Look, guys, it's really simple, so I'll write it once more: Is she wearing anything? No. Then she's naked. Hit the nudity flag. Discussion on that matter closed. Now, let's look at the other side of the coin, as was suggested earlier in this thread. Someone looks at Geo's original thread and posts an image of a naked chick that doesn't have the discrete covering of arms and well-placed legs and doesn't bother to hit the nudity flag since, "Well, Geo didn't, so why should I?" Shall we continue that particular point to its logical conclusion? We become another renderotica. If that's what you want, go there. How difficult is that? >> The picture is question broke NONE of these rules Hey, was anyone talking about SEXUAL CONDUCT? Gosh, no -- we were talkijng about whether or not the young lady in the original thread was NAKED. Which she WAS. Wow. What an insight. >> You are actually not allowed to treat people disrespectfully in this forum<?i> If it's stupid like a duck, I'm gonna call it a duck. Sorry if that upsets anyone (including the ducks). But after reading this thread on the heels of the similarly absurd one over "Well, gee, Mom, why can't I post more than one image a day?????" whine-fest, I'm tired of obtuseness being passed off as victimhood. "I'm politically oppressed when I have to hit the nudity flag!" -- oh, please, spare me. Hit the damn button, then get a life and move on, huh? Until the mods decide to change that particular rule, it's in effect FOR EVERYONE, even the politically oppressed.