Donald, I'm not necessarily in favor of having these images removed either. I think the image you linked us to is lovely. I also think it is just as much in violation of the TOS as the picture of the statue under discussion. If I were a moderator and trying to enforce the TOS, that image would no longer be on the site. Not because I personally find it offensive, but because I think it's in violation of the TOS. And, not because her nipples are erect, but because the context is one of sexual arousal. Of course it is possible to have a penile erection without arousal, although what you are describing probably has more to do with sexual arousal in a dream state than anything else. But, for example, strangulation can cause an erection, and I'm not talking about autoerotic strangulation here, just regular someone is trying to kill you strangulation. However, unless the picture (or statue) depicted a murder of a nude man, I would say the image was one of a state of sexual arousal and violated the TOS. My point was that it is common as dirt to have erect nipples without arousal ... all you need to do is walk outside on a reasonably cool day. A nude in a studio setting is likely to have erect nipples simply because the room is cool and they are (after all) nude. The nude in the image you linked to is probably not a person who is actually aroused, but posing, and the nipple erection is likely due to prior friction or the cool air. However, since the image does depict arousal, again, I submit it does depict arousal and violates the TOS. So, although no one linked me to any men in a state of obvious arousal, I will agree with you that when it comes to depictions of female sexual arousal, the TOS are not evenly applied. My guess would be that this has a lot to do with the societal biases. Between all the girlie mags and MTV, we are so used to seeing images of women in states of sexual arousal, we no longer react to them as such. If not that, then the moderators are not doing their job fairly and that image should be yanked as well. Nilla, Would a photo of a Japanese penis festival be in violation? I honestly don't know. I'm not certain that a disembodied penis, even if it is 10 feet high, is a depiction of a man in a state of sexual arousal. I rather think the TOS envision a penis actually attached to the man. I forget in which forum it was, but someone posted an image that they questioned putting in their gallery because it might be offensive to certain religious groups. That brought on a discussion of freedom of expression (on this site and in general) ... and the general consensus was that, no, you are not absolutely free to express yourself on this site. I'm sorry if you all feel that sucks, but that is life. Some people's idea of freedom of expression is posting photos of child-rape. Should that be posted here? I think the answer is obviously not. So, there are limitations on freedom of expression .... figure out where the limits are and either (1) push the envelope and see what you can get away with; (2) live within the limits; or (3) find a site with very loose TOS and post the images there. In conclusion: A) photo of pretty lady in state of arousal, just as much a violation of TOS and should be taken down, TOS not being fairly applied; B) 10 foot disembodied penises, probably not a violation because they aren't attached to (doing the math here) 120 foot tall man in state of sexual arousal. C) Renderosity not a site of absolute and unfettered freedom of expression. No site with restrictive TOS, no matter how evenly or unevenly applied, could ever be considered as such.

Could be worse, could be raining.