I certainly applaud your attempt to make the TOS clearer. As expected, I'm sure, I have a few questions/concerns/comments...

Will this TOS also cover the marketplace and restrict the sale of "fetish" items and bondage implements due to their association with and suggestion of sexual situations (implied or otherwise), and torture devices under the "No Torture" clause of the TOS?

"No character attacks, which could be interpreted as defamation of character, slander, and libelous. The blanket restriction against character/personal attacks should stand, regardless of interpretation as defamation, slander, or libel. Such attacks are unnecessary under any circumstances.

What exactly is: "explicit S&M bondage situations"?

IMHO, "implied sexual situations" is very vague. What is "implied" is often in the mind of the beholder. Since people "behold" things according to upbringing, taste, culture, religion, etc...and since the admins/mods are also a diverse group, what guidelines have they been given to help them determine an "implied sexual situation" in an image?

"no sexual situations" or "implied sexual situations" goes a bit far in an attempt to avoid conflict. More than half the images in the gallery will need to be removed if this restrictions stands. My own image Shock in the Fairy's Garden could be interpreted as a sexual situation or an implied sexual situation and require removal. In fact, any image in which one or more of the subjects is nude could be targeted as depicting a sexual or implied sexual situation.

There are far less reasons to forbid "sexual situations" or "implied sexual situations" than explicit sexual situations. Indeed, an implied sexual situation may depict a celebration of innocence which should be glorified instead of restricted. I would suggest this be reconsidered.

"showing the inner portion of the vulva or vaginal area" doesn't necessarily have anything to do with physical arousal, some women are "constructed" in such a way that a bit more than a "suggestion" is revealed when their legs are parted...some "clarification" may be in order here.

There is concern with the distinction that approves visibility of a penis but not a "vagina". The exposure of one or the other, does not automatically denote a sexual connotation...in fact, in many artistic nude studies, the "sexual connotation" is unintentional and recognizable only in the minds of a segment of the viewers. To differentiate an exposed penis as acceptable and an exposed vagina as unacceptable sends a contradictory and negative message. If there is no "explicit" or overt sexual activity...there should be no restriction or differentiation between the two.

IMHO, a caveat may be in order when forbidding "crucifixion" images. Images of crucifixions to depict historically accurate images or religious images should be permitted.

This iteration of the TOS appears to be pushing the site closer towards a "G" rating. While limiting the depiction and propagation of "porno" or images unintentionally or expressly created for prurient interest, the site is also severly limiting the depiction of the human form and human sexuality...accepted and encouraged themes of artists for centuries. By the same token, it's emphasis on the heavy restrictions toward sex and not toward violence (aside from torture) is an obvious "Americanization" of atypical attitudes and views.

As a parent, I understand the sites desire to provide a "healthy atmosphere" for "younger" members; but, at the same time, I resent the heavy-handed limitations this new TOS places on my ability to determine what is appropriate for my children to view. As an adult, I resent the removal of my choice to view what I feel comfortable viewing. As an artist, I resent the restrictions and limits placed on my creativity.

For years, the site has been encouraged by members to permit "adult content" (not smut/porno) and to develop "filters" to allow those that wish to view "adult content" can do so, while permitting those that do not desire access to that type of material for themselves or their children can restrict it. That is a much better solution than an emphasis on filtering nudity, continually trying to define "how much nudity is too much", or painstakingly censoring every possibility that may cause a member to raise an alarm.

The Mission Statement of Renderosity says:

The mission of Renderosity is to create a thriving, productive environment that encourages an atmosphere of community, respect, collaboration, and growth for graphic artists of all backgrounds.

...graphic artists of all backgrounds... not children, not visitors, not non-artists, not art appreciators...graphic artists of all backgrounds. To severly limit what an artist can depict does not fulfill or encourage that "mission...indeed, it is the antithesis of that mission.

While I do applaud the attempt to define "appropriateness" and to appease all members, to do so at the expense of creativity, parental responsibility, and adult consideration does little for the community. I urge you to reconsider this in favor of creating an "adult content" flag to cover nudity, sexual situations (implied or not), and violence. Members 13 and below would automatically have the filter to restrict adult content turned on, with no access to the filter in their profile until a signed note from a parent or guardian is received. The restrictions against rape, torture, sexual activity, explicit sex, genital contact, character attacks, and the requirement of the signed model release for photos could remain in force.