I just spent 15 minutes cruising the galleries, and I'd like to point out a few examples of the current hypocrisy of the TOS as it stands. Please understand, I am not singling out any artist or artists. I am merely pointing out examples of what could be considered violations of the Renderosity TOS, as it currently stands: http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=512362 (no implied sexual situations) http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=512371 (no implied sexual situations) http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=512354 (No Explicit sexual content...those hands are groping her breasts and genital area) http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=512340 (no implied sexual situations) http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=512221 (no sexual situations, no extreme or explicit S&M bondage situations) http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=512200 (no sexual situations) These are all in just 15 minutes. If I had more time, I could give a far longer list. The point I'm trying to make is this: If you're going to have an 'Artist Community' website, then allow the artists to express themselves freely, within the bounds of good taste. If you're not, then start enforcing your TOS uniformly accross the board. The excuse of 'making the site more professional' doesn't cut it with me, or many other artists out there. A lot of the professional artists here are 'violating' the TOS with nearly every image! I for one am a big fan of ToxicAngel's work, almost ALL of which could be considered to be violating the TOS (implied sexual situations, etc). TwiztedKidd (sp?) does some incredible work...all suggestive. And how do you determine the age of a virtual elven female? And are you gonna have BlackHearted fax you a model release every time he posts a photo of Rio? I sincerely doubt it. And what about the other photographers who post here? Are they going to start getting leaned on? I hope there's some extra cash for staff budget, because that's gonna be a full-time gig right there... The TOS as it stands is not condusive (sp?) to free artistic expression. While I understand the intent, it falls far short of the mark. Instead of helping promote an 'Artist Community', it has instead succeeded only in making a good number of artists fear posting here at all. But who knows, maybe that's the idea... I for one have stopped posting images to Renderosity...period. Until a clear TOS can be defined that doesn't make any render with a human(oid) subject a candidate for censorship, it's not worth it. Plenty of other places to post where the restrictions don't seem so high-collared and black-booted. In fact, the only reason I'm still here at all is because I still care about the community itself, and still want to see Renderosity become the 'Artist Community' it started out trying to be. Thanks for your time and attention. Here's hoping it does some good... David 'ChromeTiger' Hebbe Presto Productions

My personal favorite, is the "implied sexual situations" one. I don't do it often, but I really had to LOL when I read that one. What exactly does that mean? Does it mean implyng that the sexual situation is happening now? Already happened? Will be happening? I see "implied sexual situations" all over TV, all day, and all throughout advertisement and in the movies. That statement is WAAAAYYY too general, and if you're gonna come down on sexual situations, it would be very much in your best interest to be much more specific.

If you feel that the TOS needs to be reworded, please provide a example of how you feel it should be. We are open to the idea of making it work for us all. However, please remember that we also have to provide good reasons to members when we do remove an image.

"However, please remember that we also have to provide good reasons to members when we do remove an image" Her is an example of the good reasons provided "One of your gallery items has been removed by the staff at Renderosity.com for the following reason: deemed unsuitable for this community." Now that explains everything

pierrecolat, That is what we are trying to get away from, Thus the better defined wording.. illusions, Correct, However, when we do remove an image, it's only fair that we point the member to the section of the TOS that apply. I think that was your idea right? Or are you telling me that your idea was a bad one now? :)

OK Spike so under the new TOS what would be the reason for deleting my image that was described as "deemed unsuitable for this community" ?

pierrecolat, What one? You have had 4 images removed. In order 9/5 image #1 "No Sexual acts" 9/5 image #2 "No depictions of young humanoid characters in erotic, seductive, provocative poses or context." 9/5 image #3 "No Explicit sexual content [No manipulation of breasts/nipples/ no sexual situations/ no implied sexual situations/ no extreme or explicit S&M bondage situations/ no lewd or obscene sexual references]" 9/5 image #4 "No Sexual acts [no depictions of sexual intercourse - between humanoids/non-humanoids/animals - no masturbation]" Hope this makes it more clear

Actually these are the reasons given to me for the 4 pictures you deleted in one day 1 no sexual acts 2 deemed unsuitable for this community. 3 No depictions of young humanoid characters in erotic, seductive, provocative poses or context. 4 No Physical arousal. No Genital contact with ANY object, other than sitting or clothing. These were the ebots in the order that I recieved them. Of all the 4 images there was only one where there was any contact between the 2 persons involved. in the other 3 cases there was a karge distance between the individuals. There was no Sexual acts ,no masturbation,No manipulation of breasts/nipples, No depictions of young humanoid characters in erotic, seductive, provocative poses or context, in any of them so i'm a little confused and definately no clearer. Then of course I received that nice message from you "You have been banned from Renderosity for 7 days for posting images that have high sexual content! This is your second warinng." Now I wish I could post these images here so other people could see how ridiculous the reasons you give are but no doubt you would ban me permanently which of course is implicit in your warning.

What happens with crucifixion images which merely portray the death of Jesus Christ and are of purely religious intent?

oh boy I more then likely will not be able to keep half or most of my gallery then. Ok as for giving a reason it is simple. "your picture was removed for :

"your picture was removed for : the list the exact reason ..hand on breast/genitals...explicate sexual content....torture etc that is violation of the TOS..etc.etc then give the TOS rule that was violated" that was suppose to be in there and it seemed to be eaten by the internet moofies.

Spike, First, thanks for taking the time to respond...good to know that someone is paying attention. Second, in the interests of the community, I accept your invitation. I shall begin drafting a proposed TOS immediately. However, being that I will have to work it in amongst my current daily workload, its completion may take me a little time. So I ask all those interested to bear with me. Nonetheless, I'm always one for a good challenge, and if it will help further the community, then it will be worth the effort. CT

CT, Thanks for your effort in this matter.

what about having some of the artists...a mixed bag of them help in doing the new TOS?

I wasn't going to get into this for obvious reasons, but here goes, what one person finds offensive, many will not, by who's standards do you measure what is offensive and what is not. The TOS as it stands now is so vague that ANY IMAGE whatsoever that anyone finds even remotely offensive or for whatever reason doesn't like, can have it removed. We have flags on the images for content, it is not up to this site to police what is being viewed and what is not. IT IS UP TO THE VIEWER to police their own viewing! Renderosity is supposed to be first and formost an ARTIST community....do artist's find these images offensive? no, they're the ones doing them. AND if such images are banned from the galleries, then the products in the marketplace that are also offensive should be banned as well, that's logical right? This subject just tweaks the hell out of me, I get tired of other people telling me 'this is offensive' and 'that is offensive' and 'I don't want my kids to see stuff like this', well, if you don't like it, DON'T LOOK AT IT, BE a parent and CENSOR what YOUR KIDS LOOK AT! Quit whinning and do your job as a parent and stop making everyone else responsible for what YOU do not like...if you don't like nudity, DON'T CLICK THE LINK, don't like 'sexual' or 'implied sexual' content DON'T CLICK THE LINK....grow up, be an adult, TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR OWN ACTIONS! I could on about how unfair, biased, and bigoted this type of thinking is but I'm sure all the artists here are familiar with it. The premise of making this a more 'professional' site is bogus in the extreme. I read these posts and it makes me sad, that a radical puritian minority can so dessimate an artist site by accussations of 'porn'. Michealanglo is turning in his grave....

After listening to all of the arguments made is this thread and in the previous ones concerning this same topic - I still think that a separate gallery (not genre)would go a long way in resolving a lot of these disputes. It would let people who wanted to post and view those types of renders do so without ever offending others who just don't want any part of it. No worries about nude renders popping up on their computers at work or anywhere else. Warnings could be posted in the gallery banner that this area is off limits for children and so on. As a bonus it would give the mods and admins another tool for their use. If an image is blatently pornigraphic or violates other areas of the TOS it could be deleted and if the image was deemed inappriate for the usual galleries it could be moved to this 'adult' gallery. Easy peasy and everyone should be happy. I reiterate again that I'm not proposing a gallery for pornagraphy where anything goes but for those images that have an adult content and may be sexually suggestive to someone else. Professional, suitable for ADULTS and get's the job done. Is this unreasonable?

I don't agree there should be a separate gallery. I do think perhaps an additional flag might help in this situation. Something like ADULT perhaps. That can be filtered out for the younger members and those that may want to avoid such work.

A gallery creates an unnecessary tip of balance. You basically create a path with two doors, adult and the rest. We all know from the demographics of Rosity which one people will choose. This in effect bypasses the many great artists who don't do sexually oriented or adult images. In the current system, while non-adult artists are at a disadvantage, they do have a chance to be seen by someone who is looking for both. In the flag method, there is no such bypass and affords the protection we are discussing here. BTW, this should not be interpreted as my having anything against nudity, sexual situations, or pinups as I like these as much as the next guy, just the idea of segragating them instead of allowing fair time to everyone is what I have against such a gallery.

ShadowWind

Actually Zhann, it is Rosity's responsibility to decide what is suitable for their community and business, as their decisions (not the artists or the viewers) will determine their business' health and legality. Ultimately, they are responsible for what is displayed here. While I agree that the passages mentioned are vague, including the catch all, I don't find fault in the intent.

ShadowWind

I beg to differ ShadowWind, the viewers 'are' dictating policy on Renderosity, otherwise images would not be removed that previously were considered within the TOS. And if the galleries are purged of the 'sexual content' then the marketplace should be purged as well, and THAT does determine their business health. Could Renderosity survive without the marketplace selling those things that are banned in the galleries, i.e. bondage and sexual items, suggestive poses, etc. I understand their desparate need to be legitimzied and to appear 'professional' to the general public, and that they should control what is displayed on their site. I find that there is lots of stuff here I personally don't like, and find extremely offensive, but I don't believe I have the right to censor it for others, who may feel differently than I do....I just don't view it, I can make my own decisions as to what I want to view and what I don't want to see....but I don't like someone else taking away my 'choice'....

'A (separate) gallery creates an unnecessary tip of balance. You basically create a path with two doors, adult and the rest. We all know from the demographics of Rosity which one people will choose. This in effect bypasses the many great artists who don't do sexually oriented or adult images.'

Yes I agree, I do consider that to be a significant disadvantage myself. The other galleries would probably wither from underexposure. That fact does however seem to indicate that there is at least a preponderance of those who prefer to view such renders over the rather vocal minority who are opposed to them :)

It would be interesting to see the results of a membership vote on something like this.

BTW - thanks for the gallery picks David - that second one was freakin' awesome although I swear I've seen it before! LOL!

DarkElegance; I'll probably solicit some artist opinions as I go, once I have the framework down. As much as I'm sure we want the TOS to be acceptable and fair to everyone in the community, I'm a firm believer in the adage "Too many cooks spoil the broth". Most of the people who know me here will tell you, I'm a firm advocate of the artists, so the initial framework should be fairly decent. (he hopes) Richabri; My pleasure sir...I agree, it's a beautiful shot. :-) Also, another note: The reconstructed TOS, as I see it, may involve some other changes in other areas, for example, possible addition or change to the flags in the gallery. These changes will be detailed as well as the TOS proposal itself. CT

Two nude female figures: one figure on her back mouth open, the second figure squatting inches over the face of the first figures face, first figures hands on the hips of the squatting figure. Does this show an actual sexual act - No! Is it perceived as an implied sexual act - Yes! Animated image of a non-humanoid figure and a pig. The nude non-humanoid figure standing behind the pig, hands grabbing the pigs thighs, thrust humping animation of the non-humanoid on the pigs backside. Does this show an actual sexual act No! Is it perceived as an implied sexual act Yes! Young female nude figure, One hand stroking her nipple, the other hand deep between her legs, back arched, eyes closed, mouth posed in a moan. Image did not show actual penetration of the hand between her legs, so does this image show an actual sexual act No! Is it perceived as an implied sexual act Yes! Hope this helps to clear up by what we mean by the wording implied sexual act :) ladynimue

' Young female nude figure, One hand stroking her nipple, the other hand deep between her legs, back arched, eyes closed, mouth posed in a moan. Image did not show actual penetration of the hand between her legs, so does this image show an actual sexual act No! Is it perceived as an implied sexual act Yes!' ladynimue, could we please have a visual reference for the above ... only for purposes of complete clarification of course. (LOL!)

Wow - I must be slipping, pout! Sorry that my words were not "visual enough" for you Richabri :] ladynimue ;]

....just got back from my cold shower....anyway you were saying,ladynimue.....

Yeaaaaaaaaaah I haven't lost my touch after all :]

Oh you're not slipping at all - very compelling writing! Still waiting for the second installment :)

Oh, That was very nice... Thanks for that thought...

Is it a bit warm in here or is it me????

Such imagination ladynimue :) Got to get that shower now myself...

Richabri:
That is very true that there are people that want to see adult type images, and i don't think the intent is to get rid of them or hide them away. It will be interesting to see Chrome Tiger's TOS proposal which may fix this when it's done.

Zhann:
I can see your point to an extent about the marketplace, but having an item that can be used for a sexual pic and actually displaying the sexual pic is two different things. For example, cuffs are not sexual in themselves, but show a girl cuffed to a wall with a gag in her mouth, and that is quite a different issue. I agree that there should be discretion in the marketplace as far as promotional pictures as they relate to such items, but I don't think they shouldn't be sold if Rosity finds a market in them.

The new TOS changes are to address people's concerns that the TOS wasn't specific enough. So they tried to make it specific and in doing so, included some vague passages, who's intent weren't vague, but who's phrasing was.

In thinking about this, the nudity flag in itself is quite vague. It can mean anything from a see-through outfit to a girl with her legs spread open. People who leave the flag on are often not offended by nudity in itself, but some applications of that nudity, so it's not fair to say that if you don't like it, don't look at it, because even with the nudity flag, you may not know what you are getting yourself into when you look. Maybe the issue is fixing this vagueness rather than deleting ones that are borderline against the TOS.

Rosity is always going to err on the side of caution. They are not an art museum, who's goal is to fight against those that would curb freedom of speech. They are an online business that can't afford to get caught up in a legal entanglement because someone raised enough of a stink about a particular image. They also have to deal with local laws as well. Unfortunately this forces them to answer to the minority in many cases. You certainly have the right to choose to be angered at such people for complaining. You also have the right to find a site or real world museum that displays the types of images you want to see. No one is taking away your right to choose, just limiting the selection to choose from. Something that is a necessary evil when dealing with a business.

ShadowWind

By the way, the TOS said 'implied sexual situations' If it said, 'implied sexual acts' than that would have been much clearer as to what was intended and saved a lot of confusion...

Double standard if I ever heard one...

'No', we won't allow 'images' using those things that consitute bondage gear or facilitate sexual poses, but 'yes' we will continue to sell those things AS LONG AS it makes money for the site or UNTIL someone bitches that purging the images is not enough, just having that type of merchandise for sale on this site is 'inappropriate' or 'offensive'.....you guys need to look at the bigger picture, this will not stop at the current TOS...

Just for clarifcation sake, I am not a mod or an admin and have no say into Rosity's policies. I have run large communities online and speak from that experience. I don't see it as a double standard myself Zhann, because I look at the items as individual things rather than what they could be used for. However, I guess if enough people bitched that it was offensive, then that might spark some change. Most of the time, it seems as though people just make generic comments about the marketplace, with no specifics. You can't just say all provocative poses are bad and expect Rosity to jump on closing them down. Especially since most provocative poses are allowed in the galleries. Many other items have dual uses, so...

Again, not my site, just going by experience and the past from what I've seen of Rosity's decisions.

ShadowWind

You 'look at the items as individual things rather than what they could be used for...' how many other uses does a spiked collar, ball gag, or total face cover with ball gag or bit have? Do you want your childern going to the marketplace and seeing that type of merchandise? Don't get me wrong I'm for free emterprise and I personally don't find those things offensive, and the merchants have every right to sell them to those who want them. But there are those who will not stop with just the current restrictions in the TOS.

Okay, yes, the ball gag and the face cover/bit might be too much and I agree should be looked at. The spiked collar could be used for a lot of things. My sister in her teen years wore a spiked collar during her tough gothic phase. It wasn't about a sexual fetish or anything like that. You also included suggestive poses in your list earlier. These are not against the TOS, nor is the spike collar, unless the girl wearing it is whipping some guy naked in a gallery image.

The children again. All these changes are not about the children. That's been specified hundreds of times. No, I don't think it's appropriate merchandise for children, but honestly, I don't see the marketplace as being a place for children. They can't buy anything there, and I think parents who share their Renderosity experience with their kids would know better. If I saw something that the kids would be interested in, I would just share that page, not browse through to whole thing, thinking that the store was kid friendly, as I know the marketplace is geared toward a different market than the galleries.

Shadowwind

I thought that spiked collars were to stop an enemy from attacking the throat. I have seen them on big dogs.

My own son was very young when we came across a Pam Anderson boob shot... and he recognized her boobs immediately. (I had not, lol!) He told me that she was posted all over the banners on the Disney website... A site just for kids, damnit! So, I sat him down and we had a talk about exploitation and people who like to expose themselves... Neither did it harm his psyche nor did it make him into a perv. Guess what I am trying to say is, sit your kid down, explain, and go own with life. They won't get damaged by the occasional tit or butt, and if you can't handle that talk, don't go internetting and heaven forbid, do not try to raise kids! But most of all, don't try to censor us who can have those talks!

If I'm understanding correctly, there are a number of folks who want the standard raised. Not the quality of the image, but the subject of the image. The standard right now is no porn, no touching private parts, etc. There are others who think the standard is fine right now and still others who feel its too high and want to go lower. I am of the group that would like the standard raised. That means the most tasteless of images that is currently allowed would come up a notch or two. But I also see it is a complex subject and sitting here thinking about how to write a rule is really taking my day away from rendering. So if the admins and mods have some discretion then I'm all for it. A TOS that warns about a where that line is drawn is a good TOS, but no TOS can draw the line accurately in every circumstance. A rule can only guide. It takes wisdom as to when to apply that rule and when not to. I'm all for a TOS that gives the PTB's discretion in pulling an image and stating why to the artist. In that way, 'Osity can become a really neat site to visit and won't degrade into something that many of us care not to participate in. I'm seeing threads and comments on unbridled discretion and no consistency, or folks who honestly just don't see how their image crossed a line. Perhaps along with the rule there could be a page with the "purpose" of the rule. Oh, some are self explanatory and well written and need no explanation, but some do. For example, we deal with this in real life rules. A State statute is a law, its a rule, and its a line not to cross. But every statute has purpose behind it and that's why there are sometimes hundreds of court cases interpreting the statute and reading the legislative history and legislative intent. It is always wonderful to be able to read what the politicians said when coming up with a bill that would one day be boiled down to a simple statute. I ran across an interesting thing one day - a statute that makes it illegal to slow down when another vehicle is close behind. Really, the purpose is aimed at stopping those who jam on their brakes for tailgaters and cause accidents. An odd accident where a lady shifted gears at the same time someone was passing too closely caused that statute to be challenged. Who was at fault? The lady who's acceleration was changed during the shift and perceived as slowing or the motorcycle that tried to speed around her unsafely? Gee, what happened to common sense? You'd think the parties could figure it out. But they couldn't. It took an appeallate court to come out with caselaw interpreting the statute to allow an exception for shifting gears. After all, the statute cannot mean that people are not allowed to shift gear. And really, a motorist has a duty to maintain a safe distance ahead of them and control their vehicle. So the purpose of that statute was very important in determining whether to apply it to that particular situation. If the purpose was to create a duty on the part of a motorist for those behind them, then yes, she would be at fault. But that was not the purpose. Yeah, I know, but it shows how difficult it is to write a rule to regulate a type of behavior and not have absurd results. Ok, so, maybe one way to handle this TOS issue is to keep the rules strong, and state what the purpose is and let the admins make their own decision in their own discretion. In that way the standard can be set without writing a rule for every little circumstance and yet still give people fair warning. To the artist that wants to step right up to the line, ignore the purpose, and push for a loophole or absurd result, expect to get whacked. There's no sense whining about it, just take your whack with dignity and leave a little more room next time. By giving the admins and mods discretion they can chose to leave a crucifixion image or pull it, leave a nude or pull it. They can enforce a purpose and standard for those who go right to the line. I'm all for that and the "suitability" of an image really is something that should be enforced.

I agree EricofSD, I don't think that any rule can be made so specifically that it would cover every case no matter what the subject is. That is why ultimately there is somebody whose job it is to 'judge' individual cases on a case by case basis. I don't envy the admins/mods for having to do this 'job' and I've always felt that they've done the job with much concern for both the best interests of the site and the artists too.

There is also a large amount of concern that goes with requesting that the TOS be drafted to allow renders with an adult theme to be posted too. As you mentioned, nobody wants the standards to be dropped to the point of tastelesness.

Hopefully, some happy medium is being explored that would help to clarify these issues as much as possible and also signify to the membership that this is being considered in an adult context.

The only thing that really matters is that whatever rules or regulations are in the TOS, that they be enforced CONSISTENTLY across ALL venues. Not just some, like 'no this or that in the gallery, but hey, it's okay in the marketplace because that's where we make our money'.

Will never happen here. :-/

I've seen many images that I thought went over the line, and many more that were just plain vulgar, but at the end of the day, that was my opinion, my reaction. Most of images did not actually violate Renderosity's TOS. Those that did got removed PDQ. The TOS defines "the line," not the opinions of moralists. IMHO the site TOS doesn't need to be any more specific than it already is, which is to say, pretty darned specific. It seems to me that some folks in these discussions feel that their opinion of what's "too much" is somehow less subjective than an opinion (or moral standard, or what have you.) As regards the marketplace, though, maybe there really should be more compromise or improvements. I'm not, like some of you, for the censoring or removal of various fetish, underwear, or bondage items, but rather for making any explicit or raunchy promo photos available only on the second or third promo pages, rather than the very first one. This would be strange in the case of some items (including ones I've bought, e.g. BVH's fetish things for Victoria.) But it would go a long way to make the MP less annoying to those who are offended by some of the ads. It's not so much that the nudity offends me (it doesn't,) but it's just sort of, I dunno, exasperatingly tacky when all you were interested in finding was a new spaceship or cowboy hat model. :-) OK, slightly off topic: I HATE all those little "exclusive" icons that Renderosity added to the main marketplace page. Does someone actually think that making that formerly-attractive page look like a strip mall catalog adds purchasing incentive? Nah, it's yucky. An improved search engine would have been better for encouraging sales IMO. I know the back story on all this...not trying to stir that hornet's nest, this is just a customer's beef. I do think it relates to this thread a bit, since so many of those icons feature nudity or scant clothing. Moreover, it's just harsh on the eye.

hmm.... if children cannot handle simple nudity (not sexual nudity..) but simple nudity in the form of the naked human body in all it's... ehmm.. glory.... then we will have to make a campaign against breast-feeding! Obviously you're showing boobs to extremely young children! and that cannot be right! it must be stopped! And not only are you showing the naked piece of woman to the child, you're making it TOUCH it! with it's MOUTH no less!! oh the horror! seriously.. I'm not going to freak if my daughter sees a naked person (simple nudity.. not sexual nudity) it will not create a pervert... And I really really don't see the problem in nudity.. we have all seen the NVIAT pictures. and ANYONE who cannot handle female nudity should not open Poser and begin working with any of the female models.... unless of course they're so good with their computer that they can put clothing on her without looking! ROFL P.S. in case you were in doubt.. I AM joking in the first part of this message...

wow what a read, but has anyone mentioned there are sites where you can post your adult renders, i dont know as there where lots to read. i go to many many sites, and have joined an adult poser site, i think a lot of peeps might know which one i mean, i dont know whether i can say it on here in cas of infringment or of such, i dont know, but this site does R rated stuff and X rated stuff, and has a lot of adult free stuff as well as market place stuff! on another note, i came online to see half my gallery gone, me thinking twenty steps ahead of myself emailed ros'ity wanting to know what happened, then after doing so me thought, "bummer should have looked on admin forums incase there is a thing ahppening about it, and there was, and posted a reply to several on there, logged of and logged on, now i see all my works, i dont get annoyed at the nudity on here, if there is an image that offends its taken down, simple as that. my son never gets unnerved about nudity etc, he loves to watch me do my poser work and knows exactly what breasts are, he has seen both me and my partner in the nude so oftern he dont reallt care, he has my mother in the buff to he doesnt batter an eyelid, we where born nude and theres nothing really wrong with it! i really dont think ros'ity should have a "special" section just for adult work as that will get more of the posting then most other areas of work! ros'ity should stay the way it is, but have an under 18 thing when you sign up so you dont get to see any nudity, i cant remeber if they do, been a long time since i joined! oh and my last thing, the nudity flag, i think it should work the same of the violence one, it should come up with red writting saying there is nudity instead of typing it next to title or some on clicking on image to find breasts and whatsits out and getting shocked at it!! ~maxine~

I think that ALL images showing people being tortured to death ought to be banned from this Forum... and that includes crucifixions... along with crowns of thorns, flagellations, being poked with a spear and the rest of the baggage. A ban against torture also includes the entire passel of so-called saints being shot full of arrows, dragged to pieces, and broken on rack and wheel. If Christians want to celebrate torture and death and ugliness they can post those images elsewhere... like on some Christian site where they will find a suitable audience. Simply because it is a "cherished religious scene" doesn't make it any more palatable for those of us who don't want to see torture and bondage. Carolly