"No Physical arousal. No Genital contact with ANY object, other than sitting or clothing." I think in this case the only physical arousal, and genital contact was in the people viewing the thing.:} AgentSmith, I do know what is in the TOS, I am not some stupid child that needs to be patted on the head. The point I am trying to make is about appearances, so since my point wasn't clear enough, I'll try to illustrate my point differently. This picture was of a girl lying back on a couch, with one hand on her breast. The impetus for it's removal was two fingers on her nipple, and a suggestion of sexual desire. Since, the artist himself has stated that all his/her pictures have the same sexual overtones, and the rest of the artist's work is still posted, the sexual overtones are patently not the reason this picture was removed. That leaves the hand on the breast as the offending element, that caused this picture to be removed. In your own posts, #18 and 19, you specifically state that the artists other works are approved, because there is no nipple touching, therefore not sexual in nature. Okay, groundwork laid. Since, the offending part was the hand on the breast, if I were to render a picture, or take a picture of a girl standing there, nude, with her hands over her breasts, covering her nipples, smiling at the camera, in a non-sexual way, it too would have to be removed, since it breaks the same part of the TOS as the other artists work did. If it wasn't the breast touching, but the sexual overtone, then ALL that artist's work needs to be removed, as well as most of the galleries. Anything less is inconsistent. Now, I think you may see what I mean, about arbritary, or appearance of it anyway. It becomes hard for the artist to know what is legal here and what isn't. Sexual overtones are good, unless, there is self breast touching, but breast touching is okay without sexual overtones, and who decides what constitutes the overtone? Now see where the confusion comes in, and the confusion is enhanced by the lack of explanation on the Mod/Admin end of the reasoning for the picture's removal. You, AgentSmith, say it is the hand on the breast, but you didn't actually remove the picture another Mod did, and the only Mod who gave the appearance of doing the deed, Michelle A said she wasn't going into the reasons for it in this thread to paraphrase. So my overall impression is, the artist is left not knowing what he/she did wrong, and how to avoid repeats in the future, and certain parts of the TOS are now being used to retroactively to cover the reason for the pictures removal, and those reasons are stretched really thin to do the covering. The appearance being given is the picture was pulled to placate some complaints, not on it's own merits.