Well I'm starting to wonder here. The point of erect nipples has been brought up and is very valid. And these are on live models. The picture in question was one of a statue, and of a religious one at that. Now I didnt get a chance to see this image and I think as a participating artist here, I had a right to see it and to evaluate it myself along with others. You know, censorship can start small, but then when it becomes lopsided, as noted here, then it must grow to encompass the things mentioned. "All things being fair", would be the argument I think. In chosing to remove this picture I think the governing body didnt look at it properly. Was it a sexual act? Was it a living person with an erection? Was it in a cheap hotel room? A public statue!!! You're trying to censor something which exists in public. Will you tell the people of renderosity not to go visit the statue? I agree, standards should be kept. I think we all know the effects of censorship and its historical reprocussions. Plato and others were the victims of censorship. Question: Misha, you've mentioned that the artist was notified, and the situation explained, what was his response? Is he still posting? I for one would leave if what I thought was art had been removed. Was he upset? Did you give him opportunity to reason his decision to post that picture? A small group determining the morality of the whole can be a burden, however, I think sometimes, the question should have been put to the whole first. I for one would have liked an opportunity to see the image and have a vote. Ricky, I agree, some erections are different. Nipples get erect for a lot of reasons, including mens. However, if thats the case, why photograph them that way, or render them hard as I've seen in some of the artwork? Why not wait until the nipple relaxes? Because it enhances the breast, gives it that extra aura of erotisism dont you think? Anyway, I'd still like to know what the artist thought.