I had a rebuttal for Andy_K, but in respect to not get this thread locked, I deleted it out of this message. I've been thinking about this and reading the threads and I'm convinced at this point that it's not about pedophiles coming here to get their jollies by looking through the galleries for nude faeries. It's a matter of context. Most would agree that the Vicky art would be considered risque enough for Playboy or even a calendar pinup. Imagine if in that Playboy, you saw a lot of naked children running around playing in the sand, whatever, next to the pinup women? There would be a major uprising and Playboy would be forced out of business. I think the same thing applies here. It's not the context of the individual picture (no matter how innocent) as much as it is the association by which it resides. If I was not an artist and came to Renderosity, I'd have to wonder about this, and if someone was zealous enough, could force the issue into shutting Rosity down. Good of the community doesn't have to mean artistic freedom, as much as having a community to go to. Many are already uncomfortable with child nudity and the added context is enough to drive some people to these conclusions. So what is Rosity supposed to do? We don't know, maybe there is already been a formal complaint against them. It seems to me that it is in the best interest of the community that the community stay in business, albeit at the risk of losing some freedoms. While I can't see the male shirtless and diapered babies part of the rule, I understand why this was necessary.

My 2c
ShadowWind

Message edited on: 03/22/2005 12:45