Since the original thread was locked while I was drafting this reply, I'll have to post it here :)

I seem to remember the idea of a separate gallery for images that would be considered more 'adult' being discussed a while ago. I knew the discussion would not lead to any changes because this is America after all and we're the most unreasonable members of the human race. Everything tends to one extreme or another here.

With that in mind, I would still propose such a gallery because it would circumvent a lot of issues that spring up concerning the suitability of images. Nobody could reasonably complain about the images in such a gallery because simply viewing in that gallery would imply a form of consent.

There could still be rules and not an anything goes philosophy but the present restrictions could be relaxed a bit more in such a venue and no one need be offended.

I have always contended that there is a need for a gallery that would allow quality artistic images with an erotic theme. That venue should be here at Renderosity that acts as a showcase for many other types of themes.

' 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.'

This was my first thought also when I first read the topic. While Renderosity does not encourage images depicting violence it does go along with that barbaric American mindset that has no trouble with raising violence to a status of a cultural icon but eshews any notions of human erotic activity :)

Hi Richabri, I wrote this while you wrote your posting, and it ends in an idea slightly different from yours, so I'll append it here: I must admit that I am concerned by the new TOS of Renderosity. Okay, you may announce that only dog pictures are allowed in the future. We have no right and no device to change that. But you may allow some questions: 1. Sexual acts are not allowed: I made the experience that a kiss can be a very intensive sexual act. Are pictures with kisses forbidden in the future? Or is the clarification of the TOS not really clear? 2. I read that the clarification of the TOS is not a way to protect non-adults. It shall improve the professionality of the pictures. Now I've visited a lot of professional, succesful galleries and even museums which obviously don't have restrictons like the new TOS. Hence I cannot fathom this argument. 3. I think the problem is that the public practice of some sexual acts really isn't forbidden in the western culture and even in western art. Ok... in islamic countries they are forbidden. Maybe you don't want offend islamic visitors? 4. The Renderosity shop sells objects and poses which are not allowed to picture in the community. May I see in this a slight touch of hypocrisy? I am from Germany. Today we have a liberal paradigma of what art can be. But in the previous century we passed a regrettable era in which art was clearly defined and was set apart from "Entarteter Kunst", in english "perverted art". I do not hope that your try of improvement of the community's professionality ends up in a distinction like that. How about a new tag? I think it might be no technical problem to install it besides the 'nudity' and 'violence'. Something like: 'Kinky' or 'Somehow incorrect'? No, this is no joke. Why not?

Hi Ona, the trouble is that we already have tags and optionally we can include dire warnings in the image's title and thumbnails but this doesn't stop people from looking and then flagging down a moderator or admin with a complaint!

A separate gallery would go further in allowing a mixed community of artists and viewers to coexist :)

Very lovely image you did btw and I'm glad the link was posted in the other thread!

I agree on the separate gallery for "adult" images - it's called "Renderotica" and they don't have censorship except maybe some pedophile or bestiality (not really sure). If they start muscling in on the "adult" business here, that just drains clients and cash from Renderotica, so why not keep them separate?

so in an art gallery in the real world all the nudes by the great artists should be in a seperate gallery where only adults can go?

blushes Thank you, Richabri! :))) A tag or a separate gallery, anyway, I am afraid this will not hinder those people complaining. Because they think art generally may be not 'dirty', 'erotic', 'horrible' } 'entartet' (Hitler's vocabulary). I don't know the US laws if they can harm the webmaster. If so, this might be an argument for a hard TOS of course.

Hi Matteo_sancarlos, is Renderotica really a dependance of Renderosity? I believe not.

Ona I believe Renderotica used to be linked to Renderosity but not anymore

@pierrecolat Then this seems not to be an alternative. @sirkrite I think your idea is fantastic. People who don't want cannot be bored by virtual nudists right from the begin. :) But what with those people who like 'fine-art' nudity but no kisses or so? And finally - you mentioned it - how about the 'morality police', people who overcome their own disgust and look if those suspicious nudists (or even worse) do forbidden things? And it seems that even the administration of Renderosity belongs to them. Why else this 'clarification' of the TOS?

There is no where in the TOS that states you cannot post nude images! Classical nude images are very accepted and enjoyed :) Extreme Penthouse nudes are not - that is why there is Renderoitica - And Even Renderotica has very strict TOS for their "R" rated gallery :) Nothing to do with being a PG rated site! Just a move to become more professional :) Also, the TOS has not changed, just some of the original TOS has been defined - which is what members have been asking for! For us to be more specific! So that is what we did :) ladynimue

Ladynimue: In our church a cross with Jesus Christ on it is hanging around. Now this is forbidden in Renderosity by the TOS. Or (historical) battle pictures - I promise I won't create none of them - forbidden? And what the heck are 'young people'? Is this a professional definition? If you mention kids (agree!!) why not write 'kids'? asks Ona

I have posted at Renerotica and broker there as well. Plus Diane has helped me out of several jams and is one of the nicest people I've meet online. So I would never say anything against Renderotica. They have their own vision and it's very liberating to be able to post whatever renders you want there without worrying about violating the TOS.

I do take exception to those who always think that shuffling off to Renderotica is the most viable solution to this issue. The erotic work posted there can be very extreme and is in a class by itself. That is not the type of render I wanted to see a new gallery for.

'Also, the TOS has not changed, just some of the original TOS has been defined - which is what members have been asking for! For us to be more specific! So that is what we did :)'

Oh I understand that but it wasn't the only issue that was brought up in the thread that ended up prompting the new clarifications. The other theme that ran through that thread was that this is a mixed community of artists and viewers and since the subject was broached I thought it deserved some play.

It may be consistent to say that no touching of a breast is allowed - but one can still ask why not? Is there something inherently evil in this act? If not, then why couldn't images of this nature be placed in an 'adult' gallery where those who find such things objectionable wouldn't have to be offended by it?

"Classical nude images " what is a classical nude image as opposed to any other kind of nude image? "Just a move to become more professional" non classical nude images = non professional?

renderotica...yes they have a venue for more adult oriented work but sorry folks people like me ..our art is like cotton candy over there. it doesnt fit in there either. there is that wonderouse thing on your profile that stops nudity if you do not like it. {to bad we dont have one that stops morality police from comming into your gallery} This is the thing though....We are not kids. and if kids are browsing then it is the responsability of their parents to police them NOT us. I can understand extreme sexual content being censored here or funneled to renderotica.. I can understand torture and all. but come one..to say implied sexuality....my god renderosity would not have much a gallery section. heck even some of the fea are bordering on impishly provocative. ~sighs~ I love renderosity. it is the morality police that force everyone else that I dislike. Renderosity is trying to make a TOS that covers the bases. but the thing is...look at the market place look at the galleries in general. you can not escape the adult content. I agree we need another genre that is for the evelope pushing pictures. or I propose a siren that goes off to not a nudity or sexually charged pic that will stop a person dead in their tracks as a tag and flag is not working. perhaps flashing lights. a flashing message that covers the screen. also to Spike Asher and the other Admins. a public apology for the other thread. This is something I am very passionate about and I do not take well to being barbed.

.

You guys are missing the point, as far as the reality of the culture where the servers are (Tennessee). Part of that reality is that they don't expose children ages 13-18 to porno, whether by acts of commission or omission, or they face legal penalties. A child can't make informed consent in any kind of contract regarding the viewing of nudity. So if you try to use peer pressure or conceits of cultural superiority to force Renderosity to harbor porno, you're going to fail. While it's true a strong man can enforce his own culture in any place foreign to him, this is not one of those places. I'm not saying Tennessee represents the epitome of cultural development in the Western world, but we just have to accept the cultural restraints under which Renderosity is forced to operate.

Mateo is right, of course. There are legal restrictions and that's that. But along with that, I'll voice my personal opinion. I do not want to be associated with a porno site in any way, shape or form. Nada, zero. As for what makes a classical nude, go to a famous museum and you'll see. You won't see anything from renderotica in the Louvre. That should give you some sort of distinction by comparing the images. Sure, there are nudes, and even racy ones. Are there walls and walls of porn? NO. As for the morality police, I for one appreciate the effort to keep the site clean. We've had several members leave because of the over sexually oriented images. That is a shame. Artists need to understand that they can think what they want of their work but when it is put in the public, they have to deal with what the public thinks. As for a nudity flag, well, aside from the fact that it gets checked when it shouldn't, or doesn't get checked when it should, there is still another issue. Maybe I would like to see a very well done and classical nude. Maybe I would not like to see porn. There is so much that can be done with 3D! Sunsets, landscapes, a cottage in the woods, sci-fi, outstanding modeling, etc.

I don't know that anyone is asking permission to post pornagraphic images here. There is a distinction between erotic art and pornagraphy that even the most culturally repressed individuals know about.

The restrictions made by the current TOS however fails to make that distinction and I've never been to Tennessee but I'll bet the people who live there know that difference! LOL!

I think this is one of those situations where you are damned if you do and damned if you don't. There is always going to be people who see nudity in art as pornographic in nature. We as artists as a majority don't see that as being an issue. It's usually quite clear, but on the outside of that world, there are many, many people who don't see that distinction. Rosity is stuck between a rock and a hard place. They don't want to take a sword and chop off artistic nudity, but on the other hand, they want to shake the "porn" image that has been branded on them, even though it is completely false. I've actually been asked why I post on a porn site (meaning Rosity), but I don't believe it to be, and thus why I post, because I can tell the difference between the two.

A lot of it is not the content, but the filter system that is to blame for part of it. A lot could be done there to fix some of that misunderstanding:

1> If it's not already, make NUDITY OFF the default for new members and let them make the request to turn it on in their profiles. This may limit views, but it also keeps people from making that assumption right away.

2> Put an actual NUDITY icon with the picture if nudity is set, no matter what the filter setting. A lot of images don't mention nudity in the title and unless you have shut off the nudity inherently, you can't know from the thumbnail whether it does or it doesn't. I often show people Rosity and the family and would like to know in those instances whether something contains nudity. When I'm just surfing by myself, doesn't bother me one way or the other.

I'm not against nudity in art, it's been a staple for years, but unfortunately there are those that equate the two. I think better filtering would go a long way towards bridging that gap.

As far as the changes. I see three placest hat could use seriously clarification. Implicit Sexual Situations (which could include a simple kiss), young humanoid creature (which I understand is directed at nude children, but it would be clearer to say children which is more defined. Young can be anything from 1-40 years old), and the torture clause as it relates to horror motifs (zombies, beheadings, severed limbs, blood on a sword, etc). I think they did a good job in trying to iron out the details as everyone wanted, but I definitely think it's a work in progress.

The other thing that bothers me is the reason behind all this and that is to be more professional. I hope that does not mean that we hobbyists will be looking for a new home soon. Rosity has a very rich market here to be tapped, that is really underdeveloped. I see it as a school, a mall, a community of people who share the passion for their art, no matter what level. Having more professionals would be good, but in the end, I hope that they aren't trying to go to a full professional market, because honestly other sites are better suited and it would be business suicide to alienate the huge market they have niched for themselves.

ShadowWind

Man, I can't see tonight. That should be "three places that need serious clarification"

ok no one is saying Porn.. no one. not even explicate sexual contact. also you are right a child can not make an informed consent..or choice THAT IS WHY THERE ARE PARENTS AND/OR GUARDIANS. I know there are netbabysitters you can get for comps. also the parents need to be making the choices for underagers. I am sorry but no way would my kids be cruising the net with out some sort of supervision. period. why? because I find some things not for their viewing at their age. -I- make the choice and police what my children view. the net is not a playground for children with out some sort of guidance. with that said..I go back to the point of this being a site with mixed viewers. if you think a nude in the gallery is going to get you into legal trouble ...go to the market place and you will REALLy be in trouble. You can not have one standard for one side and not the other. am I saying get rid of the nudity in the market place ..no. definatly not. what I am saying is if it is good enough for the market place why isnt it good enough for the galleries? Nudity is not wrong. it shouldnt be dirty. like I said in the other thread..those that think it is..god what are you going to do on judgement day when you face your maker? what tell him.."ohh yes btw that form you did the human? it was horrible just smut..totally dirty! how could you put those parts on there?" sorry but nude is not dirty. it is not porn. My god even the churches have nude cherubs and angels. well some of the older ones.

The net is, by definition, for adults. I don't know where anyone got the idea that it was okay for kids. My solution, though no one would probably listen, is to make every site only for adults, and create tags that would say KIDS ALLOWED if the site was. There would be no need for netnannies or anything else. The kids would only be able to go to a site marked as such. if the owners of said site marked it and then displayed adult material on there, then they would be in trouble. It's pretty simple really. The problem is in this economy, parents often have to both work and maybe multiple jobs just to feed and clothe their kids. Watching everything they do when one is not home is difficult as best. Cheers to those who can, but reality is that many can't. Not because they don't want to, or are irresponsible, but because simple logistics doesn't allow it. This really has little to do with the porn versus artistic nudity. It's not about the children. From what Rosity has said, it seems to be more of an image problem, one that I've heard of first hand. For any company, such an image problem is a big issue. Now if they didn't care about artistic nudity at all, it would be simple enough to ban it all, but they know that artistic nudity is indeed a valid form of art, so they have to find a line somewhere in the middle. It's not a task I envy of them at all, as finding that line is going to prove very difficult, given the culture and the myriad of beliefs that exist in their community and their business. ShadowWind

You know, when you are living in germany all those fuss about nudes is really hard to understand. Besides that, I assume most of the visitors and members are adults. As an adult you should be able to take care for yourself and not expect that others will do that for you. You don't want to see nudity then please go to your profile and set the nudity filter. Is that too much to ask? Another thing: the internet is not a children's playground. I don't know why a webmaster should take care of other people's children. Those children usually have parents and at least where I live the parents are responsible for what their children see and do. My ten year old daughter can see all the nudes in the gallery because I taught her that nude is natural and nothing bad. I would not want her to see extreme violence or porn but nudity and porn are two completly different things and I don't remember that I ever have seen an image here that I would consider porn..

Puntomaus exactly. I guess because I grew up in a european household..I have never seen anything wrong with nudity. but if it is not the problem of kids seeing the "bad stuff" then why are we in need of policing adults? we have the tags and flags etc.. why do we need to sit here and police other adults? We are living in a world were it is ok to show someone being dismembered...blown up.....sliced diced and french fried..but it is horribly wrong to show nudity of sexual feelings? note please sexual feelings are different then porn.

Guess AsherD wrote that the matter is not protecting the children but improving art. So eg a classical nude is art, but a 'porny' nude isn't. If you want to understand the difference, go to the museum.

Ok, lets go. At first to Spain, Museo de Prado. There this picture of Correggio is hanging:

Animal sex? Leda is nude and also classical, but the swan (animal!) is touching her. Obviously she is attracted by him and anyone knows that this is the begin of an explicit sexual but nevertheless 'classical' story. Does this conflict with the Rosity TOS and the law of Tennessee?
I don't know. Test yourself, dear Rosity admins!

Now lets walk to the National Gallery of London. There hangs a picture of a guy called Michelangelo who obviously doesn't respect the TOS of Renderosity:


This horny swan, deep between her legs - oh, I better do not think about what she does with her legs! - touches with his arrow ...cough..., with his neck her breast, with his beak her mouth and their pose in all ... so tender, so lustful - no, I must look away ashamed!
If this classical nude is ok according to the TOS then I do not worry about the pictures I'm intending to post.

What if we were all born wearing clothes?

ohh One ~claps~ it is often forgotten that our ancestors were very very lustful and ohh pornographic. our "classic nudes" were often be very lustful and very sexual. sheakspear was vvvvvvvvery pornographic if you know old english vinacular. I wonder...what would happen if someone did a render of the above works...after all they are "classic nudes" would they be banned?

that was suppose to be "ohh Ona"

I asked the following questions in a thread below but no mode has replied. So I'll try again. So what criteria will you use to decide whether a release form should be submitted? A photo texture for Poser is a photographic nude. Will these be exempt? Release forms are used in professional work when the images are for commercial use. This includes nude and non nude work. So I really don't understand why a release form is necessary only for nudes and for pictures that are in the main non comercial apart from Poser photo textures which generally are commercial. ANSWER It's for confirming that nude models are over 18 years of age. --Asher OK and will you do the same to confirm that nude models used for photo textures are over 18 years of age? If it is important, for whatever reasons, that you have this proof for images in the photo gallery surely the same criteria must apply to Photo textures.

Adding my 2 cents to this. I'm in the US and I don't have any problems with nudity. As a matter of fact, I think that ToxicAngel's The Beauty Within is one of the most beautiful nudes I've ever seen. I don't find this in anyway offensive. However, I have noticed plenty of times in the galleries that a picture has nudity and is not marked as such; has nutidy, is not marked as such and the thumbnail shows the nudity; has nudity, it's marked that it does, but the thumbnail shows the nudity. I do have a problem with that. In my job, I am allowed to surf the net on downtime. I will come here and hit the forums and scan the tutorials. I tend to stay out of the galleries for the reasons I stated earlier - a lot of the nudes are not marked as such, or the thumbnail shows the nudity! I don't feel I'm being a prude or unreasonable to request the common courtesy of when posting our images, we mark those that are violent - as violent, we mark those that are nudity - as nudity and to post a thumbnail that does not reveal either. If someone feels their image will get less views this way - too bad. If all of this is in place, and I see an image marked with nudity and I choose to view it and I am offended, you know what? Too bad for me. No one forced me to view it, I made a conscious choice to do that. I then note the image and artist and I don't look at it again. Now, don't even get me started on the Marketplace. That's one of the worst offenders! If you need to show nudity in your marketplace offerings, then have the courtesy to NOT post it in the thumbnail and have a way of noting that there is nudity in the product advertisement. This way, I will NOT look at it when I am at work. There are many times I could use this site when at work as there are things in my job that relate to this. But even the banner advertisements on the site will show nudity. I am very careful going here from work. Doing those simple things would go a long way in make this a more professional place. Nudity is fine, but it doesn't have to be in-your-face. Now, as far as children go, not our problem. PARENTS choose to have kids and it's THEIR responsibility to parent, not everyone else's. If they have to work more than one job to make ends meet, there are plenty of things they can do. They can employ parental controls or not allow their kids on the net when they are not around. Now, if there are things that need to be done to satisfy the legal system in regards to nudity and/or violence, okay. Can that be done on an automated level? Someone suggested that when filling out the profile, if it's someone under 18, automatically filtering out the nudity and voilence. Will that work? Would a separate gallery for adult content fill that need? There should be a happy medium to allow the adult content to be posted without porn.

elektra wrote: "Adding my 2 cents to this..." Glad you did, now there's some level-headed thinking! Great post :)

I have an idea how to control if Poser models are of legal age or not. Use her/his ID card and no doubts shall remain.

:)
Ona

Many thanks to Vali for her phantastic Liliana! :)))

pierre,
It's not about commercial or non-commercial, it's about the age of the model in the image. In the US, there has to be proof of age if the girl appears to be underage. Such proof keeps Rosity out of trouble, if someone should consider such an image to be illegal. In photography, that can become an issue.

In Poser textures, since the end picture does not display the actual person, I doubt the same stipulation would apply there. Besides, I seriously doubt that texture makers are taking naked pictures of their kids to make textures.

ShadowWind

Sorry ShadowWind I can't agree and we are not talking about kids. We are talking in this instance about under the age of 18. A Photo texture does indeed, particularly with the high quality ones, does display the actual person. There are a few in the MP that could be under 18. We don't know so surely proof of age has to be provided. A photo texture is a photograph of a real person that is then altered to some degree in Photoshop or similar app. If this is OK and no Proof of age is needed then a photograph in the photography gallery that has had some post work in PS does not need proof of age. Proof of age is either required or isn't. Which is it?

very well written Elektra! I will concede that perhaps the nudity in thumb nails should stop. perhaps then the morality police will stop with the brigade.

Ok, I'm stupid, so help me: The 'violence' tag is the red font named 'violence'. But where is the 'nudity' warning? I didn't see any, even not on my own pics where I set this tag. I always was thinking that people who do not want to see nudity see no thubnail either. Am I wrong (never testing Rosity without nudity ;))?

So how about revealing nudity thubnails?

well then if people that are offended by nudity in thumbs.....arent using that filter....they are to blame not the rest of us. I am geting more frustrated with this...there is a filter that makes it so you do not see the nudity on thumbs or anything YET people are still complaining about about nudity? SET THE FILTER. ~sighs~ we know we know it is not all about the nudity it is about sexual content and implied sexual content but nudity fits in there. and I would say 99% of those that would complain about "implied sexual content" would also be the ones complaining about nudity etc. This is.....~sighs~ People take responsability for what you are choosing to look at. if you do not like nudity etc etc etc...then hit that filter option on your profile.

DarkElegance:
If people actually set that flag when they upload, then yes, but a lot of them don't. So having the nudity filter on is no guarantee. I don't think anyone is saying to get rid of nudity in the galleries or hide it away from the rest of the world. I think the group is just looking for ways to bridge the gap here with Rosity's goals. I agree with Ona that it would help to have a NUDITY icon (like the violence icon). Many surf from other locations where nudity may not be allowed, as well as surfing from home where they can look at whatever they want. I don't have the nudity filter set because it doesn't bother me at all to see nudity in art, but it would be good to know if a picture does feature nudity if I am surfing with others that may be offended. I can't see why putting an icon is a bad thing. If anything, the ones marked nudity will get more views anyway, so I would think that would be a plus for the artist. I do think that the default for new members should be nudity off until they say they want to see it. That would go a long way towards people's first impression, since as I've said, many don't make that distinction (between art and porn) until they learn what art is and isn't as they go along.

Pierre:
US Law is quite clear about it's feelings about images that are displayed that may be of underage women or men. The context differs from area to area however on what constitutes a sexual image in relation to kids. Some people will say that nudism images are fine (which I don't agree with), some would say that the baby in the bathtub is fine, some would say that even fully clothed kids that are placed in sexual poses are fine (I don't agree with this one at all). The law is very inconsistent in these matters, but all are agreed that naked children in sexual situations, implicit or otherwise, is something that is punishable by the law. Rosity is not saying it's going to witch hunt all images for proof of age, just those that would seem in dispute or on the borderline of this law. It protects them and thus protects us because we will still have a place to go. I don't see this as being unreasonable.

Poser textures fall under a different category, and to me (though I'm not a lawyer) would fall more under the same grouping as medical books. A Poser texture is a skin, which in itself does not resemble a human at all. If you've ever seen one. It's doubtful that anyone would look at those and say they are sexually appealing. Now when put on a Poser model, it is the context of the end image that would come into play, not the texture itself. Besides, just because a texture is for the millenium kids does not mean someone took naked pictures of children to create it. The bottom line is that if there is no connection to be seen, then Rosity probably will never have to ask for such proof. It is in their right to do so, but I doubt if they will make it a practice unless a dispute does arise.

The US legal system is inconsistent in many places, and Rosity as a company has to deal with the laws as their legal team sees fit. It's not about consistency or what's fair for one artist versus another. It's about what is necessary to prove their case, should such proof be needed. Can't slight them for that.

If you've ever created a Poser texture or seen one Pierre, they are oodles more manipulation then just some PS fidgeting like most photographs. I'd show one here, but that would be infringement someone could then take it down and use it right from the post.

ShadowWind

PS: Under 18 are considered kids in the US under the law in most states, 21 in others.

TerraDreamer - I try, but it also seems like basic common sense and courtesy to me. DarkElegance - Hi! Thanks! I just wanted to say, as someone who has no problem with nudity, that when you mark the image as having nudity, to then put nudity in the thumbnail is defeating the purpose of the warning. By marking the image as containing nudity, I know NOT to view it at work and NOT to view it when my nieces and nephews are visiting. I don't have nudity turned off as I don't mind viewing it. As a result, if there is an image marked with nudity AND it's in the thumbnail, it like an oximoron and what is the point of the warning? I've already seen the nudity in the thumbnail and it's then blatantly obvious then! I will concede and agree, that the TOS needs to be more specific in what implied sexual situations are.

Until now I didn't care about marking my nude scenes but now I am convinced. It must be. Thanks ... got wiser! :)

But back to the TOS question.

I think it would help if Rosity installs a new 'counseler' forum, where the admins move in those pictures which cannot clearly be accepted or kicked out.
In this forum people can discuss the case and perhaps help the admin to get a clear measure for what has to be done with this picture. Finally he decides, gives a short explanation of his decision in the forum, closes the thread, puts the pic into the gallery or kicks it out.

Guess this procedure has some advantages: There is a better communication between admins and possibly frustrated communtiy members and/or artists. ;) The admina gets some new POVs which may help them to decide. And the artist gets a chance to rework his image before it is shot down.
What do you think about it?

@Kawecki: LOL! I'm not quite sure but you might have forgotten one tape... WEBMASTER!

"renderotica...yes they have a venue for more adult oriented work but sorry folks people like me ..our art is like cotton candy over there. it doesnt fit in there either." I'm saddened by this statement. I mod over at Renderotica, and I can tell you that it's not like that at all. The spirit at Renderotica is to welcome all images, with the two exceptions (no kids in any images there at all to eliminate confusion and limit testers, no sexual acts between humans and animals). Erotica, porn, and horror do make the majority of the images there, but that does not mean that non erotic imagery, or "cotton candy" is not welcome. It most certainly is welcome, with open arms. As in any forum, there are a few rude people, but my experience has been that the majority of our membership are just a great group of folks who enjoy creating the art that they do. The R gallery at Renderotica is a sadly overlooked treasure trove of talented artists and images. Here are a few (don't worry; no sex, no violence, no unwarned nudes, and nothing that would be against the TOS of this site): Life Drawing Portrait Talk To The Hand scantily clad, but clad nonetheless >^_~ DT2: Murderous Intent Spring's Eve mild nudity no bare breasts, no genitals Play Me This one has one bare breast, and some erotic prose. It was too beautiful to not include, and one of the best pieces I have seen in a long time. I really wish people (adults of course) would take the time to overcome their prejudices and really explore all that we have to offer. I admit, there are some scary galleries there, that I would prefer not to enter, and don't when I have a choice. However, most of the galleries really are not as extreme as some would have you believe. I'm really looking forward to the new gallery software (in beta; yay!)that allows you to flag the types of images you don't want to see, and gives you a way to quickly and directly notify moderators of miscatagorized images, or TOS violations.

Momcat I hope I haven't said anything in this thread that you would take as a slighting of Renderotica. I have posted some 'scary' renders there myself and have nothing against it. As I mentioned earlier, it's very liberating to be able to post whatever I want there without worrying about TOS restrictions :)

My reference to 'extreme' is only related to the context of a proposed new gallery at Renderosity and nothing more :)

I don't see that you did that at all >^_^< But I don't think that creating an adult gallery at Renderosity would be appropriate. I can block Renderotica from my childrens computers. I do not want to block Renderosity, but I cannot block specific galleries within the site. I'm fairly liberal about what I let my children read and view. While some of the images in the galleries here may be innapropriate for young children to view, and probably would be better at Renderotica; I don't think any of them are inexplicable for parents. Anything my kids accidentally see, I can explain to them. I think it's pretty safe here as far as that is concerned.

' I do not want to block Renderosity, but I cannot block specific galleries within the site.' Yes, that and the fact that the other galleries would probabaly wither from underexposure does make it seem like a separate 'adult' gallery is probably not a good idea after all :)

Hi Momcat,
Honestly I do not like this separation between art and erotica because people might think that art does not include sexuality. I even think thoughts like this are a tragedy.
I don't want to say anything against Renderotica, but if Renderosity claims to be an artist's community then erotic art must have it's place here, a place not behind a fence in a separate gallery.
Ona