (grin).


Petunia ( ) posted Sat, 08 February 2003 at 10:47 PM

How frippin absurd can the Render'posity rules get? Great picture. Very pretty. Sure would be nice if the "powers that be" would show a bit of maturity and call it quits to these stupid half-cocked (sic) reasonings.


kbennett ( ) posted Sat, 08 February 2003 at 10:58 PM

Look, the official forum challenges have always been 'No Nudity' if you want to look at the old rules, written before Eric or I were involved check here. We just took the time to define it this time around in the interests of consistency which is what we often get slammed for not doing.


EricofSD ( ) posted Sat, 08 February 2003 at 11:13 PM

Actually, 'osity didn't write the nudity definition. I wrote that from a nudity definition used by the statutory language in Arizona. Ok, this is interesting feedback. I'm willing to write a slightly different definition and put it to the mods and to the forum before the March challenge. I'm not willing to ditch a nudity definition. Remember, there was discussion before the challenge started. I'm sure there will be discussions of revisions after the close of this challenge.


Dave-So ( ) posted Sun, 09 February 2003 at 12:07 AM

I've seen nuns with less clothes on than that :LOL but that was at the washing station... I would think a front page banner would have to be a bit less titillating than your average pinup....we must keep the place as clean as possible...yes ??

Humankind has not woven the web of life. We are but one thread within it.
Whatever we do to the web, we do to ourselves. All things are bound together.
All things connect......Chief Seattle, 1854



chanson ( ) posted Sun, 09 February 2003 at 12:25 AM

Just as a reminder... One of the main reasons for challenges is simply to help us all learn our art better. We are forced out of our regular molds and ruts into new areas. Let's not blow this thing out of proportion and "boycott" the challenges. Of course, if you'd rather just post to the galleries, that's fine. I'm one person who has thought that the Poser forum is behind for a while (behind the Bryce guys). I'd like to see us not all get mad and screw this up over wanting to display nudity. No matter where you fall on the "Vicky in a Temple" thing, you must admit that images with nudity get more hits in the galleries. Most of us don't want to see the challenge become a challenge to see who can create the most popular image based on nudity. I agree with the mod's idea about a family entry possiblity, but I also think there are other reasons to avoid nudity in this area. I am supportive of the mods in having a definition and sticking to it. We don't agree about where the line is drawn, and we never will. But someone has to draw a line. Let's support those who agree to organize and oversee these things!


Phantast ( ) posted Sun, 09 February 2003 at 2:40 AM

Ver nice picture, but I think it needs a side strap for the bra.


ladynimue ( ) posted Sun, 09 February 2003 at 6:52 AM

As to the above Image; if posted in the Poser Gallery - it would Not Need a Nudity Button.

However, the Poser Challenge Contest is another matter all together...And for my previous statement in this thread...

  • I sincerely apologize to the Contest Mods -

The Contest Rules do state: ...or the showing of the female breast with less than a fully opaque covering of any portion thereof below the top of the nipple!

Those were the rules that the entries agreed to before entering the contest. Thus they have to apply to everyone who enters.


This has become a great opportunity for the Poser Forum Community to have their views heard.

Chanson made an excellent point: "I am supportive of the mods in having a definition and sticking to it. We don't agree about where the line is drawn, and we never will. But someone has to draw a line. Let's support those who agree to organize and oversee these things!"

Might I add to that... If you do not agree with the Contest Rules - Get together with the "Contest Runners" and see about changes for the Next Contest :)

Eric and Kevin have already stated that they would be open to your suggestions :)


So, once more I apologize to the Contest Moderators for my hasty Previous remarks.

Also, thanks to all the Poser Forum Members for your excellent input on this matter and your civil manner that you related it.

Sincerely,
ladynimue


paintedflats ( ) posted Sun, 09 February 2003 at 9:33 AM

Images with nudity may get more hits, but most of them are crap anyway.


mon1alpha ( ) posted Mon, 10 February 2003 at 6:40 AM

Seems fine to me, lot of flesh on show but nothing that'd frighten the citizens


phoenixblue ( ) posted Tue, 11 February 2003 at 5:48 AM

You can talk about this until you get blue in the face, of course. I'd just say : no nudity, just a pretty pic of a pretty gal :-)


lmckenzie ( ) posted Tue, 11 February 2003 at 7:04 AM

Content Advisory! This message contains violence

file_45158.jpg

'When Partial Coverage Isn't Enough' Ad Parody - Or, yes, we can have war without nipples. You know the feeling. You're all ready for the big invasion, then, suddenly, all your Euro trash friends start begging off as if you're not even buying the keg. You've got too much ground to cover and not enough cash for all the "party favors." Even worse, after weeks in the broiling desert, your troops have started stripping down to their skivies. We understand that nudity may lead to attacks against Americans by religious fundamentalists. In addition to the Attorney General, others may be offended as well. Cheer up dude, because BombCo has the answer to your prayers and you don't even have to kneel and face Enron headquarters! That's right, the new Mk 82 Snakeye by BombCo is just the ticket for your next rave. Don't let the pricetag fool you 'cause this baby is loaded with 275 pounds of H-6, the good s--t. But, that's not all. While it's sleek modern design makes it a real chick-magnet, the Mk 82 is equipped with a set of high-drag fins that deploy to slow the Snake down to a crawl on the way down. You'll be long gone before this little beauty rings in the crusade. Collateral damage? "Dude, I was nowhere near your embassy, put the crack pipe down." Featuring a tough steel casing, the Mk 82 is rustproof and mildew resistant. Plus, the durable finish is guranteed to resist gasoline, sand, blood and oil. And there's more. Order now and get a free stencil kit. Paint your personal message on each Mk 82. Let the evildoers know they blow donkeys, while you blow them up - a surefire icebreaker. We're not done yet. At 6 ' 6", the Snakeye will simply stun and awe the competition. That's right, if you order today, you get all this for under $300, a price that won't stretch your budget deficit. Yes, for less than the cost of one Medicare co-payment, you can level a military headquarters or a small neighborhood - sweet! With our money back guarantee, there's no excuse not to order several thousand for your next invasion, police action, or premptive war. Don't be fooled by cheap imitations costing twice as much. After the old Snakeye hits them, they won't be complaining to any Commie, human rights groups. Buy a few extra for weak-kneed allies. "What's that Pierre? I got your second resolution right here, snail breath!" You can even keep a few on hand for those troublesome domestic critics. Can you say, "I'll be seeing you, ACLU? Oops, I thought that was Al Kaida Commie Leftist Union, my bad." So, don't delay, call now. Operators are standing by. Disclaimer Not responsible for incidental damages or accidental discharge, handle with care. Operating skills not transferable to distressed civilian economy. Product has been demonstrated to cause effects, including, but not limited to maiming, dismemberment, burns, traumatic stress and death. Do not drink or use drugs while using this product (except for speed, as needed, to keep pilots awake). Use may lead to dependency. When used improperly, may incur criminal charges by various international bodies. Charges do not apply if you are not a signatory to relevant war crimes treaties. Accuracy not guaranteed if dropped from 30,000 feet. All orders strictly confidential. Model shown for illustration purposes only and is not included with product. Always wear a bra while bombing. References to any person, conflict or corporation, past or present are purely coincidental.

"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." - H. L. Mencken


EricofSD ( ) posted Sat, 15 February 2003 at 1:19 AM

LOL, I love it! Ok, its rewrite time, I'm working on it. Will make it public mid week.


Privacy Notice

This site uses cookies to deliver the best experience. Our own cookies make user accounts and other features possible. Third-party cookies are used to display relevant ads and to analyze how Renderosity is used. By using our site, you acknowledge that you have read and understood our Terms of Service, including our Cookie Policy and our Privacy Policy.