The term is anthropomorphism. However, all art is an object depicting something. Photographs, paintings, sculpture ... all of it is objectification. The photograph is no more the person than the statue is the person. They are both depictions. If the artistic object - photograph of sculpture or photograph of a person - clearly violates the TOS, I have no arguement with the moderators removing it. A display of an erect penis, if that is specifically mentioned in the TOS, would be a clear violation. As to erect nipples, not all erections are created equal. Nipple erections can occur simply because of the cold or because of irritation from clothing. So, I would think that something more overt would have to appear in the artwork before it was considered to be a depiction or arousal. In addition, I can't think of any reason to depict a male form with a full erection unless that is intended to show the individual as sexually aroused. I have not seen the statue in question, so I can't comment on whether the thing showed male sexual arousal or not, but I suspect that it was clear enough to the moderators that it did, indeed, violate the TOS. So, take the work (by this I mean the original statue - not the photograph) into context. Technically, erect nipples would only "count" if the context of the artwork was a depiction of sexual arousal. If the erect penis on the statue that was photographed was a depiction of sexual arousal, then I don't think the moderators made a mistake in taking the photo down ... no matter how great a photograph it might have been. If that same artist took a photo of a male nude statue with a flacid penis (which brings me back to Michaelangelo's David), I doubt it would be questioned. If you all feel that the TOS are not being evenly applied, please point me to something that you consider to be an overt depiction of sexual arousal -- I'm not talking about nudes here, we're talking arousal not nudity -- that has made it past the moderators and is posted on Renderosity. I would be curious to see it. I've seen a lot of T&A, but I haven't seen anything like that. And, for the record, just so you all understand I'm not being salacious here, I am an old lady attorney who lives with her cats. I've seen it all, so nothing shocks me anymore, but I also understand that the staff of the site have certain standards they are supposed to maintain even if that means censoring artwork that you might consider to be worthy of view. There will always be galleries and web sites that won't have these particular TOS restrictions.

Could be worse, could be raining.