Rattler your arguements on the child porn is the same ones that Men4boys were using. they are a group of pedophiles who tried to get pedophilia made legal. they also claimed that molesting children did no harm to the children as well.

"That is quite possibly the scariest statment I've ever heard." A child viewed as something 'sexual' or 'erotic' by anyone is a very scary thought indeed. "A few thousand years ago.." We are here and now, not in the past. A few thousand years ago we didn't have toilets either, in fact, they were just invented in this century; almost a strange thought if you think of how far we have come along in such a short while, and yet we would have so far yet to go it would seem. I suppose we should think the world is flat with monsters waiting for us at the edge too. There are those even in today's age that would stab their victims with daggers and shoot other humans with guns for whatever moves them at the moment, and I guess if humans did not have laws and TOS's decided upon by the many, there's lots more few that would decide their sickness and needs are normalcy, and the world would be a free for all anarchy. Think of the possibilities. "In some countries a person reaches the "Age of Consent" at 13." In some countries cows are more sacred than humans, in others women are still less than mere slaves living only for one purpose, to do a man's bidding, or suffer dire consequences. Children are abducted at very young ages every day to serve as hookers in far away countries. The people that do all this tell themselves they are normal while they count the money they make from those that seek pleasure from these very young ages; who then must also think they are normal or such young ages would not be available for them to seek. Ironically, due to many various diversions, mankind is still quite confused in many ways, or we would not need laws, TOS's or a definition of 'normalcy'. 'Thoughts' alone, that are considered sick, are not something that hurts others until they are brought to life and/or imposed upon others; which they obviously are far too often, or our various laws or this TOS update would not be needed. You know what's scary? The fact this TOS clause is even needed here, that is very scary.

<softly sings a few bars of "The Freaks Come Out at Night" and walks away chuckling>

well i guess this ring the death bell and a witchhunt/inquisition to ban most anime or asiate pictures :( i mean in anime, characters has a very special look, japanese/asiates too have a specific morphology.. now for most anime picture featuring atypical asiate context.. well i hope i am wrong but what i see/fear is just a blind slaugther and hunt. btw which picture caused the controversy ?

Not to add fuel to the fire, but I spoke with a sex offender tonight. He said that a place like Renderosity should certainly have this in their TOS. He told me that virtual or real, it does, in fact, "normalize" the act. It makes it seem like "everybody is doing it." He told me that people who have this sexual addiction need to keep ANY images of child pornography as far away from them as possible, as it exacerbates their problem. He also said that he applauds Renderosity for this measure.

-H

Firekath... NO. My arguments are about free speech and expression. I REALLY resent being compared to a child molester because I think it's important to be able to talk about that subject matter. Talking about something is not doing it. The problem all you people who seem SO eager to restrict everyone elses right to expression have is the sick and unatural belief is that you can assign YOUR responsibility to some one else. People need to be responsible for THEIR OWN actions. When our "civilization" finnaly get's THAT through it collective thick heads then maybe it can reverse the decline it's been in.

RAttler You are correct.

Rattler You are correct. AS much as I hate to say so. This is not about defending the right of pedifiles it's about free Speach. But renderosity has the right to not participate in that if they chose.

I totally understand R'osity positition. They can be sued out of existance or have other legal action that would basically wipe them off the fast of the Earth. I can tell you I'm taking flack for taking a small stand, and I can't really be held accountable for anything.

Rattler read Butterfly fish, and what that one found outby talking to a actual molester. it was my room mate who noticed the simularities between your speach and the ones that men4boys used to explain why virtual child porn is ok. i followed up and found out that Mrrlyn is correct on it

when creating art, it is hopefully tasteful. if nude adults, if done tastefully is art, otherwise it is porn. nude children is child porn. no matter what poses, and or objects are in it. let me remind you that 3 and more is illegal. i definately can see why Renderosity has to impose this. they at least need to stay on the good side of the law in order to provide the community with stuff the artists here can use. otherwise they might be shut down and we lose a great place to be. plus, it is not only the children that get hurt by child porn, it is also the adults. as for age of consent. well those countries that have such supposedly low age for it. also have the highest mortality rates for kids. and they are also the thrid world countries, not a supposedly cilvilized one. to decent folks. free speach does not include the sickening thing of child porn.

The thing that is slighty scarey is the attitude of 'if it's suspected kiddie porn then we can ignore basic human rights' that a lot of authorities seem to have. I see the new bogeyman, the dreaded paedo looming large everywhere and it's worrying. Everyone loudly proclaiming their loathing of kiddie porn and yet it still goes on. We, as a society, sell tube tops, lingerie and mini-skirts for under 10s, have under 10s dancing in overtly sexual ways, have under 10s wearing make-up and yet we say 'Oh, these perverts, what makes them be so beastly?' We're dangling carrots in front of them every day. I don't know what the solution is. When I hear what some poor kids go through I want to take an 'chop the paedophile's balls off' approach to justice but I know that that way is not the way to go but I don't think that an image hunt will solve very much either. The best action I've seen is the FBI 'sting' website where they are still tracking down the pervs and knocking on their doors to arrest them all over the Western world.

Nude children is NOT automatically child porn! What none of you have the prerequisite baby pictures/video of you playing in the tub, or tearing off your diaper and rampaging through your house, etc? ;) Through Classical art and history Baby Angels/Cherubs are usually nude with wings. Of course 'rosity can enforce whatever rules it wishes to, and of course they need to stay within the boundaries of the law. But there is something a bit twisted in automatically equating a nude child with porn. Who really has the dirty mind? ;)

Hmmm...my kids weren't allowed to rip that diaper off and run rampant thru the house... And Cherubs aren't 'baby angels'..as many percieve them..actually cherubs are angels who constantly worship the Lord....who really knows if they are 'actually' nude?....Ive never seen one,...so I couldn't say. BUT! Anyone who thinks nude children in sexual situations is 'normal' needs to have thier head examined.

i read most of this, and i must say, first of all: Virtual child pron is a victimless crime, and although sick, still does not directly hurt anyone. Making it an outlet for whoever makes such images... However, whoever makes such images, actually, who ever floods the poser gallery with massive amounts of porn, period, should be at r'otica, or in the private of their own homes. Good addition to the TOS

Firekath - "3 or more" what? Years of age, number of images, number of participants, or what? And, where is it so stated? (Not arguing the point, just looking for information!)

3 or more images. it is in the laws against child porn http://usgovinfo.miningco.com/library/weekly/aa041602a.htm this one is the one that states: The PROTECT Act also expands the criminal definition of "child pornography" under U.S. law by including digital images, computer images or computer-generated images that are "indistinguishable from" minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct, even if no minors were involved the creation of the images. : http://www.gigalaw.com/articles/2003-all/isenberg-2003-05-all.html how i know about the laws against it. i was harmed by child porn by being married to a pedophile. i keep track of laws. i lat least believe in protedting children from being harmed in such manners. plus Mrrlyn had a job trying to find a child. he found the child a week too late after the child had been used in a child porn film. the ones that make those movies tend to murder the kids to hide their tracks. the reason they kill them. is that the kids are witnesses to the atrocities that they have been put thru

This whole thread is not really about PORN it's about Free Speach! I think kiddie porn is discusting. I also think an artist should be able to create any images in any meidum they want. The government of the USA is trying to become the "thought Police" of the world. We all have g W bush and johnny ashcroft to thank for this!!

"I also think an artist should be able to create any images in any meidum they want."

Agreed, to a point, but remember, Renderosity doesn't have to display them. That is their right. You can make images praising Hitler, bashing gay people, or hating people of specific racial groups, too, but they aren't going to put those up, either. I believe that also violates the TOS. The point of the TOS change is not to restrict your rights, it's to say, "find somewhere else to display it."

And yes, the conservative US government wants to be the thought police. Big Brother really is watching. I'm definitely not a fan of GW.

Actually, you know, we're all on more or less the same side here. No one here is supporting child pornography. At least, as far as I can tell, they're not. Here in the US we do have to look out for infringements to our right to free speech, as there are plenty of people who want to play moral majority and threaten it. However, that's not the case here. No one is trying to change laws or stop you from making any images you want. Renderosity just doesn't want to display anything that they deem inappropriate. It's their site.

Firekath: I feel your pain, as I have been in the same situation. I'm sorry you had to go through that. :-(

-Heidi

I've repeatedly supported R'osity. I know they have no real choice. It's like what's going on with Howard Stern right now, or the RIAA vs. the public. The new loophole in the Justice system is that when ever you want to destroy some one who doesn't agree with you, you attack them legally with the court system untill they HAVE to cave because they can't afford to fight back. It's really just a passive form of terrorism. They are using fear to control us all. Even if R'osity WANTED to fight against this, they simply can't afford too. Personal Responsibility. We have to make them take it, and we have to start by taking in on ourself. It's all our fault that our free speech is in danger, and it your fault is you've ever stood by while you thought a child was in danger. We let them take control. We let the billionairs tell us which millionairs we could vote for. Look at the recent California Recall Election. Did any one BOTHER to see who was the best person for the job? Nope. They voted for who they saw on TV. Since our free speech is going out the window anyway... I have a free speech restriction I want to see. NO POLITICAL ADD'S ON TV. NO COMMENTARY ON SPEECHES. Make people SEEK out their political news instead of being fed what some one deicides is right and wrong in soundbites. Maybe then it will start to be about issues and not about personaility.

Ratteler: You know what restriction I'd like to add to yours? The Boston Globe doesn't get to say "We are endorsing Shannon O'Brien for governor." The last gubernatorial race here didn't seem to have a clear Democrat frontrunner until The Globe told us who it was going to be. Well, surprise, Mitt Romney (the Republican) won. -Heidi

Renderosity has every right not to display works that they find offensive. I support them 100%. Its the stupid law I have an issue with. They are prosucuting a man in Ohio just for writing a story containing "kiddie porn". I would never buy, support or read his writings but I would fight to my last breath defending his RIGHT to write about what he wants. Art is supposed to create emotions in it's viewers, they can be bad, ugly, good or just plain indifference. I think that's the whole idea of doing art.

child porn be it virtual or real is not art, it is perverted. and those who partake in it are also perverted, in fact they are so mentally sick there is no hope for them.

This was the banner ad on the top of page as I came here to read your responce. By the TOS and your narrow minded definitions... it's Child Porn! Even if it's not it still might be against the TOS. I realize your point of view is from some one who has had personal experience with this, but I think that may be biasing your opinion. It a little like trying to ban hammers because some murdered a member of your family with one. It's not the Hammers fault it was misused. It's not the manufacturers fault. It the fault of the person who lost control and abused the item. Same thing with this sweeping definition of "Child Porn".

"By the TOS and your narrow minded definitions... it's Child Porn!" Not according to our TOS it isn't, and we wouldn't remove it if it were an image in a member's gallery. Kevin.

Technicly, it is.

"they are so mentally sick there is no hope for them"

I'm going to have to seriously disagree with this. Sorry. The reason IMO that there has been no hope for these people is that others would much rather write them off and say "execute the SOB" than even bother to TRY & help them. There have been changes and improvements to the therapy these people get, but there simply aren't enough therapists willing to try. I got this from a therapist, BTW.

Actually, it has been my experience that an awful lot of therapists don't even want to take any kind of controversial case. After I had my personal experience with such a situation, I was directed to a counseling center. I was told later that all the therapists there stood around and said, "no way, I'm not taking her case!" simply because the offender had been in the newspaper. I don't know what I would have done if someone hadn't finally volunteered. And I am the victim's mother, NOT the offender!

It makes me wonder. What kind of a difference might there be in the world, and how many irreplaceable children might still be alive and/or unharmed if someone bothered to help these seriously disturbed people? Helping the offenders is ultimately helping ourselves.

Kevin:
Banner Ad and Front Page Thumbnail/Wording Guidelines

No nudity. This implies no clothes, clothes that are transparent or blurring of nude images.
Minimal cleavage exposure. The majority of the female breast must be clothed (at least 80%).
No exposed buttocks.
No suggestive or sexual positioning.
No placement of the hands in genital areas including female breasts.
No child nudity.
No Sexually Suggestive Language or "Censored" language/images.
No bondage type ads.
Flash (.SWF) banner ads cannot include embedded sounds, links to anything other than your store or a product in the MarketPlace, scripts or pop-up windows. Any embedded scripts or hostile code located in a Flash banner ad will result in one of the following: membership ban or suspension.

I would say that "No placement of the hands in genital areas including female breasts." has been violated in the above image. It might not violate the TOS for gallery images, but I'm just curious as to why it is allowed in a banner ad.

-Heidi

Well, I beg to differ Heidi :) My interpretation of that particular banner is that her hands are crossed in front of her chest. No breasts are visible, and no hands touching breasts are visible. Clint and the MP team spend a good deal of time going over banner ads, and though they're human and inevitably the occasional banner will slip by, my own opinion on this one is that it is okay. Kev.

"No depictions of young humanoid characters/children giving the appearance of being under the age of 18 ... in erotic, seductive, provocative poses or context." You must be able to see how one could worry about it. She "gives the appearance of being under the age of 18", and she in topless in an "erotic, seductive, provocative pose". The only reason it would not be against the TOS is, "...this will be at the discretion of the Renderosity team." Even though the first part of that stamenet infers that the image still appear to be over 18 years old, to be considered for R'osity teams discression. I have no problem with the image, it's a perfect example of the free expression what I've been talking about all along. But I'm sure some one, some where, would cosider it child porn. goldtassel and R'osity could both be criminally libel for breaking the child porn Law is some attracts the attention of the New all seeing Eye or Mordor that the "moral" right has installed with this law. The perceptions of the people who run R'osity are in charge, unless some from the government decides she's a depiction of a girl under 18 when it becomes Child Porn. How many years will R'osity be shut down before a jury even GET'S to decide if it is or isn't. Do you think the "Farie" defence will fly with the Religious Right Extremests? "Oh... so she not a child, she's representation of a magical creature that exist outside God's law?" When it's R'osity deciding it Ok. This is their private club and if I don't like their rules I can get out. But when this CAN even be a court issue, it means something has gone terrible wrong in our country.

Well, she "gives the appearance of being under the age of 18" certainly, but I can't see anything "erotic, seductive, provocative" about the pose.

Attached Link: http://market.renderosity.com/softgood.ez?ViewSoftgood=25998

kbennett, OK this thread is getting a bit long-winded, but I do have a question concerning the TOS. I've made a living for over thirty years as a photographer. I've photographed all age groups from a child being born, to Marjorie Stoneman Douglas on her 101 year birthday. I have a pretty good grip on what people look like in REAL LIFE...but it is these 3D meshes that throw me. Take the "standard" adult figure of Vicky2... Her face has more of a hard masculine look to it than a real female. The size,shape,and proportions of the body are very far from a normal human female.....but yet in the world of Poser she is regarded as a "normal" adult. For aesthetic reasons I have found the Preteen mill Girl mesh is a better base to work with. I reshape the mesh in different modeling programs to give it a very adult look and featuresbut compared to Vickys (unrealistic) face it does look much younger (face wise). As I am still installing my files and programs on my new computer I dont have my personal work to show you,but Thorns Lisha in the MP is a close example. There is no way in hell someone could say that figure is of an underage girl,but the face (BY POSER STANDARDS) does look young. So..what standards do you guys use to determine the age of a character? I know it cant be easy or cut and dry for youbut do you have any basic guide lines? Thanks,SWAMP

"No breasts are visible, and no hands touching breasts are visible." So that's OK, then? I don't personally have any problem with the image. I just always took the guideline to mean, "put a shirt on her." :-) Thanks for clearing that up, Kevin. -Heidi

kbennett. That is kind of my point. I don't have a problem with the age, but DO consider the pose seductive. You don't. I'll repeat again, that I'm not really concerned with R'osity's position on this, but the with LAW that forced the update in the TOS. If it was an acutal photograph of a girl of the age that you think that figure is, would you still allow it in the gallery and marketplace? The spirit of this new Law is says that if you would say "no" to a real girl of that age, in that pose, then you should also no to the virtual one. Firekath seems to insists there is no differance. In order for law to be just, it must be absolute and universal. There can be no grey area and no room for subjective "human" leeway. When there is, as in our current society, there is no justice. Our LAWS have become nothing but another way to oppress people. That is my main point.

Indeed we must protect children. But at what price? Total lack of freedom, complete oppression. Wake up people, that is where it's heading fast. When there is no freedom, we will complain and it's too late then. Swamp also has made valid points about the look of poser models

"All-seeing Eye of Mordor" - I like that one. I sincerely hope Sauron's gall bladder and pancreas are giving him absolute HELL! (Maybe he'll become a prescription pain-killer addict, . One can hope...) And, Ratteler - would you prefer laws that are absolute, or laws that are humane? As J.C. of current cinematic fame once said, "The Law was made for man, not man for the Law".

Pay ATTENTION People!!!!!!!!!!!!! No More topless faeries using Thorne's, Sarsa/s, of Handspan Studios figures!!! That is what it boils down to. More garbage caused by new laws and the FCC starting their crap over Janet Jackson's fiasco. It seems that the etherial, and eternally young fairy are no longer allowed? Sorry Admin, but things are starting to get very irritating everywhere, shame it has to start here as well. Thanks for the freedom to voice my feelings on the subject.

Absolute Law means a clear and stable line that should not be crossed. That means that those who live within the Law have nothing fear. Grey area's where there is no real rule except what judge you get and what jury you get just make the something to be avioded. Don't EVEN get me started on Corprate Vs. Private law! The thing that amazes me most about our world today is we seem to want to forcably dumb down and simplify anything and everything so the least common denominator can have access to it, EXCEPT the law. That has to be so complex and convoluted that no one save a trained professional with a good upbrining and Ivy legue education, can possibly understand it. Like a crashing computer needs to be reset because to many programs have fragmented an overwritten each other, our NATION needs a reset. We need to STOP everything, then start it over right, maybe with some debugging to the "source code" of society. Otherwise it will crash completely and the only users will be the Virus and Trojans.

Janet Jackson Fiasco. You know why they are called "boobs"? They are named after the people the people who pay the most attention to them. So who are the biggest "boobs" in the country? The people spending millions of tax payer dollars to figure out how to keep one kind of "boob" from seeing the other.

simple, child porn be it real or virtual is NOT art, but filth

True, Firekath, but child nudity isn't porn. It's the air of hysteria that's beginning to disturb me, the 'we must protect the children at all costs' philosophy. To think that by banning some images that a safer world will be born is naive. The media hath decreed that all men(and women) will despiseth those that view perverted imagery..but only the perverted imagery that we decide is perverted...and so it came to pass that the lowest common denominator became the standard on which society was based and it was bloody awful.
I have to say, and I wouldn't want anyone to get too offended, that I consider Renderosity to be too selective about the advert imagery that they show and, frankly, too glib in their responses when questioned. The schoolgirl fantasy costume was a prime example. Oh...but that's a fantasy costume so it's ok.....bulls..pit. If, as will no doubt be posited, it is a fantasy costume then the fantasy that it is encouraging is schoolgirl sex. So, when did a tacit approval of peadophilliac fantasy become acceptable?
Sorry to bang on about this but I stayed late last night in work to help find a kid who'd gone missing and the parents were hysterical..(the kid was 20 minutes late and was playing in the park with her mates) This whole incident made me think about the fear that we're generating with our concerns. I'm not saying parents shouldn't be concerned for the safety of their kids, nor am I saying that we shouldn't deal severely with child abusers but I do believe that we need to keep a sense of perspective Mon

Tricky one, but I'll answer as best I can. If an image is brought to our attention (either by a concerned member or by one of the team) as possibly being in violation of the 'underage' part of the TOS the sort of things we look at are: Does your first glance at the image tell you it's a youngster or an adult. Head size in proportion to body, what age does the face look, overall frame of body, width of hips, length of legs, size/shape of breasts, hairyness in the pubic region (yes, I have heard of razors;)), shape of hands. Basically we try to look at the image as both a whole and as elements, but if something stands out as being 'wrong' (to give an example: if you just took the milgirl mesh and gave her huge boobs and said 'look, she can't be under 18, she has big boobs') then it might sway the decision. I ought to add that it's almost always a group decision on the removal of images. If it's clear-cut then an image will just be removed, but if there's even the smallest doubt it goes before the whole team for discussion, at the end of which we usually reach a concensus on whether the image is okay or not. Given that the co-ord/mod/admin team here is geographically and culturally quite diverse we reckon that we usually come to the right conclusion (but then I would say that, wouldn't I ;) ) Not a perfect answer I'm afraid, but the best I can come up with. Kev.

Wow, I just stumbled onto this discussion. Very interesting stuff. Lots of people are making some very valid points; and several people are making some pretty asinine ones as well.

"nude children is child porn. no matter what poses, and or objects are in it." Firekath

Needless to say, by your narrow definition I guess that counts for photography, as well. When we gave our now four-month-old baby his first bath, my wife and I, as parents have done since cameras got cheap enough for the average Joe and Jane to afford, took photos of the event (I also took pictures moments after his birth; oops, he was naked then, too). When we went to get the digital photos output, the pimply-faced shithead kid at WalMart gave us a bunch of static because in one of the baby's bath photos, if you looked reallllly close, you could see his wee lil' dingus right there near the water's surface. The kid refused to allow us to keep the print; said he was going to keep it, bring it to his supervisor's attention and call the proper authorities. At that point the situation got really ugly...I snarled and yelled, other customers were solicited for their support (which, oddly enough, all of them within earshot were happy to lend), my wife cried, it was insisted by myself that the store manager be called immediately, it was insisted to the store manager by my wife that the police be called immediately, the store manager was told by myself that he was to have his employee release ALL of my photographs or I would "have my attorney so deep in your ass that his yarmulke will be hanging out of your mouth". Finally the store manager relented, returned our photos of our beautiful boy, in his controversial 'nude' state of being, and sheepishly apologized, saying that "with all of the obscenity laws in place, the company had to be very careful to protect itself from liability."

What's the purpose of the JettBoy's long-winded tale? The Aseops Fables-like moral of the story? Pretty simple; contrary to what some may believe, not ALL representations of nude children are pornographic in nature. If someone honestly believes that, I would have to go out on a limb and say that they know very little about art, very little about children and very little about pornography. I hear WalMart is always hiring...

"Putting on my wading boots and joining in the fun..." We completely understand how all of you are feeling. The team here at Renderosity shares your concerns, on both sides of this issue. Our debates prior to making the TOS clarifications and updates sounded very similar to this thread. As kbennett said, our team is a very diverse group. So, rest assured if there is a controversial image, it will go before the team for a vote. Because the team is comprised of folks with differing opinions, our decisions truly are not one-sided. I would like to clarify something. I noticed a post that read "...No More topless faeries..." Please understand that breasts (and toplessness) are not classified as genitals and are not against the TOS. It is when the genitals are exposed AND the character appears to be under 18, that we run into the TOS enforcement. We truly do not wish to censor artistic expression. Most of us are artists as well. We know how very precious naked babies are (babies getting a bath, bear-skin rugs and such ;-). However, as a business Renderosity made a decision not to run the risk of having to legally pay for the right of individual artists to display children's genitals, regardless of the setting of the image. This protects us all to continue to utilize this site. I trust you will all understand that this was a necessary decision, for the good of the whole community overall. Best wishes, LillianH Marketing & Promotions

Oh..using reason with us are you?!! :)

Hehehe...the gig is up. You found me out! Honesty and reason...yup...that's my style and I'm sticking to it :-) All the best, LillianH

kbennett, Thanks,I appreciate your response to my question. SWAMP

The issue in regards to cg nudity often comes down to the meshes...forgive me,but I have yet to find a way to "extract a mesh" from an image created by one!What is a paint brush if not wood and horse hair,a camera but plastic and glass,a pencil but...my point is that all including cg meshes are tools and its not the tools at issue but the images created by them!!!

People say its harmless...so why ban "any" image created using meshes and if you ban one-why did you make that choice?Was the choice to ban sex or images of male erections based on the fact that they were cg meshes...no,they were decisions based on the fact that the images represented "living beings"!!!

I spoke with a "European" who had this view that we Americans are too prudish about child nudity...I asked him if children were willingly posing for these images,if they had the maturity to make such a decision and who other than adults were benefitting from these images!He agreed on all points that it wasn't the childs decision,that they weren't old enough to decide and that only the adults benefitted-but it wasn't their decision to make he said and that their parents had every right to force them to do this if they didn't want to because it was a parents right!!If that makes me a prude...then thank god I'm an American!!!

People love to point at classic art without realising how much of this is actually a "result" of censorship!The imagery we see from Rome and Greece is only a fraction of what is known...and much of it is never promoted as art because of its erotic or pornographic nature.Erect phalluses were common everywhere in the imagery of ancient Rome as was pornography of all types...what we see today as representing ancient artisans is only what has been dubbed "suitable" by previous generations.Nor do people who speak of classic European artists point out that most of those we know were commissioned by wealthy/powerful people who protected them...what of the rest who were imprisoned,tortured or made pariahs because they lacked such support when they did controversial images!!?

To argue that some images should be banned for a specified reason and that others shouldn't when the exact same reason applys to them is ridiculous...you don't have to be a moralist,a christian or even a victim of child molestation to see a contradiction!!I for one wanted "standards" on rosity to clearly define a difference between images deemed acceptible for adult nude imagery and child nude imagery...yet,some people think thats wrong?

Somehow I think the view here revolves around what makes the image...or maybe a skewed view of art over the centuries!Its not what makes the image...its the image itself and what it represents!As for art from the past...heard the exact same arguments from photographers trying to justify bestiality,pornography and yes...even child nudity!Same argument...different means of creating it is all!

I can sum this up in one question...how many people would consider an image featuring a nude 30 year old cg man holding a nude three year old cg child "provocatively posed"
wrong?Then to take it one step further...its only a 3d mesh,so why not have an image of these same two characters engaged in sex???You can argue that pornographic cg images of adults should be banned because our "standards" in society for such imagery won't allow it...yet,those same standards say that nude images of children are also unacceptible and its not the same thing because its not real-the reason porn images are banned isn't that they are real,its because they represent something real and images of nude children are no different!!!

PS...I wholly agree with Lillian as this decision shouldn't prevent artistic expression and I myself don't wish to see that happen.The area they drew a line at was the genitals and provocative posing...that will not impact the vast majority of images as most fall within those guidelines anyway.As for anime and faerys...if you don't apply the same rule to them then you're ignoring the fact that many images claiming to be anime or faerys don't include the trademark elements that make them such-that leaves only the child base and the term "humanoid" basically says "don't go there as we don't play that game".

Artistic expression is the ultimate freedom and I don't want to see it lost...I just don't like contradiction or hypocrisy and if you apply some standards regarding morals we hold in society,you must be as willing to apply others when circumstances demand.To anyone who disagrees...you're always free to create your own site and allow whatever artistic freedoms you wish to express be shown.Rosity is a community site and this has been a problem for them for some time now...they took a stand and should be applauded for it rather than questioned.Haven't found a cg site that specialises just in nude cg children though...even rotica banned nude children on their site-so,if you're extremely miffed and feel others agree-here's an opportunity for you to do something no one else is doing;P

Armor, Last things firts. Most of us are questioning the Law, not R'osity's compliance with it. I look at R'osity as a victum here as much as we are. In a worst case cenario, they would be shut down for YEARS before they ever got a day in court to decide if they did anything wrong. They have been given the effective choice of comply or go out of business. What we are questioning is the Law. A photograph of a man in a sexualy suggest pose with a three year old involves putting a 3 year old in a sexually suggestive position. That's harmful in my book, and it harming a REAL 3 year old. If if it's "photoshoped" to put the 3 yeard in the position out of context, it's still harmfull to the childs reputation, and self image if/when that photo is seen by him. But in the case of 3D meshes... NO ONE WAS HARMED iN THEIR Creation. This Law is as stupid as saying 3D meshes shouldn't be allowed to seen in violent situatations. That would end the video game industry pretty fast. Also a good part of the movie industry. If creating the image hurts no one, there should be no law against creating it. How bout making a law that makes it illegal to lure a child with pornography or nude images of any kind? That would pretty much be targeted ONLY at the pedophile who missuses the art we created. It would just as effective as any other law, which means great for punishing the offender after the fact. Think about this, I can do an infinate number of 3D pictures of children being killed, and the law is irrelevent because it won't be sexual.

I agree about the point on violence...but we are not arguing the law as the law didn't force this decision-images being posted on rosity depicting young people in suggestive poses and complaints about them caused this decision.At no time was any pressure applied to rosity regarding the law here...at no time was there a threat...in fact,I may have been one of those involved in making them think about this decision as Elizabyte and others may verify. So,rethink your pov...you argue that it isn't real and thus anything goes-no restrictions and no censorship!!If you argue there should be censorship of any kind then you have just destroyed the very heart of your own argument!!!And if you stand by your argument...do a controversial image as I suggest and see if even those who agree with you won't turn on you in a heartbeat!If thats the case...then there are limits and if there are limits there must be limitations!!! We are not discussing the law here,we are discussing a private decision by rosity to follow what other sites are doing because most people don't view art as just a lifeless hobby...they see it as a reflection of life and seek to find meaning in what they see. Part of a successful ad campaign is to find the right image or combination of images to inspire a desire in consumers for what is being offered...in the ad biz there is no seperation of pencil,cg,airbrush or photo-they are all viewed the same as the images are designed solely to entice the viewer into desiring what they see!! You see this as an intrusion on peoples rights...I agree that there is way too much violence in what we see (have seen some images on rosity that about made me puke),but the way to address that isn't to just give in and try to strike down any successful attempt to limit something others find harmful or simply wrong.I'm not sure...but bet you don't do images of nude children in your work do you-if not,maybe that shows that even you draw a line you choose not to cross? Either prove its not real and means nothing or back off...I do understand where you're coming from as part of what I was saying is that you cannot ban images of male erections and x-rated sex without addressing the issue of child nudity in exactly the same way-they banned male erections and explicit sex because it reflected real life and standards being employed to real life images were applied to them!! I ask you this...do an image of a group of klansmen lynching a black man in cg,a woman being gang raped by a group of black men or a child being molested by an adult white male.Post those images right here to prove your point... You are wrong in one key respect and I sadly think you will never see it...its not how the image is made,its what the image represents!Its not that there is a victim...its the depiction of the crime that counts!As a society,we allow images of violence and even revel in them...until that changes there's not much that can be done as its within society itself that change must happen!!What you ignore is that such a change has occurred in regards to child nudity and the change in rositys TOS reflects this... When you keep pointing out that they aren't real so no harm done...you are actually defeating your own argument!!Ask yourself this,why did the artist choose the child for their nude image?Could have chosen the adult characters couldn't they...but for some reason they went for the child.Was it the innocence we see in children,was it how cute they are...they chose the child mesh for a reason!Whatever reason for choosing the child mesh...it was for the characteristics that real children possess!!The very fact that people find these images offensive is proof of this...no my friend,you are the one in error as the artist chose the child mesh to represent a child and the viewer sees this representation-at no point does anyone see just a mesh except for those trying to justify a stand that cannot be justified!Paint is just paint until you create an image...and film is just film til you take a picture-its the image created that is at issue! At times there must be censorship and you were given examples of such reasons...its not a matter of freedom,its a matter of those abusing such freedom and how those abuses reflect upon those like yourself who act on their own moral fiber to exercise restraint!You shouldn't be angry that there was a change in the TOS or at those who wanted it...you should be angry at those who push the limits and caused this decision to take place.For all the complaints...if there weren't excesses and abuses of the freedom you speak of,then there would be no need for decisions such as this! You say the images aren't real and they do no harm because they aren't real...no one ever said they were real,they don't have to be to portray reality!But I don't think nude child photos of Brooke Shields did her any harm...in fact,it may be the only reason she had any celebrity status at all!!People who want to view real images of nude children are making many of your own arguments in their cause...and most of them say that "NO ONE WAS HARMED IN THEIR CREATION"!Reflect on what you're saying,apply your own arguments in defence of cg child nudity to the real thing...go to some of the sites mentioned above and take a look,don't be surprised if many of your observations aren't spoken word for word by people trying to legalise images of real child nudity!Does it matter that the images aren't real?No...because cg children were selected to represent real children even if set in whimsical or fantasy setting (ala' Hollywood).Summed up...you're wrong!It does matter and if you have an issue with violence in society...then take that argument to society itself and try to make change as thats why we see images of child nudity as being wrong in the first place-society sees it as wrong save for a minority of outspoken critics who don't even argue this issue in as much as being "anti-censorship"!