It all boils down to PERSONAL resposibility. My message WAS caustic and bitting, but a personal attack has to be against a person. Doesn't it? I was critical of a type of person without pointing out anyone in particular. Can you launch a personal attack against an unnamed group? My post was also satrical. It was worded in such a way that no reasonable person could take it seriously. I could go on forever... but the bottom line is every post like the one that started this is about the same thing. Restricting what WE say because some one doesn't want to take the responsibility for THEIR action of looking at it. Morality, children, family values. These are buzzwords designed to make accepting the removal of our rights easier to swallow. To make the unreasonable seem the opposite. If they claim my violence and sex can desenitise them to make it acceptable, can they not also desenitise me my rights being violited? If they have a Right to protection from my opinion, shouldn't I also have a right to protection from theirs? Well, they have not changed a mans mind simply because they have silenced him. If theyve made their morality, children, and family values MY responsibility, why is it ME who has to do what they say? If they insist on placing the responsibilies for their choices on ME, I will fight with my last breath to make sure it THEM who gives up THEIR rights.

Please calm down, or I'll have to lock the post. It is quite possible to discuss nudity and filters without being vituperative and nasty about the feelings of other people. This is a community. Hauksdottir Poser Coordinater

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/index.ez?viewLink=193

The TOS makes NO mention of the nudity, and the word violence only occures in the clause about threating another member with violence.

Now that I re-read it the post I got warned for was probably closer to being in violation of that than a personal attack. If it was taken literally.

"Common curtesy" is buzzword for saying "my way is right, and yours is wrong."

Would you read a Playboy in front of your children? Of course not. If you did would you blame me for your child seeing nudity. Of course not.

But some how when you open a web browser on your computer in your home and surf wherever you want, it magically becomes my responsibility.

If I have to bear that burden, I think your kids should see violence and sex, and since YOU gave me that responsibilty, it is YOU who should do what I say. If you don't like my style, and opinion of how your children should be raised... RAISE THEM YOURSELF!

It's called Personal responsibilty, and it SHOULD outweigh "Common Courtesy".

Message edited on: 05/18/2004 20:04

Before this thread gets locked, I just want to state that if Ratteler gets banned for stating his emotional opinion, then I will personally never participate in the forums again.

We're NOT robots. We have feelings, and in a true community, we should feel free to exercise our freedom of speech without fear of reprisal.

Message edited on: 05/18/2004 19:58

Thanks Maxxx.

My message was a little over the top. I don't even mind the deletation as much as the "official warning". I probably deserved a slap on the wrist... it's the "STRIKE TWO!" that has my Irish up.
Sorry Hauksdottir. This will be all I write on this subject. I think my point has been made clearly enough to be understood, even if it's not agreed with.

Message edited on: 05/18/2004 20:02

I admit I have a hard time explaining to my six year old why that womans breasts are larger than her head... Oh, that's easy. "She's like a cartoon. You know, like Jessica Rabbit." :-p Let's keep the "Pious Perverts" (as the writer Jack Woodward called these people) from their excuses to do us harm. That's a great phrase. I was commenting to my husband just last night that the sort of people who see "obscenity" in everything (I was specifically talking about Ashcroft and the statue of Justice that he had to have covered with a curtain because she has a bare booby in the traditional style) are basically perverts on some level. People who are better adjusted don't need to cover up everything and hide their eyes (and everyone else's) from a little uncovered flesh. Only the very insecure, the very rigid, or the perverted who are hiding behind a facade of "morality". And before anyone misunderstands, I'm not at ALL implying that anyone who, for whatever reason, would like to see the Nudity flag ticked is a pervert, only that people who habitually see "filth" everywhere usually have something to hide. The real filth is in their own minds. bonni

Generally, I don't participate in these threads, since I have a very open view about nudity. I do have to say, though, that this was actually one of the more civil ones I read. :D Now, I have a 5 year old. He browses the galleries with me. No nudity filter, we just avoid the violence. Not the nudity. I personally feel I was born nude, so what is wrong with it. :D Just as I would, and have, taken him to museums where there are nudes. Art is art. Nudity is nudity. I generally feel there is no reason to get our panties in a bind over it. BUT. Rules are rules. And if you want to actively participate in a community, you should follow them. I used to browse from work, on my hour and a half lunch. (I work gov, so therefore am poor, and had to spend it somehow. And browsing art galleries online is a big stress reliever, which I need with my job.) HOWEVER, I have had to stop, over concerns of losing my job. Not because I was browsing on company time, but because the nudity is not always getting filtered. I work child welfare. I investigate child abuse. Have to understand why there is a no nudity policy in place at work. That is their rule. I have to follow it if I want a job. So hence, since others don't follow site rules, I cut out this site. Since my time is limited in the evenings, that generally means I don't usually have time to visit the galleries here anymore. It sucks. Yes, I have a choice. Take the chance or don't. So I don't. But for me and other's like me, or who chose not to view it for moralistic or whatever other reasons, our choices are forced due to other people not abiding by the rules. Rules that really are not that hard to follow. Doesn't make it fair for them. I say, by all means, use all the nudity you want. (Although it would be nice to see some more classic, less idolized nudity from time to time.) I am judging your art on the art itself, not the clothing or lack of clothing on the model. But please, whether you agree with the reasoning, just click the damn box. k? Now I'm done. Have to finish my own nude pic. (With my son, who is telling me I have her posed all wrong. :D Boy has a damn fine eye for a 5 year old. :D)

Could we get an 'art Carl wants to see' flag? I was showing my gallery to some friends from their computer. Just logged in as a visitor. Only one picture out of the nine in my gallery was there. Oh, I paniced. Then figured it out and logged in as me. Posters should be responsible and use the tags that apply. Viewers should be responsible and realize mistakes happen and some people just aren't responsible. There are 1416 surfers currently online, one of them is undoubtedly doing something that would piss me off if I let it. Hauksdottir - if a post is deleted, does it make a sound? Who ever would have guessed artists had such passionate emotions?

I think we agree, Rateller. I hope we agree. If I feel a need to block myself, my kids, or my neighbors from the wild boobies it should be my personal responsibility to set my Renderosity preferences. If I want to make the best ever naked-vickie-in-a-temple pic it should be my personal responsibility to tick the little box that sets the "nudity" flag. Apropo -- I was browsing an old issue of Time during the slower part of rehearsal and discovered some Federal legislator is trying to ban veiwing of blue movies on those TV's they now install in some cars. The theory being that some soccer mom might get stuck in traffic right beside the offending SUV and her kids would be exposed to a little Deep Throat through two car windows and a bit of freeway smog. Is it just me, or did people used to "go for a drive" to enjoy themselves outside? Now apparently life is so boring that no American should ever be seperated from TV, DVD, cel phone and headphones for even an instant. Harrison Bergeron, your world is almost here.

Whache, regarding #51:

I meant nudity, not sexually explicit pictures, there is a difference. If you feel that it's your responsibility as a parent to bring up your children in a way that shields them from nudity, then it's your decision. However, since nudity is considered as a natural thing in many parts of the world, you will run into problems with that stance. That problem is your responsibility to handle, not the responsibility of the society and/or people responsible for Internet sites and other media.

If a site condones a nudity tag, it should of course be respected, I have no problem with that. I don't know how well/bad it works here since I don't post nudity and/or sexually explicit pictures here. What I meant with my comments was that I think the whole nudity thing is blown out of proportion in society as a whole. Most problems derive from that lack of proportion, not the fact that kids happen to see nudity from time to time. The guilt people feel from exposing kids to nudity appears to be much worse than the harm they think it does to the same kids and I have a hard time understanding the logic in that. I think there are more important things to work on as a parent

Message edited on: 05/19/2004 01:26

It's interesting the fact that Nudity is not mentioned in the TOS. I re-read them myself yesterday and that point leapt out at me. Violence and sexually explicit scenes are covered but not nudity.

So I go back to my previous point. It /is/ a two way street, responsibility lies both with the poster and the viewer.

Message edited on: 05/19/2004 02:14

Yeah we're back to the nudity=porn if you think the pictures here in general are sexually explicit. I won't say there isn't any sexually explicit pictures here, I haven't SEEN any, but then again I don't browse the galleries that much.If I wanted to look at sexually explicit pictures I wouldn't go here anyway, I would go to R'otica.

I make the occasional nude picture, and when I bring in a Vickie to scale a prop I do not clothe her. And if my kids are nearby I do not cover her up either.

I do also make Poser porn from time to time, and I don't do THAT with my kids around. Actually I don't even do it with my hubby around LOL - he might get ideas...

Of course the nudity flag should be used when appropriate, but once again: Is a male naked torso/chest ok? What's the difference between that and a female's (except for the obvious differencesG)

In the end we may all flag anything with Nudity and Violence just to be sure. That would unfortunately mean that a lot of people won't ever see our posts/pictures, but... Better safe than sorry, right?

In general I don't think people post nude pictures without the tag to piss other people off. They do so because they FORGET it. Sure they should set the flag, but to err is human, no?

Message edited on: 05/19/2004 03:06

Is a male naked torso/chest ok? What's the difference between that and a female's (except for the obvious differencesG*)* Well, the difference is that a woman's breasts can actually be functional as well as decorative. In all seriousness, I've long thought the "women can't show theirs but men can show theirs" thing is really stupid. I tend to see bare breasts in the same light as a naked male chest. It CAN be sexual or even erotic, but for the most part, it just shouldn't be a big deal. I'm not even someone who would walk around in public with my shirt off (assuming it was socially acceptable), but I still think making that distinction is stupid. And personally, I find a naked male chest a LOT sexier than a female one. ;-p bonni

Yes you are over-reacting. If my kids (regardless of age) were to be interested in looking at Rosity galleries (highly unlikely) I would let them. Naked people is the most innocent thing in the world. My daughters knew about the birds and the bees before they were 5. But violent movies, PC games and news from Iraq and such - now THAT is scary stuff for little kids. I would seriously think abot what small children are alowed to see. But renders of semi nude people???? Good grief.... who cares, lol! And there's nothing even remotely similar to porn here at Rosity - this place is so squeaky clean. :] Fish

Ok, I'll "touch" the museum issue. Who are you kidding? There are some serious artists here, but the vast majority of the images in the galleries are comic book schlock, soft core porn, and glorious, full-color, 3D bathroom scrawls. Sturgeon's Law run amok. My kids are not censored from seeing Michaelangelo and Francis Bacon nudes, and I don't worry if they spot a nipple in a Dillard's ad. But I don't want them looking at adolescent fantasies of sex-obsessed, women-hating Peter Pans. Let them show a little creativity. This "rights of the artist" BS always reminds me of the jackasses on the street with boom boxes blaring music I find tiresome, revolting, or both. Their "freedom" requires me to listen to that crap. Some jerk pulls up next to me while I'm listening to Vivaldi, and suddenly all I can hear (and feel) is the rumble of his base shaking my car while some threatening voice mumbles limericks. What happened to my "right" to listen to my own radio? "Freedom" is a transaction. We both have to give something in order to get what we want. You have to give a checkmark. Get a grip. M

I greatly appreciate all of your responses on this, just had alot of thoughts on the subject and seeing everyones responses once again confirms why I stay with Renderosity, its the community, while each of us different in so many ways, we all are artists and in that one thing, we are all alike. Thank you all greatly now, if I could only get this many hits on my pictures lol

" Ok, I'll "touch" the museum issue. Who are you kidding? There are some serious artists here, but the vast majority of the images in the galleries are comic book schlock, soft core porn, and glorious, full-color, 3D bathroom scrawls. Sturgeon's Law run amok." That's a grossly bias exaggeration. So large-breasted comic book heroines = softcore porn, or...? I've never come upon "soft core porn" or "3D bathroom scrawls" in THESE galleries. Not saying everyone is a serious artist, but there's a serious artist in everyone. I suppose the only REAL art is that of the Masters? "This "rights of the artist" BS always reminds me of the jackasses on the street with boom boxes blaring music I find tiresome, revolting, or both." sigh To avoid what would most likely be misinterpreted by the mods as hostile rhetoric, I won't even dignify this with a response. I'm done with this thread now. Bye.

nomuse said: "...and discovered some Federal legislator is trying to ban veiwing of blue movies on those TV's they now install in some cars. The theory being that some soccer mom might get stuck in traffic right beside the offending SUV and her kids would be exposed to a little Deep Throat through two car windows and a bit of freeway smog. Is it just me, or did people used to "go for a drive" to enjoy themselves outside? Now apparently life is so boring that no American should ever be seperated from TV, DVD, cel phone and headphones for even an instant." Jeez, you sound like me! Though I usually phrase it, "Kids these days think they are being deprived and unduly punished when they can't go from point A to point B without benefit of some sort of electronic (read: video) entertainment...even if it's only a 15-minute drive." And on the other item...the movies. I keep wondering why there is such a huge uproar about x-rated movies in a vehicle on a 9-inch screen that one (it would seem) need to be within 6-8 feet of in order to see what is going on (though I understand the concern). MORE in need of attention, IMO (note I didn't say "imHo"), are the lyrics that stream from open-windowed vehicles from amplifiers and speakers capable of handling a concert. Most recent example was when I was with our troop of Brownie Scouts selling cookies in front of Publics and 2 guys drove by with all sorts of lyrics (audible from 50-75 feet) drove by our stand. Lyrics talking about how this guy had f****d this girl real good and now she was his bitch. All I had time to do what run in front of the girls and try to capture there attention with a loud voice about how well we were doing till the car exited sound range. I object to this much more than video since one needn't not be so close to be assailed by unwanted and disgusting "art" and freedom of speech and self-expression. Bottom line? The whole world is a community just as R'City is one. And within either community, one should try to balance your rights/privaleges with the rights of those around you.

So we need two flags instead of one, do we? "Serious" nudity and "Comic book schlock" nudity? The first is OK to be seen by children and the second isn't? Now, the question is, if (as so often happens), someone needs to post a plain Poser render of P4W to illustrate some jointing problem, which nudity flag would be appropriate? It isn't serious artistic nudity, but neither is it softcore porn nudity. Is it suitable for children? Maybe a third flag is needed: "Technical" nudity. Any other categories of nudity I'm missing here? Oh, yes, there's "Satirical" nudity, which is where you post a picture of a nude horse and click the nudity flag for fun. Probably OK for children to see that sort. Any others?

"This edit function is great but we still need a built in spell check."

Now why should we have to put up with something like spell check when people should be perfectly capable of watching their own spelling? Why should this site cater to the lazy one's who can't bother to post only when they're in a room with a dictionary? No dictionary at work? Don't post at work! Not able to spell correctly at home? Don't post when the dictionary isn't in the room! Simple, right?
------ > ;) (/sarcasm) < -------

"Why can't setting the nudity flag be seen as social courtesy?"
They consider it overreacting. ;)

I reckon there will always be problems around the boundary. Do you think a skimpy swimsuit is "nudity"? Is John Wayne holding a Winchester "violence"? (Bother, now I just have to do an image of John Wayne holding an HDD and a bikini, and looking puzzled.) We use the tags as a courtesy to others. If you want us to look after your kids, you can't afford my hourly rate.

Ow.....Antonia....you hurt my eyes....John Wayne in a tiny red bikini....ow...! Seems to me the nudity that shows up in discussions about ERC or how Vickie's clothes fall off whenever she moves needs to be flagged. Reason is those DAZ figures are just so flamboyantly, flagrantly, flauntingly nude. You illustrate a point with Posette in default mode and all you got is an orange Barbie. You illustrate with V3 and you have acres and acres of high-resolution skin stretched over a strikingly statuesque form. (Of course this begs the question...if we are talking joint params why are we rendering Vickie with skin? Or at all? Wouldn't wire-frame be more appropriate?) I'd really hate to have the standard-model V3 stroll into our costume shop, by the way. There isn't anything we could put on her without her looking like a siren or a hussy -- period clothes, sack-cloth, whatever, she is just too male-fantasy.

I can't help but agree with your theme, but I am less sure that it is relevant to a nudity flag.

Uhm the base V3 does not have any high res textures. you can add them just as you can add some to posette, but they're not there by default. So if you can load a nude posette because she's an "orange arbie doll" then so can you load V3. she's just a more pinkish barbie, that's all. How about if you showed the character as a wireframe? is it still a nude? (technically it's even more nude than before, but...)

slaps his forhead then looks around for the violence tag egad!

I know Vickie doesn't load up with tex, ernyoka. Yet, somehow, she manages to get her tan lines in place before appearing in any of those "help me, the boobs keep sticking out of the dress" posts. If people were leaving the default when posting their technical questions -- or doing her as wireframe or white mat -- I wouldn't be so eager to see the nudity tag on them.

A wire-frame model may be even more revealing than an undressed Posette. Do you really want to see the backs of someone's teeth? :shudder: Judy is complete, and I believe there are 2-3 other female models which are. The nudity defination is fairly comprehensive because it has to cover humanoids and aliens. Your average city ordinance isn'r concerned with mermaids frolicking in the fountain outside government offices or satyrs surveying the shopping mall with lascivious intent. Carolly

Heh. Nudity, like obscenity, lacks an objective definition. However. It doesn't take a mental giant to figure out if a particular image is likely to strike the community that you have been interacting with as "nude." I'll admit there are borderline cases. I also strongly believe, however, that the "borderline" is mostly populated by people who damn well know better and who are trying constantly to push the line just to attract attention to themselves. Okay. I do admit to there being a hidden truth here. The gallery is not just a place where people post what they've created so other people can enjoy it. It is a place where people fight tooth-and-nail for coveted votes into "most viewed" and Hot 20. I can understand why the people who are trying desperately to be this week's Hot Thing don't want to do ANYTHING that might lessen the number of people who view their creation. That also is the driving force that makes the banner ads for certain products push the borders whenever and wherever they can. Oh, and yeah -- the American workplace is full of hypocrites. But you are going to save the day by sneaking nudie pics onto the computer of some unsuspecting lunch-time browser? Riiiight. You might cost a job, but you ain't saving the world, not that way. Stand up and fight the good fight where you might actually get heard.

Attached Link: http://bonni.net/gallery/

*Your average city ordinance isn'r concerned with mermaids frolicking in the fountain outside government offices or satyrs surveying the shopping mall with lascivious intent.* Some are. attorney General Ashcroft had a clasical statue of "Liberty" covered with a curtain because she had one bare breast. In the city of Bendigo (Victoria, Australia) there's a very nice public fountain. It's quite large and was officially opened in 1880 by a member of the English royal family. It's got four sculptures of women on it, and two have both breasts bared, while the other two have one breast bared. This was in no way considered offensive or disgraceful. So much for Victorians being prudes. At least they didn't get their knickers in a knot over a classical style sculpture with a bare breast! Modern sensibilities, at least for some, seem to be a lot more unreasonable. I have pictures of the statue in my personal photo gallery if anyone cares, by the way (link attached, but only for reference, not for advertising ;-). bonni

Nice fountain... but with all the classical symbolism, it would look like the rest of the statuary populating old gardens back in England, and so familiar that it wouldn't really be noticed. I'm more impressed with those lovely hippocampi tucked into the curves. And you are right about Ashcroft. There is some abberancy in every generation. However, I suspect that he is more uncomfortable with the idea of Justice watching his actions, than with her breast. ;^) Carolly

Nice fountain... but with all the classical symbolism, it would look like the rest of the statuary populating old gardens back in England, and so familiar that it wouldn't really be noticed. Ah, but in the middle of the town center of a Victorian-era "frontier" gold rush city, it was (and still is) VERY noticible. ;-) Well, not the bare boobies so much, but the fountain in general... laugh Oh, and I love the hippocampi, too! There's also a drinking fountain on one of the very stylish posts, which I think is a nice touch. bonni