As both a Poser user and a photographer who produces work mostly including the female form, I have to say that I am not offended by nudity of any kind. What does offend me is the assumptions that are made against Photographers who shoot nudes (in particular, females) as opposed those who "paint" nudes - whether traditionally or digitally. When I show my Photographic Portfolio, I get quite a mixed reaction, from utter disgust to total awe. This surprises me as I don't consider myself to produce photographs that are that good, or that would cause someone to take offence. This then degenerates into "he's a pervert" or "why do he do that, he has a wife and kids". Am I missing a point with these people? (BTW - my wife is my worst critic!!) One interesting aside to this is that once, at a function, I and my "amusing sideline" were pointed out to some of the guests. As it transpired, by the end of the evening, most of the men were sat VERY close to their partners/wives. (This has happened to other photographers I know). Consequently, when I show my Poser/digital work, it is generally more accepted as I feel that people can distance themselves from a painting. So one gets the impression is that its more morally acceptable to be a "painter of nudes" than a "photographer" of them. What also adds to this interesting thread, is that Poser has a way of showing the "ideal" person lookswise. Real models can look stunning, but take it from one who knows, they often have zits, stray hairs, marks, bruises(?) and who knows what. The trick is being able to make it look like they have'nt. Take it from me - its a damn sight easier using Poser. The subject don't move till you tell it. There no wires/cables or equipment to fall over and your models always turn up. But I still love doing the photos!! Just some thoughts from a desperate photographer trying to justify why he takes pictures of women (and paints pictures soemtimes!!)