I'm intrigued by these little warnings in the RMP that say "Promo Image 2 & 3 may contain artistic nudity". It remains me the supposed bag of nuts that was labelled "Contents: Mixed nuts. Warning: May contain nuts." When I look at Marketplace items that are not skin textures or skimpy clothing, this warning doesn't appear, so someone took the bother to decide whether the promo images did or did not contain nudity - so why the "MAY contain"? Presumably because, while it's easy to tell if an image contains nudity, it's not so easy to tell if it contains ARTISTIC nudity. So it's the possible existence of artistic nudity that needs to be warned about. Now of course, there is also non-artistic nudity, and if you want to see an example of that, just open Poser and look at the Figures tab in the library. Those little thumbs of Posette etc contain nudity and are not artistic. So if I put something in the RMP that required a Poser screenshot that included those thumbnails, I wouldn't need a warning because the promo image clearly did not contain artistic nudity, although it did contain nudity. Equally, if my promo image was a huge horrible crotch shot (anyone remember the pubic hair prop that was marketed here once?), that would also need no warning because clearly it doesn't contain artistic nudity. What I'm not sure about is why artistic nudity is worse than non-artistic nudity. It must be, otherwise the RMP warning would just say "Promo images 2 & 3 contain nudity" and that would be clear and simple.

I don't mind the warnings. It's just a precaution for those that are more sensitive to nudity. Don't know why but hey, big deal. As for the warning on nuts, the warning is : May contain Peanuts, and this is because some people have serious allergies to peanuts.

Because 2 and 3 might not contain nudity. Maybe 2 does, but 3 doesn't. Or the other way around. "may contain artistic nudity" is easier than "2 contains nudity but 3 is safe." :-)

"and this is because some people have serious allergies to peanuts." I guess people must have serious allergies to nudity too. I wonder how they shower? ;-)

"May contain traces of nuts........"

Hmmmmm.

I can think of some obvious things to say: but that would be too obvious.

Maybe this forum should carry a similar warning. ;)

Maybe this forum should carry a similar warning. ;) Yes, that is along the lines of what I had in mind....... :)

No... we are careful to remove all traces of our passing through here.

teehee!!

So in fact the warning should read:
"Promotional image 2 and/or promotional image 3 may have been created in an environment where nude digital models may have been present, and therefore may (or may not) contain traces of nudity, which may be artistic. Or not."
Seems to cover everything...

Or do you prefer Daz' method? Here you can buy a skin, but you may only see those areas of the body that are considered ok by the MM. I prefer the method used here. I guess it's a trick to be ale to use PayPal after all. No mon, no fun.

Well, there are also questions of what is nudity. Considering how often I had to flip the tag when I had gallery duty, a lot of members here don't know. Is it simply no clothes? In that case, what about those bodyskins which are so tight that they reveal nipples and genital crease? tattoos? all-over body paint? Or perhaps the clothing is transparent enough (Egyptian gauze, elfin veils, wet swim trunks, transluscent spacesuits, armor made of tiny plates with more air than metal) so that the color of the nipples and pubic hair is visible. If you can tell whether or not the man is circumsized or the woman is shaved, it probably should have the "may contain artistic nudity" label. Carolly

Personally, I don't like women with beards/moustaches, so I prefer them shaved. But that's just my opinion. I have no objections to anyone who 's opinion differs... Sorry:-)) (I got impish.) See you all in a few days time (off to see Mother for the festival period..) Cheers, and Merry Xmas, Diolma

It's CYA... "Cover your Arse." If there isn't nudity, fine, great. But it there is, you have been warned before you click the link.

Not even a snidely whiplash type of twiddly moustache? :(

Message edited on: 12/22/2004 17:13

;o) :] Fish

:{o :}o :{)

(just trying out my new moustache, but the ends aren't long enough to wax)

Message edited on: 12/22/2004 17:16

For me, Nudity is easier to define that Artistic. Presumably Artistic nudity is different than gratuitous nudity. I have difficulty telling them apart.

When you look at yourself in the bathroom mirror is that "artistic nudity" or "gratuitous nudity", DaveK?

Message edited on: 12/23/2004 02:58

I can't speak for DaveK, but that would be functional nudity, surely? Artistic or gratuitous nudity requires an audience. :)

Or possibly biological nudity ... we need a classification system.

Looking in the bathroom mirror for me would be "horror nudity" or "scifi nudity" or maybe even "comedy nudity". I did notice the warning label on some of the MP stuff I've eyed up lately but ignored it in the hopes that it would go away.

Message edited on: 12/23/2004 12:08

Phantast: When I look in the mirror, it's more along the Horror lines but I do appreciate feminine beauty. Even under the best circumstances men's bodies are...Ok. Functional. Women on the other hand seem to be made to be appreciated, they are just more ascetically pleasing.

ascetically? or aesthetically? (lol -- sorry, I'm just in a sorta bitchy mood, lol)

Even an ascetic can be aesthetic, Shirley? :)

IOW, her hair shirt is bug-free and the ashes are the finest presifted unbleahed bones-of-warlock?

One would hope so, Bob. And don't call me shirley! Gah!! Damn coffee....

Aesthetically. Can't type sometimes.

No worries DaveK, this was one of the best threads that I've had the pleasure reading in the archives. This one really made me laugh.

I personally perfure my women with natural bodyhair. As for looking at my nude image in the mirror, I try to avoid that as much as possible (for 'esthetical and/or aesthetical reasons', naturally), -the sight usually sends me into a doleful state of melancholy.

Message edited on: 02/26/2006 09:12

There are some people who take serious offense to "public displays of nudity", regardless of the setting. So those nudity warnings are designed to give people fair warning that if they click the link, they may see nudity. It's up to the person then to decide if they want to take the chance. I often wonder how many people who take offense to nudity just look at the first page and base their purchase on that. I also wonder how such people can work with poser considering the figure arrives inside the pose window starkers. For myself nudity doesn't bother me. However, what does bother me are those who use it to make a statement or seek attention such as in gallery images that have twiggy women with basketball sized, gravity defying boobs that under real circumstances would make it impossible for the woman to walk without a construction crane following behind to support her chest. Where I live it's 100% legal for women to go topless, even in the heart of the City. I haven't seen any women exercise that right since there were massive demonstrations and publicity stunts where women paraded themselves, topless, through the City before the laws were changed. Unfortunately some men are total pigs and even though the laws here allow a woman to go completely topless, there are some men who leer and jeer and make crude comments when they see a naked woman. So until "men" grow up a bit more and learn that a woman's chest isn't anymore sexual than their own, I'll keep my top on. However, I'll be one of the first to shuck my top when the male members of our society learn some measure of restraint.

"Presumably Artistic nudity is different than gratuitous nudity. I have difficulty telling them apart." It's simple. "Artistic nudity" is what's seen in art galleries, where the picture/sculptures were created many years ago by a "famous artist", are worth millions, and can therefore be displayed on any very rich pervert's walls ('cos he/she can afford it and anyway, it's an "investment") "Gratuitous nudity" is anything which contains even a hint of genitalia or other erogenous zone created by someone who is still alive, but not yet recognized as a "famous artist" (thus not being able to be create "investments"). (That usually has to wait til they're dead.) And "Pornography" is anything created by anyone who the PTB disapprove of (even if they do look at/watch it in the privacy of their own homes). (Got back from Mother's. Still feeling impish.) Cheers, Diolma

In other words, artistic nudity leaves us feeling'Blah!,' while gratuitous causes all our glands to salivate! To express it another way: Art is boring, and Pornography is fun! Hurrah for Pornography!

:-) @ dphoadley. Although I have to admit I like and admire the majority of the "Old Masters" for their skills! I'm not too interested in much of the recent (post WW2) stuff tho. Seems to me to mostly be created to "shock" rather than showcase skill. Ah, well, that's just me. Others' tastes differ... (Boris V. is OK tho..) :-)) Cheers, Diolma