I just received a notice from the management of this website informing me that one of my images has been removed from my gallery under the claim that it violated the TOS. The image contained two nude men preparing to share a kiss in a desert camp. I would like the record to show that I consider this deletion inappropriate and overzealous since the couple in the image are not engaged in intercourse. The M3 figure in the image was used without the gential figure and the M2 figure had his genitals switched off before import to the rendering software used. Therefore there is no possible visible arousal to be found in the rendering. You cannot even see so much as a bare butt in the image. The two male figures are nude but the image is appropriately marked as containing nudity, as per the TOS. Furthermore, the two male figures were posed using a pose set which I purchased from the Renderosity marketplace. The pose came from a set that was intended to show two male figures in various intimate but non-sexual embraces. How is it possible for a romantic pose set that is apparpently kosher to offer for sale on Renderosity result in a render that violates the TOS when there is nothing added to the image that would result in any display of arousal? If my rendering violates the TOS, then so must every pose set offered for sale here which is intended to place characters in intimate and even overly sexual positions. This is excessive imagination on the part of the censors of this site. I understand and respect the need to keep the content of this site within the bounds of legality and good taste. But I strongly disagree that my posting, "Exploration" violates the TOS.

As icky as I think that image is. I agree that if this info is correct David has been severly wronged. With the amount of intelligence it takes to operate this software I would expect the community to be a little more opened minded. In closing I would like to say I find censorship more sickening than homosexual porn. And this coming from a longhair militant metal head. Ha!

I think it's funny that you can BUY the poses here, but you can't USE them in the galleries?? LOL! I wonder if it were two WOMEN in the same poses and scene if it would have been removed. Interesting. Sorry you got wronged.

I think it's funny that you can BUY the poses here, but you can't USE them in the galleries?? Not just poses. There are lots of things in the store that you can't put in a gallery. Torture devices, some of the bondage props, and while you can have a Vicki/Steph/Whomever with genitals, you can't really have them particularly visible (especially if they're posable, I suspect). I've always thought of it like a news agency that sells papers and magazines and "normal" stuff in the front and tries to be all respectable and "family friendly" but if you just go through the little door to the back, you'll find a whole area devoted to the sale of porn... bonni

I wonder if it were two WOMEN in the same poses and scene if it would have been removed. Oh please, like you need to ask.

Here in Europe we have never understood that in America, the land of freedom, this increasing movement of contradictory morality is cutting so much rights... Art against Politically Correct...

I find this very disturbing. This is not the first time that R'osity mods have seemed to be prejudiced against images displaying loving male couples. There are plenty of nude male-female and female-female pictures in the galleries, with the couples kissing and in many cases with overt sexuality. As long as the TOS continues to be applied inconsistently (or is perceived to be so applied) then these accusations of censorship will only become more frequent.

Ridiculous, I think...

Homophobia strikes again. Incidentally, with regard to the torture equipment on sale in the RMP which can't be shown in the galleries, would it be acceptable to post a picture that showed the equipment but not being used on anyone? Just a background prop?

Your image was put up for a vote and due the position of the charactors it was deemed an implied Sex act. If you wish a review of this action feel free to contact Spike at any time. SndCastie Poser Gallery Moderator

I used to work here and I know first hand how much it sucks to have to remove someone's image from the gallery. But if a mod. or admin. does this. The proper course of action is to take it up with them, and their bosses. Not start trouble in the forums. You're not fooling some of us. You're trying to rally troops around you to back you up and put pressure on the staff to get YOUR OWN WAY. Admin. should ban people who do this forum tantrum tossing nonsense. It's hard enough to be a MOD.,Admin., Coord. as it is without people taking their personal business into to public and stirring up trouble that can be handled privately. Boohoo! I was mistreated! Baby want BA! BA! WHAAAAaaaaa! Grow the hell up and talk the admin. about this. They'll listen to you and try to be fair about it. -ScottA

It seems that two male persons in one image are still eyed more critical than two females (sic). While that is truly bothering me, I think we have to respect that this site has pretty strict rules about sexual contents. And to be grateful that there is this other site ...

ScottA I take exception to the charge that I am somehow doing something inappropriate by voicing my concerns in the forum. While you may not like the fact that I disagree with action that I consider heavy-handed, your rather unprofessional response to my original post in no way deals with the substance of my concerns on the merits. Instead, a former "employee" elects to try and turn this into a personal attack. The fact remains unrebutted that there is no genital arousal shown. The fact remains unrebutted that the character pose objected to is one provided by this website for sale. The image is not sexual but romantic. It may well display pre-coital intimacy, but it does not show intercourse. Without getting graphic, I suggest you look at the image again. Since I know something from personal experience about male-male intercourse, let me assure you that given their positions relative to one another, it is not anatomically possible for this couple to be having sex. The parts required do not align correctly with the one man's feet still on the ground. This is theater of the absurd and homophobic. And to suggest that I am not permitted to publically voice my concerns about censorship to which I object is far more unprofessional that the objection itself. It would appear that it's okay for the moderators to take action when they feel my art crosses a line but not okay for me to respond when I feel they have done the same. Censorship is an entirely appropriate subject for discussion in our community. Unless by community you mean the "rah-rah fan club."

Ya know the way #11 is worded, seems to me rosity doesn't want it posted in the forums, because they don't want all the members to know what they are up to. Pretty FISHY to me. As for the comment about 2 females, NO the pic would NOT have been removed, anyone that says otherwise is lying to themselves and the rest of us.

Whenever you have humans interpreting and enforcing rules there will be inconsistency; it's unavoidable but hopefully not purposeful. I've been reading this forum for years and, IMO, there've been relatively few complaints about pics being deleted. This in a forum in which people just love to complain ;) (Not talking about you, DavidDeyo). Given this, and the fact I haven't seen the picture, I have to believe the Mods are doing the best they can and are not being biased. But I could be wrong...

"Your image was put up for a vote and due the position of the charactors it was deemed an implied Sex act." Is that really serious? Seeing all of the naked sensual and suggestive posing ladies in the galleries, I can't believe that you judge something by that kind of standards. You either go all the way or nothing, I do really find this a bit picky. As far as I'm concerned most of the poser renders in the gallery are sexual tinted and to prohibit this kind of stuff is really slightly hypocrite at least. As far as censorship goes, personally I do think that most of the stuff in the galeries isn't appropiate at all, imo. But to allow one and to rule out the other is very strange, you either allow all or nothing at all.

It would be a terrible thing if this image was removed becuase of any kind of homophobia...not the sort of thing I would expect in an artist community. Or even if it's homophobia, it still shouldn't be 'taboo'. Of course, without seeing the picture in question, it's difficult to give an informed opinion.

"Your image was put up for a vote and due the position of the charactors it was deemed an implied Sex act. If you wish a review of this action feel free to contact Spike at any time." Position of the characters? A vote? If it takes a vote to decide if a sex act is implied.... Of course, now I REALLY want to see the picture so I can make up my own mind....

I think it is completely appropriate to bring this up in the forums. The idea that the only redress one might have for being treated unfairly is to remain quiet and deal with ti privatly is one I dislike a lot. The post was not strident. The post was not insulting. The post gave us at least a version of the facts. Why is it wrong to attempt to gain community support for ones position? While I fully understand that this is a private site and thus can set it's own rules it does at least pretend to be a community - so I think we absolutely should be allowed to talk among ourselves about the policies.

We always put images in question up for a vote as some may see them one way and others may not. It is a fair process of judging before we pull an image to give it the benifit of doubt. Would you rather have a image pulled and no discussion made in defense of it. We are trying to be fair to everyone here and we give you the option of a review of the action taken. How much fairer can we be. As far as a pose goes if it implies a sex act, not to be confused with a implied sexual situation it will be pulled. The rules for Merchants are totally seperate from the art galleries. This matter has been refered to Spike.

SndCastie
Poser Forum and Gallery Moderator

Message edited on: 07/15/2004 08:55

I am going to seek appeal from Spike about the matter. I will also email a copy of the image in question to anybody who wishes to evaluate it for themselves. I am curious about your post, though, SndCastie. There is an implication that the rules are more permissive for merchants who are helping the site to make money than for the customers who actually purchase their products and thereby give money to this site. I am genuinely curious about why the rules would be different if this is not the case. If this is the case, it seems a poor way to reward loyal customers.

A lady can enter a store and buy lingerie intended to be sexy and alluring in private. I'm sure the store would call the cops on her if she came back wearing the same lingerie and nothing else.

lesbian porn? ok? mmmm. (kind of wondered about some of the gallery pics). too bad i dont work with female figures. no worries there. seriously a nice experiment to try would be to take your poser file. maybe change the background, setting, and apply your pose settings for your figures to female figure (same positions), have someone else post it for you and see how long it lasts. kind of bate and switch but I do work in retail. :) I have had one picture pulled of a male laying down with his mmm equipment laying down along his thigh. I may have maybe over endowed him a little but not much and the equipment was definately sleepy. It got pulled the day after I logged a complaint about a posting to one of my pictures that was very rude, crude and off topic. The next day I was told that the comment was removed. Later that day, I was told that another picture had been removed. That picture had been in the galleries for 2 months or so. It didn't take long to put 2 and 2 together. 5? right. :) It must be hard to be a moderator and I am sure they are trying their best, but it is also hard to keep old style predudices from creeping in and an open mind. We all have to try our best.

Out of curiosity, I would be interested in seeing the image. Send to Rebekah@sixus1.com

well, I didn't see the pic but I seriously doubt it had to do with it being a gay pic. One artist that comes to mind is cherokee69's gallery. He has some great ones. I would be interested in seeing it too. kayjay97@charter.net

Message edited on: 07/15/2004 10:01

two women together banned? heck, it'd probably wind up in the hot 20..;)

I havent seen the picture but from the combined descriptions I think comparison to women in the same position is a little silly. To me a pict of a man embracing another man from behind has a very different connotation than a woman embracing another woman from behind and I do not find that to be prejudice nor homophobic. As to posting to the forums, I respect that David has chosen a civil tone and do not deny him the right to voice his opinion (likewise I respect ScottAs right to voice his opinion or vent his frustrations as the case may be). But, I do feel it would have been more appropriate to address the moderators directly and privately first (if he did not). As a further note, Renderosity is not the only game in town. I seem to recall a new poser site dedicated to gay male images popped up not to long ago. I am sure they would be more than happy for the support/membership/images.

I'd like to see that piccie too, can you e-mail it please? mreddy@nf.sympatico.ca Btw, I also have similar works I'm doubtful about posting. No obvious sex but there's some nudity and one male couple (in costume)share an embrace. I don't think it'd violate TOS here but I've learned that sometimes otherwise rational people can have very strange ideas. One never knows ... P.S. I checked the nudity flag 'cuz I mentioned the word and some folks might have a problem with that too ;-)

As a point of fact, I did reply to the person who emailed me initially about the deletion. I made my post to the forum not long after replying directly to that person. To be clear, and in contrary to what ScottA suggested, I did not open this thread to rally supporters in the hopes of generating any collective pressure. And for the record, I have yet to get any reply from the moderator to whom I did directly reply initially, although I have heard from SndCastie (to whom I thank for that). My intent was to create discussion on the matter based on the merits of the situation. In my view, staying on the right side of a boundary is allowed, no matter how close to that boundary I might elect to get. I realize the disagreement is whether or not I crossed over that boundary. I maintain that I did not. But to the extent that there is room to consider the boundary itself, I felt the matter warranted some public discussion. I am quite mindful of the boundary in this case. I have previously created images that I know are easily on the other side of it. I post those images elsewhere. But when I feel that I am on the right side of the boundary, I object to being censored. The fact that a vote was taken indicates to me that there was enough ambiguity to merit discussion and possible debate among the moderators. Given that case, I feel my work deserved the benefit of the doubt in this case. Clearly, others disagree. And while I agree with Jackson's analogy, I wonder if it's apt enough in this case. Artists are encouraged to list credits for all Renderosity products purchased that were used in the artwork. This is more akin to selling someone lingerie, inviting them to model it for marketing purposes, then calling the cops for doing so. As soon as I am back at my home computer, I will forward copies of the image to those who have asked to see it. Whether or not you agree with me on this particular question, the appropriate interpretation of the TOS rules is a subject worthy of conversation.

In view of the mods reaction to the image wouldn't pulling the pose pack from the marketplace be the MORAL thing to do? Pulling one pic from the galleries won't stop someone else from making the same mistake with the same poses in the future. Punish the merchant who sold it. Not the hapless artist who bought it in good faith from this site. These double standards are so confusing.

I think there is some truth to the whole gay male bias in the galleries. Even when you read the comments, some members don't hesitate to mention their disgust. For this reason, I don't post those types of pictures here. The point that I'm trying to make is that I don't think admin or the mods are intentionally trying to censor anyone. The general sense of homophobia at this site might easily confuse someone into thinking that the removal of the picture was personal. Please send me the picture at killjoythecatisdead@yahoo.com. BTW, I hope this incident does not discourage you from posting your work here.

So a product is "immoral" because it's for Mike & David, but the exact same thing, in this case a set of poses, for Mike & Vickie is okay? You're absolutely right, double standards are so confusing ... and that just confuses the heck right outta me.

Your image was put up for a vote and due the position of the charactors it was deemed an implied Sex act Uh, mods, I hate to point this out to you, but if we're going on that as a barometer, then you better delete every male/female nude couple image in the gallery, because, if we're talking implication here, it's a heckuva lot easier for a straight couple in that position to slide it home, as it were.

Tyger_purr said: To me a pict of a man embracing another man from behind has a very different connotation than a woman embracing another woman from behind and I do not find that to be prejudice nor homophobic. It appears that the Mods agree, unfortunately that is precisely the problem because it is a classic example of a bias which is BOTH homophobic and prejudice. In reality there is no difference between an embrace between two men and an embrace between two women or an embrace between a woman and a man. To suggest otherwise requires a prejudice of some kind. An embrace is no more a prelude to sex than a candle light dinner, and anyone who thinks otherwise is just allowing their prejudice, bias or phobia do their thinking for them. Of course, there is nothing wrong with a difference of opinion, but when such differences are used as a feeble EXCUSE for censorship, espically in a community of "Atrists" it is shameful.

I think I have a lot to say about this topic in general but before I put the proverbial foot in my mouth I would love to see the picture in question...Jenai21@yahoo.com

It reminds me of a joke: The therapist was diagnosing a patient whom he felt had sexual disorder. He drew a straight verticle line on a piece of paper and asked the patient to say the first thing that came to mind. "A naked woman standing up", he said. The doctor then drew a horizontal straight line. "A naked woman laying down on the floor", the patient responded. Then the doctor drew an oblique straight line. "A naked woman getting up off the floor" the patient said. The doctor threw up his hands and said, "You have a filthy mind!" "ME!?", cried the patient. "You're the one drawing all the dirty pictures!" I don't mean to poke fun at the originator's thread. While the joke may be a bit funny, I think it is also a bit revealing. The question is: "Are the mods sometimes like the patient?"

ronstuff said: In reality there is no difference between an embrace between two men and an embrace between two women or an embrace between a woman and a man. To suggest otherwise requires a prejudice of some kind. Last time I checked women were not anatomically equipped to engage in sexual acts in the position described (baring the use of adult toys), thus I would not perceive an implied sexual act. Likewise I would not perceive an implied sexual act if two men were face to face in an embrace.

Oh, I'm going to get pelted with rotten tomatoes for this one, but here goes.... [rant]God, this reminds me of the other thread about "who is a real artist". "So if we deem you to be homophobic or close minded, then, of course, you aren't really an artist...." Geesh! I can understand being upset about unequal enforcement of the TOS from a strictly "rules is rules" point of view, but to start calling people names and "small minded" and "homophobic" is really tiresome, and quite frankly, unfair. You want a "free" system where you have the right to post what you want, but yet you don't want others to have differing opinions on things - they are automatically labled "homophobic", which, in effect, tells them to "shut up an sit down" because they are "unacceptable" in the "community", or they aren't a "real" artist because they aren't acceptable of homosexuality, real or implied. The reality is that the majority of people in the world are heterosexual - i.e. they like to see men with women, that is probably why these images are popular. You can't change people's minds or inclinations by calling them names or threatening some kind of ostracization from the "community of artists" because they don't see things the same way you do. If it's just an issue of unequal application of the TOS, then keep the discussion to that issue and argue it logically - don't call people names - you wouldn't like it (and in fact, it would be considered a hate crime), and neither do they.[/rant]

Simply because a man is hugging a man from behind doesn't mean that he has it in for his behind. I think that the basic problem, in general is this... Most hetrosexuals (esp. men) have a hard time grasping the concept that two men can be in LOVE. That there is more to being 'gay' than hardcore sex. And that they can be having a simple warm fuzzy embrace. --Rebekah--

i don't know what the problem is michael, vicky, don and judy are clearly all bisexual and also promiscuous, sure dont you see them in different embraces with all kinds of folk... even fairies, and troll's.

Totally agree with Rebekah (sixus1)and all my friends both gay & straight know I'm hetro to the bone. Especially my sweet lady. :-) Strixowl

I realize this discussion is somewhat academic without having the rendering in view to discuss. I am curious to see how folks react once I have a chance to distribute the image to them. If I can attempt this without much difficulty, let me try to encapsulate the problem as I see it. In the pose set used, one man is reclining on the ground, knees bent with his feet flat on the ground, legs parted. The other man is kneeling between the lower man's legs, leaning over him as if to kiss him. Both men are reaching to touch one another's torso. Although I made very slight adjustments to head angles to accentuate the impending kiss and changed facial expressions, the poses were used unaltered. Now, until you see the image, you'll have to take some of this on faith for now. But although the upper man is leaned over his partner in what at first appears like missionary position, there is no visible contact taking place. You can see a gap that separates the pair between their torsos. You can clearly see that the man in the above position has his hips at a position that is simply unable to engage any point of entry given the pose of the man below. As I said before, neither man has his genital models included, but even if one supposed that either or both were erect, you cannot assert that any body contact is being made. One man is leaning over the other to kiss him. Since there is no torso contact, you cannot reasonably claim that they are engaged in any kind of sexual contact. They are certainly not positioned for intercourse and the gap between them would prevent any kind of simulated contact (a la frottage). Given the angle and shadows associated with the pair in the rendering, you cannot see either's groin or butt. But it is apparent that they are not engaged in intercourse, real or simulated. They are two naked men preparing to kiss. One happens to be leaning over the other in what only superficially looks like missionary position. But gay men cannot have sex in missionary position while the lower man's legs are not substantially elevated above their given position. I can easily understand how someone might, given only a cursory glance, suspect intercourse. But any reasonable study of the image quickly shows that this is simply not the case. The assertion that they are engaged in a simulated sex act is a stretch. I would like to know given these facts how any astute observer can say otherwise. Perhaps the moderators might want to share the reasoning by which they reached their conclusion. The pose came from one of the male-male sets sold here by rax. This is one of several such pose sets that he and others have for sale here. The only fundamental difference between the thumbnails in his store and my image is his thumbnails shows the two men in underwear. And as anybody knows, the wearing of underwear or the lack thereof is really irrelevant in deciding if a "simulated" sexual contact is being attempted.

And as anybody knows, the wearing of underwear or the lack thereof is really irrelevant in deciding if a "simulated" sexual contact is being attempted.

Are you kidding? Of course it does!

Wait a sec -- I gotta wrench my tongue outa my cheek... :)

Message edited on: 07/15/2004 13:17

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

1. Due to the 2 figures being nude and the position of the figures - the image was deemed as being a TOS violation.

2. If the figures had been a male and female figure, it would still have been removed.

3. The removal of the image had nothing to do with sexual orientation - and was ONLY removed due to it's violation of TOS.

4. Images created with products purchased in the MarketPlace STILL have to follow the Renderosity TOS

5. All members sign and agree to the TOS when they register as a member of the Renderosity Site.

6. Images are not just removed by one person, all images that are removed are evalutated against the TOS by the Mods/Coords/and Admins.

7. If you feel your image has been removed unjustly, please contact a moderator or an Admin for an image review. Stating why you think your image was not in violation of the TOS - Your image will be re-evaluated!

8. Lastly - The decision of the Renderosity staff will be final! - [this is also in the TOS, which all members agree to when they sign up for a Renderosity membership!

To add to that - the Poser Forum is for sharing Poser content, asking or helping with Poser questions, and showcasing your Poser creation!