I'm sure you have friends ricky. even i have friends. well franks a little pissed at me, but they did say they could sew it back on, so i dont know what he's gettin so excited about.... geez.

Attorneys are not known for their ability to instill friendship into their fellow man. And when I start talking immunohematology, I just plain bore people to death (unless I'm talking to a bunch of immunohematologists). Not kidding, however, I really do have all those things to do today. Probably why I am here .... work avoidance. And, it's tax season which makes it all the worse because both of the petitions have to be heard in court before the filing deadline.

blinks

Rickymaveety, "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." Did you look at the picture in question? Was that a man that the penis was attached to? No it was a statue, not flesh and blood. So one can only assume that a statue of a ten foot long penis would be found equally as offensive as I am sure being ten foot in length it is not flacid. Regardless of what the statue stands for, I myself found Gerhard's post very humorous. If the image offends you, then don't look at it, for you are most certainly a part of the minority with your views. The way I see it, it is OK if the nude is female (and yes I saw one recently that had her "bush" in it AND erect nipples). But this "nude" statue was male, so it simply had to go? I am betting that the female pin up photos don't get removed even if the subject is aroused and her "bush" is in the picture. "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 ...." There is a difference between what is art and what is criminal. Any picture depicting a criminal act should not be allowed to be posted anywhere, I think we are all in agreement on that. As a woman, I can say that yes my nipples get erect when I am aroused, and yes sometimes when they are cold. Point is the subject appears to be aroused, as does the statue in question. What is fair for one should be fair for all, if Gerhard's image goes, then the female pin ups should go too. If the female pin ups are allowed to stay, then Gerhard's image should be returned to his gallery, very simple me thinks... Leave it to a lawyer to try to muddy the waters...

we all have to learn tolerance for the most important part, i think. if only one thing on the world would grow, i wish it is tolerance. regards gerhard

oh yes, Nilla is right, the antik statue without, was my answer, i didn`t need any postwork because the picture was perfect so how it is.i posted the complete statue before in b/w " Bacchus and Silen ". my second answer was " the active brain of a voodoo master " it is free for interpretation. regards gerhard sorry for so many posts.

Nilla, Excuse me, but I never said I found the statue offensive as a result of it's penis, erect or not. I don't think you've actually read my posts. Or, if you have you haven't understood them. An erect penis attached to a completely computer generated individual would not be "flesh and blood" either, but I think it would probably violate the TOS. I have seen the statue in question. It is a representation of a man with an erect penis. Yes, it's a statue, that is representational. All graphic art is representational. The depiction of a man with his hands bound offended me more than a voodoo character with a woody. Again, if you think my "view" is that the photo is offensive for it's depiction of an erection ... guess again. I did not say that, because that is not the case. What I said is that it likely violates the TOS, while the 10 foot disembodied penis on it's own might not be a violation. If any image that depicts a criminal act were banned, then a lot of art would be banned. Art depicting murder, heck, just nudes in general would have to be banned ... it's certainly illegal here to go out naked in public. But, again, Nilla, you missed my point, which is that the TOS set out the guidelines the moderators use when determining what stays and what doesn't. This particular piece of artwork was determined to be on the wrong side of that line. And, as noted above, in another post of mine that I think you probably failed to read, I absolutely agree with you that many of the female pinups are also in violation of the TOS, and that if Gerhard's photo should go, so should they. I also noted that because of societal bias in favor of the display of nude (and aroused) females and against nude (and aroused) males, I didn't think that was likely to happen. I realize that some of my posts have been lengthy, Nilla, but you really should put the time into reading them before you ascribe views to me that I do not hold.

Oh and PS: In defense of lawyers, any individual's lack of understanding does not necessarily mean the waters are muddy ... just that that individual is not getting the message. And, Gerhard, are you saying that the antique statue was not vandalized, but that you removed the penis through postwork?? If so, your saying that you did not do any postwork is what is confusing me in this case. If in fact that piece was intended as a protest, well, then more power to you. However, since that classic sculpture did not show an individual with an erection, clearly that photo, even with penis intact, would not have violated the TOS. Personally, I think the more forceful protest was your display of the original piece in this thread with the penis blacked out and your posts here. Except for some misunderstandings (that I think come more from English not being your primary language), I think what you said made a lot of sense. And as noted before, I don't think that statue - although in violation of the letter of the TOS (no erect penises allowed) - was in violation of the spirit of the TOS in that it did not depict a state of sexual arousal. On the other hand, the image that was linked to from this thread depicting the half naked woman was, in my opinion the exact opposite ... it may not have violated the letter of the TOS, but in it's depiction of sexual arousal, it violates the spirit by a long margin.

You probably are right, I did fail to read your posts thoroughly after about the second or third one, as they were rather lengthy and rather out there. Something about murder, strangulations, erections and children being raped... I totally missed where you supported Gerhard.

now i say lol and be still quite. :O)

I thought as much. I got into a discussion of autoerotic strangulation as that relates to arousal with Identguy. He and I knew what we were talking about, but there is no reason anyone else should have. Most of the rest of the posts related to the fact that every group of people has to "draw the line" somewhere as to what will and will not be posted. It is particularly difficult in an international setting such as this - where each group has different societal mores regarding what is or is not "decent". So, while I disagree with the decision to take down Gerhard's photo based soley on the existance of an erect penis as part of the work of art, I do understand why the moderators made the decision they did.

If there's one reason that I'm glad this conversation came up, it's that I was lead to logiloglu's astounding gallery. I haven't visited this forum very often for the last year or so, and I didn't know about this artist. Image after image, it is some of the most beautiful artwork I've seen on Renderosity, and that I've seen anywhere - Abslolutely superb. I'll gladly visit Renderosity more often, and spend much time opening and studying these. I only wish that I could see the actual prints in front of me. Your work is very inspiring to me, logiloglu. Thank you for making them available here. I'm sorry to hear that I - and a thousand others - have not been allowed to see even the one (was that the only one of your works that has been destroyed from the database?), but I will certainly gain much from careful study of those of your compositions that I am allowed to view. Wishing you all the best, Joe - Milwaukee, Wisconsin USA

Joe, just scroll up the thread. The artist mentioned that his photo was much like the one of the same group of sculpture that is on the brochure above. Although it is not his actual photo, I assume it will give you an idea of what you missed. The thing that saddens me is that the way the TOS are enforced seems to me to be a victory of content over context. Personally, I would like to see it the other way around. If the context is not overtly one of sexual arousal (a photo of an African fertility fetish -- or this Voodoo sculpture, for example), I frankly don't care how many erect penises there are in the work. Context to me is way more imporant than content. (Which is why I wish that logiloglu could have told me more about the actual symbolism involved in the work -- that goes to really understanding the context.) On the other hand, if the context is overtly sexual (back to that pretty half naked lady with her hand down her pants), again, I don't care if her nipples are erect or not, that's an image I think violates the TOS. (Still think it's a nifty picture however ... wish I looked half that good.) But, in all honesty, this has been an interesting discussion. Although I shouldn't have blown half the work day participating in it.

Attached Link: http://www.photo-genesis.net

let me see if i have this straight: Frank is spittin' mad at Identguy because of something that was said here and a part he lost that can be sewn back on. Ricky, to loosely paraphrase her since i don't want her calling me to task with her sharp attorney's tongue, is bereft of friends and looking for someone to hold a meaningful conversation with on the topic of the immune system and blood. Nilla is just plain cool 'cause i like her and she's just plain cool. Vik is playing with worms again while Michelle is doing something with a dead horse. Gerhard is just getting plain pissed off because he wants us to read the freakin' bio of the artist that created that damned statue. am i right so far? no, no...don't stop me now that i'm on a roll! the meds for ADD are finally settin' in. there's rampant "aroused nudity" in the galleries which Misha in his omniscience has choosen to ignore and Tedz is acting normal...for an alien. Cindy is selling mud packs to starving goats while Christ bleeds, a voodoo priest mutters incantations and Michaelangelo draws stick figures on someone's flayed skin. (are they aroused? according to the statutes in Nashville that's grounds for playing a Willy Nelson song you know.) geneb19...that's me btw...is on his high-horse and doesn't have the slightest damned idea where the stirrups are. did i mention that Vik likes playing with worms? don't you think that's a little odd for an adult to enjoy that kind of thing? i mean, she's not even fishing for God's sake! that's just not natural if you ask me. and so the world continues to spin on its axis and life goes on. all the while the conversation goes back to sportin' wood. (as i said to Cindy in an email...i'll have to remember that about the strangulation part in case i run out of viagra.) that's just plain weird. and speaking of which...how are you feeling Tedz? everything ok? where are the images??? as ship's doctor i can ground you if i see fit. and i will unless they automagically start appearing in my inbox. (no damn it, Ricky...i didn't say "autoerotically". that part of the conversation is over now. take a deep breath and let go of it. it'll only cause you grief.) so is that about it now? did i summerize everything ok? and btw Ricky...i think your conversation with Identguy was perfectly understandable for anyone with an average edujumacation. it was just that it didn't really appear germain to the topic. and speaking of Germains...look...Gerhard has fallen asleep in the corner clutching the bio to his chest. isn't that cute? and that stream of drool running down his chin is just adorable. NO Tedz!! leave him alone and give me that lighter damn it. Cindy if you can't make him behave you're going to have to give him a time-out! for anyone...Joe for instance...who didn't see the "offending image", you can now view it on a real art site at the listed URL. it's in Gerhard's gallery under the catagory of Altered Visions. while you're at it, look at all the other images too. (see Cindy? i can be just as blatantly self-promoting as the next guy!)

No no no no .... Frank is mad at Identguy because Identguy was supposed to be diffusing a bomb, but instead he was posting in this thread and the bomb went off and blew some part of Frank off. But, yes, you got the part about me right, ummmmm, the part about Michaelangelo and the flayed skin is a bit off, but I like the mental image. The posts with Identguy were germain to the topic of erections, and I couldn't very well have him stating clarifications that were incorrect. Oh, I suppose I could have, but I didn't. And you did too say "autoerotically" ... I can see it in your post. Ricky (going to check out Gerhard's gallery at the other site)

And ... so far, "Left", "Gear" and "Zen" are my favorites, although it's all brilliant work.

where are the c's????? c,c,c,c, ah here it is,,,, con ver sa tion... ahhhhh. dang, so many syllabals.. Ricky. For shame. You mean to tell me, in your years as an attorney, you've never attempted to muddy the waters in cross examination????? Now do you think any of these members would believe that one. And my clarification wasnt incorrect sweety. Just "misunderstood" by you.... Frank is okay. He still has one left......, it just has more room then before... And you did do some water muddying in here too dear. Its not your fault. A genetic defect found in most lawyers. Thats why they get the big bucks. Michelle and dead horses? Oh oh, I think I missed that one!! Half naked women with their hands down their pants??!! Geez, I missed those too??!!

A clarification, as I was under the weather last night with a migraine, and simply could not muster the strength to sit here and compose a nice long response. "Excuse me, but I never said I found the statue offensive as a result of it's penis, erect or not. I don't think you've actually read my posts. Or, if you have you haven't understood them." I never said that "you" personally found the statue offensive. What I said was if it offends you (meaning the term "you" as the viewer, and not necessarily Rickymaveety.) then don't view it. Americans need to grow up and get over this fear of the nude thing, it is a very natural state of being. The penis has been a subject in art for a very long time. I don't see what the big fuss is over it being erect or flacid, maybe we need to rewrite the TOS? "Art depicting murder, heck, just nudes in general would have to be banned ... it's certainly illegal here to go out naked in public." Murder is a crime,a heinious one at that, and I personally do not think that there should be any postings here of such a depiction. Being nude however, is not a crime, we have these wonderful nude public beaches here in Florida. And for those that want to live without the confines of clothing there are always nudist camps (we have a ton of those too!). I can post some pix of the nude beach for you if you would like. My debate Rickymaveety, was never with you personally, but rather with the TOS and those that make judgement whether or not an image stays. My point being that fairness needs to be a consideration, Gerhard's image should have never been taken down unless the person that removed his image was willing to go in to the gallery and remove all of the images of nude models that had erect nipples. It really is very simple in my eyes, what I said had nothing to do with children being raped, murder by strangulation or erections from strangulation, this is where you muddied the waters in my eyes, trying to divert attention from the subject at hand. What I said was that the TOS needed to apply to everone equally, and ya know what? maybe we need to revise the TOS. OK I have said my peace, Ricky if you want to coninue this discussion, look me up on the RR IM, as I will not click on this thread again, the horse has been dead for quite a while and it has been beaten beyond recognition me thinks. Group hugs! Peace out!

Nilla, you I will IM, as requested. Much of your post sounded like your debate was with me personally ... especially the comment about "muddying the waters." Also, many classical images are of murder. In fact, many religious images are of murder (or other crimes). The "Slaughter of the Innocents," and "The Rape of Europa" come to mind (the latter being religious only if you are an ancient Greek). And lastly, nudity in public is a crime in much of the world. Not in Florida and not on nude beaches here in California, but the standards of our two states do not set the standard for the world, and Renderosity is a global community after all. IM: from your clarification post "the part about erection during strangulation still falls under autoerotic". This statement (and just this statement) is incorrect. All erections caused by strangulation are NOT "autoerotic." Autoerotic is a specific term and your use of it in this manner in your clarification was just plain wrong, although your description of the physical reason for the erection was correct.

Ricky, define nudity as you interpret it, if you would. here in Columbus, OH it's perfectly legal for a woman to go toppless in public. an ordinance was passed by the city to specifically permit this. my point is that while it's "legal" in that sense of the word...that doesn't mean it's "approved" of by the religious leaders of the community. (at least that they'll admit to. lol) but it also is NOT their right to tell me that i can't stand on a street corner and watch the bare breasted women stroll by...just as they can't tell you to turn your head to avoid seeing bare chested men stroll past. (you see, when you vacation in exciting downtown Columbus, i'll meet you on the corner of Broad and High. never a dull moment here you understand. lmao) the standards, as i'm sure you'll agree, are QUITE different when compared to what the law will allow on the 'net. simply do a search on "nude" and you'll get 1000's of hits on Google. no one can tell me there aren't nude web sites originating from Nashville. nor can they tell me there aren't pornographic sites in Nashville. so it all goes back to the original statements...it was a purely arbitrary decision which caused the removal of Gerhard's image. it has nothing to do with what's allowed in Nashville or Berlin or Tunisia... it has everything to do with one person's very subjective reading of the TOS. i also strongly feel it's a simplistic cop-out (no Identguy i'm not talking about you or Frank now. lol) for Misha to say in effect "i was just doing what i was told". THAT particular argument was blown away starting with the Nurenburg trials if i remember correctly. it's a matter of free will...Misha made a conscious decision and took concrete actions to have the image removed. i feel he should at least accept the responsibility for doing this and not try to blame the TOS. the TOS allows for rather liberal interpretation of it's clauses in my view.

oooooohhhhh... not again... why don't we honor the artist's wishes & give it a rest

I think when I made the original post, I was saying that often art depicts things that are "criminal" ... as in there are artistic depictions of murder and in many parts of the world nudity in public is a crime (as in much of the Arab world). What I did not say, and do not believe, is that such a standard should be applied here. The only point in the original post is that things that are criminal (somewhere) are often depicted in perfectly good art. The post regarding what is or is not criminal had absolutely NOTHING to do with the TOS. Just a statement (in response to one made by Nilla) that not all depictions of criminal acts in art are bad things. And, again, I agree that the decision to remove the particular photo was wrong. But, that's my personal opinion. I also think it's a big step to go from doing what you are told in this case and doing what you are told when it comes to genocide. I don't think I would attempt to make that argument. I am sure there are porno sites all over the place. I certainly get enough spam from them. I'm not certain what that has to do with the issue. Gerhard mentioned Mapplethorpe's site as a possible solution to the problem, and he might be correct. However, I'm not certain that being forced to click a second link warning you of nudity or one demanding to know if you are 18 or 21 would work here. On top of that, I don't find anything personally wrong with 99% of the nudity here. It seems artistic to me. Sometimes I do question the wisdom of having it displayed in the thumbnails or not noted as containing nudity or violence etc - if only for the sake of people who really want to actively avoid the stuff. So ... again - in conclusion: 1. Discussion of nudity as crime in parts of the world had nothing to do with TOS or their interpretation. Only that not all depictions of criminal acts in art are per se a "bad thing" as Nilla had suggested. 2. The Holocaust and the TOS make a really bad comparison when it comes to the excuse of "doing what you are told." Oh, and since you asked, my definition of "nudity" is "a naked person." And, even in states and countries where they have nude beaches and nudist camps ... a naked person walking down a public street, or in a public park, or in any public place not designated to allow nudity would probably be arrested for "indecent exposure."

oooooohhhhh... not again... why don't we honor the artist's wishes & give it a rest squawk...Yes....I am a Parrot....Quote:[You said you would not be returning oh HC ... are you not a high commander of your word or were you just yanking our communal chain?]....I suggest You Professional People are just so full of Crap...full of Your own self immportance...all You really want to do is show how Educated and cleaver You are....You don't give a damn about the subject at heart....no...I am not Educated....and ...as for so called Professionals...I have never seen such as Yourselfs...I doubt You are anything of the sort...You just want "Victims and Fights"...if You put in as much effort in helping...rather than hinderence...I might give You an iota of respect...well I don't...You Professionals...make me sick....You are a shame to Your Profession...put that in Your Pipes and smoke it....or do what You do best....and continue the friggin'debate...it is Your Fort'e...it is what You are good at....have fun ripping Me to bits now....You need some Sacrificial Lamb.

Ok now, I'm taking exception to the blame being put on Misha... and while I know that Misha is quite capable of speaking for himself, but I'm quite getting tired of this debate which has run off in all different directions, and has pretty much gone nowhere but around in circles. There's nothing wrong with standing up for your friends when you feel they've been somehow wronged, but the artist himself seems to be taking it in stride. As cynlee has already said "why don't we honor the artist's wishes & give it a rest "...... This is a privately owned site. They make the rules. We as staff of this site are here to make sure they are followed. Case closed. If any artist has a problem with the removal of an image they are free to ask for reconsideration. The TOS for those who may not have looked at it lately.... Members/Users will not use this community for; Any practices that affect the normal operations of the community (Admins will take whatever steps are necessary to restore service). Transmitting any libelous, defamatory, or any other material that could give rise to any civil or criminal liability under the law. Personal attacks. This includes but is not limited to, destructive, abusive, defamatory communications in any form, and retaliatory attacks from personal attacks. If you need assistance, please communicate with someone from our Renderosity Team. Destructive commentary/communications made with the intent to disrupt or attack (Trolling). This applies to any communications within this community, whether in the forums, art galleries, graffiti wall, chat, or IM. Advertising or linking to any publications and/or web sites that are age restricted due to content, and/or pornographic in nature. Posting Unacceptable Images or Writing Themes: No Rape [actual or implied] No Torture [defined as: the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, wounding, crucifixion) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure] No Sexual acts [no depictions of sexual intercourse - between humanoids/non-humanoids/animals - no masturbation] No Physical arousal [This includes but is not exclusive to: no images of an erect penis/ no images showing the inner portion of the vulva or vaginal area] No Explicit sexual content [No manipulation of breasts/nipples/ no sexual situations/ no implied sexual acts/ no extreme or explicit S&M bondage situations/ no lewd or obscene sexual references] No Genital contact with ANY object, other than sitting or clothing. No depictions of young humanoid characters in erotic, seductive, provocative poses or context. No character attacks, which could be interpreted as defamation of character, slander, and libelous. A signed model release with Photo-ID must be provided upon request if posting images with photographic nudes. Additionally, any post, image or writings can be removed at the discretion of staff if it is deemed unsuitable for this community. Conversely there may be some images which, whilst in apparent violation of the rules, will be permitted to stay in the interests of free speech and religious tolerance. In such cases the artist may be asked to furnish reasons why the image should be permitted to stay and the decision of the Renderosity staff will be final. BTW.... there is nothing in there about erect nipples, they are not against the TOS. The world isn't perfect, we as human beings are not perfect, and this site isn't perfect. Get over it and move on. Tedz, I didn't understand a damn word of what you just said.... I think the crackers have gone to your head dear... This thread is being locked as of right now. I feel for the most part it has gone way off topic, and enough has been said.