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"!

If the end goal of learning is genius...why are most geniuses failures at learning?