Ok,everyone that knows me knows I am against child nudity...but I am not against it completely.With me I view it from a pov of necessity...to use restraint and discipline yourself like they do in most other art forms.What has always irritated me are the arguments that its not real or no ones being harmed which to me simply are not valid nor do they even address the issue.I argued that yes you will see child nudity in other forms of art but in most you see it very rarely and when you do its usually only partial nudity because the artists have to judge the necessity of doing a partial or full nude.

Again with me its a matter of discipline and when I've argued that point I've always been attacked for it.Now I don't know about you but doing a full nude of a child to test lights seems unnecessary when you know there are people already opposed to images of child nudity...its almost a slap in the face to such people.Images where the child stands posed like an adult with their legs spread wide open piss me off to no end and claiming its a faery or anime when it does not fit the mold of such things and you're using a product that clearly states its for making images of children...well I felt its cut and dried and you should not do it.

However,I find myself in an adversarial position on this change as I oppose it.The reason why is that you cannot argue that images of nude or partially nude children are not part of art...I never said it wasn't save for when someone may have gotten under my skin and I blew my top.My view has always been that it should be done rarely and with discipline...that you do it only when necessary and that measures be put in place so that when abuses take place you can deal with them.

Other artists opposed me on this and I warned them that the time would come where if they didn't listen and help create guidelines then their right to do any image even hinting at child nudity would be taken from them.That day has come and I am not here to gloat,I am here to voice what I have been saying all along...that poser artists by in large do practice discipline when it comes to child nudity,but some abuse it and even their friends find it uneasy to try to support them.

Circles and black tape disgrace an image and can in and of itself be an attack against the rules established to control certain aspects of art...so I agree with doing away with those.Anime characters have a distinct look that you can define...Aiko 3.0 is the perfect example of an anime style character but so are many of those you see with the big heads and eyes.Problem with anime is making the eyes slightly bigger doesn't make it anime cause anime characters don't look real...its not hard to distinguish anime from child characters,it simply takes educating yourself on a distinct and seperate artform so you understand it before you outright ban it.Faerys are the same as they have always been depicted as waiflike creatures...but most still had either a freakish appearence or their genitals were covered to some degree.

I do not disagree with rositys decision to create strong guidelines in regard to child nudity in 3d and its long overdue...but I think your previous change was strong enough with maybe some tweaking to address any issues that occurred after that.I only have one image of a child like faery and she is partially nude...its the only one I've ever done and may be the only one.I did it with great restraint and discipline because I did it for a reason...the birth of a beautiful child with brittle bone disease.I foresee this image will be removed and if per usual it will be removed before I even get a warning that it needs to be removed by myself or rosity will do it.

I am not contradicting my own stand on this issue...I believe child nudity has its place in art,but my detractors always misunderstood me and thought I was in favor of an outright ban.They saw only that I was against it and even though many ironically had never done a nude child image themselves...they saw fit to attack me for my view that we artists need to practice greater discipline and the sites create rules governing such a concept.Many great artists of modern time like Boris Valejo almost never do images that contain any form of child nudity because it took them years to learn what some of us can do out of the box with poser in a few days...thats what creates discipline and thats why we in the 3d community had this problem.

I will say this again...I do not support this move but for a completely different reason than most.I knew this day could come and tried to get this and other communitys to realise that but nobody wanted to hear it.If you don't act to protect your rights and discipline your own activity then someone else will and you might not only lose some rights...you could lose them altogether.

It won't affect me since I only have one image that seems to fit this catagory and if requested to do so I will remove it myself...but if rosity removes it before giving me appropriate time to remove it myself I will raise unholy hell because it was done with the purest and best motivation of all.I feel the same is true of many artists here and on other communitys...if you are going to make such a radical change that completely takes this issue to the opposite extreme then at least show us the courtesy of letting us remove our own images after being informed so that if they might be the only copy we have then we can salvage it.

You need to take a little more time to digest this decision and make sure you are making the correct choice here...then if you pursue it do so cautiously in order to allow people time to change their gallerys rather than the usual ban then inform.Hope my comments don't offend...but I have always stated that this would be the outcome if we didn't get our act together and others chose instead to attack me because they saw nothing wrong with child nudity and anyone who does is the one they see as sick.

The most sensible statement on this entire issue I have read thus far. Thank you, armorbeast!

AB, you nailed it. I don't have a problem with the TOS either. It doesn't really affect me at all, since I don't do faery pics nor pics with 3d characters that look underage. I don't even have Laura nor Luke nor the preschooler. I do, however, have a problem with how the mods are handling respected members of the community. The new TOS hasn't really changed much. I think they just changed the wording a little and get the community all riled up to cover their recent mishandling of certain members. But then, it's their site, and they make the rules. Now it's just back to business as usual. We'll hear from them again in September. JV

JVRenderer....I do make faerie images. Most of my images are of those wonderful, mystical creatures. And I have been reading about them since I have known how to read. Funny thing, in 99% of those stories, the faeries were small, ageless and unclothed. But, there are people in the world who think this is not the right way to portray them. There are people who think nudity cannot be innocent and pure. And since we are creating images and posting them on a public website that is owned by others, we do have to follow the rules. This saddens me more than anyone will ever know. It's not having to put clothing on characters that look exceptionally young. I do that already. What saddens and angers me at the same time is the way this was brought about. I have some very good friends who are affected by this. Not because of any deliberate intention. But these friends have now been to feel as though they did something intentionally dirty and wrong and even criminal. One friend in particular feels as though she has been accused of a most horrible crime. And because she used a prop for a character that no one had ever made clothes for. This is wrong. These friends and ones like them that had no bad intention when they posted their images and should not be made to feel this way when it was done in innocence. You say this doesn't effect you because you don't use child models? I'm sorry. I disagree. This effects everyone that comes here whether to post, to buy, to sell or to lurk. That is the message Armorbeast is trying to get across.

I didn't really affect me, but If you have read most of the threads concerning this matter, I was defending your interests all the way. I was even agreeing with Armorbeast.

Message edited on: 03/25/2005 02:26

I know you were agreeing with him. I wasn't saying that you weren't. I was trying to get you to see that it effects you simply because you are a member here and therefore part of the package, so to speak. It may not have effected your gallery, but it still effects you and everyone here in that manner. Believe me, I was not trying to say anything against you in anyway or to say that you were not defending my interests. I will also admit that I saw a chance to make a statement about the way the ones who have had to remove images have been made to feel. I'm sorry if you thought otherwise and I really appreciate your defending my interests. Now I have to get myself to sleep. Goodnight.

yes there is child nudity in art. yes there is such a thing as "innocent" child nudity. but unfortunately, not everyone sees that or sees innocent is being harmless anymore. (sad fact of life but true even the most innocuous pose or stance can be seen by some as being titillating) Fae, pixies etc yes. I have said it myself ...are normally naked. but when you have them posing like armorbeast said in a way that there just is no need for...it is no longer innocent. and people get uncomfortable. ( personally I see very little use for child nudity. there are other ways to capture innocence in a Fae other then making them look like 6 year old provocative creatures) Now here is the crux. normally I do not deal with anything remotely underage looking. my big question rides on aiko and xinxin. I just "found" aiko3 so to speak and am in LOVE with her. but she tends even with "mature" morphs to look underage.(breast size does NOT equate over 18) I have worked and worked on her face and adore her. but she looks young. how will aiko 3 be handled? this -will- effect my future postings. if aiko 3 is not allowed nude I would appreciate a clear answer on that. not a "as a mod sees fit to judge" I want a yes or no answer on aiko 3 nudity.(xinxin just looks so so young so I know the answer on that one)

how will aiko 3 be handled?
from what I've been told by the mods, Aiko 3 is no problem as long as she's clothed. I plan on using Aiko again as much as possible, don't care how young she looks, I've invested too much money on these figures to let them go to waste. It's not porn if they are dressed. edited to add: it doesn't matter how young a character looks as long as you dress them so what's the problem? I don't understand the fuss. From what I've been told you can use any character as long as they have shirts and pants on. why do characters have to be nude? It's like the more people are told they can't do something, the more they press the issue. ::shrugs:: Message edited on: 03/25/2005 05:48

Attached Link: http://www.sparkchaser.net/spinner/blather/spinner.html

the thing is ..I do not want to use aiko as a "young" model. I want to use her as a mature model(mature as in age not as in adult material) that is where the quandry comes in. she 'looks' young no matter how I do her face and bod. consequently, if I am doing a piece that is an adult in a nude setting using aiko is a problem. You assume I am using aiko as being a 'underage' model. that is not the case. I have no trouble with the TOS at all. I want to know if aiko as a model used as an adult is or is not a problem due to her appearance. if it is. simply I dont use her here in renderosity. please do not make it out like I am fighting the TOS when I agree with it..ok? as for renderotica..I thought they had a no nudity underage policy too?? how is that encouraging underage nudity???

It isn't.. They have a "No Child Pictures, Period." policy. However, some ignorant person "here" stated in the now closed thread that there is child porn on the site. A thread that was closed before a rebuttal to that slander. Sorry, but that is a lie... Dr. Legume is very good about removing them fast and the members are very good about reporting people that push the policy.

When was it decided that fairys run around naked? I've never understood that. As a writer of long standing, I've never seen fairys depicted in literature naked. As far as naked children, well, a naked 2 year old standing against a counter stretching up to reach a cookie jar is one thing, a naked kid in a porno pose is something else. I think it should come down to each case individually. It becomes rather obvious, at least to me, when something crosses the line. If one is concerned about child porn, trust me, nudity isn't the qualifier. I've seen my share of child porn, and quite a lot of it is of children fully clothed, albeit clothed out of their age range and provocatively posed. So to be SURE, one should prohibit pictures of any children at all, which would be absurd. Anime has a long history of schoolgirl images. Should that be banned too? I happen to prefer women that are small, thin, small breasted. But6 the few times I've tried to portray those women in art I've been accused of doing child porn. Which is amazing since every women I've ever been involved with in my life fit that description and they were far from being children. The cult of big breasts seems to have decided that if a woman is petite and small breasted that automatically means she's 12 years old. Which really pisses me off. I don't really do images of children, but I would like to use the kind of women I personally prefer in my art. I particularly enjoy the models that Thorne makes, and we all know he's long gone from this site over accusations that he was making children. So the big breast cult strikes again.

I don't have anything to add here, but I'm pleased to see you guys are being civil and polite about this. If you want to try to persuade the admins here, this is the way to do it.

What is this...like many of you I haven't posed any child-like nudes..but I respect the rights (and curently laws) protecting children..that is to say a photo or picture of a child can be posted in the nude, as long as they werent't posed payed ect. And now renderosity comes up with a no child rule. Impose unjust BullS*** somewhere else. If someone post a image no one likes get rid of it or ban them don't come up with a harsh rule.

the nude fairy thing comes from the fact that why would something wild, natural and mystical feel the need to cloths themselves? it normally done from wish to cover up.or shame/moral aspect. why on earth would a lil nymph feel the need to cover up? -that- is where that comes from. not from the fact that all fairies by law are nude.

After the ranting PM I just received, I'd say Bonestructure is right on the money.

You have me PM... I will be in contact with the MODs however in regards to this. You are on a campaign and you are supplying a lot of misinformation. It is also against Renderosity TOS to publish those link in the forums. With the exeption of Link #2 which was duly reported today, the rest have been deemed as within TOS and Not children by management. Several of these have been brough to the attention by members of the site and already evaluated. I'm sorry if they offend your sensibilities, however they do not prove your point by a long shot. They certainly prove Bonestructure's though.

The first link has been brought to the Attention of Diane and Doc... Same with the second link..

see that is what i thought. if they had been brought to the attention of the mods it would be checked into. also anime...notorious for them looking forever teen. that I can understand makes people uncomfortable.

You accused me of SLANDER ...and I can't defend myself? really??? I'll just roll over and die than. You win!
I'm totally wrong. So sorry!!

Yes, Renderotica has a policy of no child pictures at all, much less nude child pictures. All reported pictures are handled on a case by case basis, the guidelines for deciding if a picture is a "child or teen", I have no idea. They won't reveal all the criteria because there's always someone who wants to skirt the issue.

Unfortunately, the mods can't always catch every image. Renderotica has a very simple method of reporting images, there's a link at the bottom of every picture to allow you to report for either a TOS violation or for miscategorization. This puts the images in a queue for review. Doc reviews each reported TOS violation personally.

I honestly don't know why Renderotica is brought up EVERY time there's a discussion on child pornography as if it is not only allowed there but a common occurance. I realize we're just "a bunch of perverts" but, honestly, MUST the site get mentioned every single time this topic comes up? ::smiles::

Message edited on: 03/25/2005 15:49

That's right. I stand by what I said because you have admitted to me that you are not familar with the site. SO on the basis of what you perceive, you feel you can judge what the admin has already felt was cleared. In the first case, Myself and other members did speak with Diane and did flag the galleries for Doc to look at. Aside from one image, the gallery was cleared. In the second case, I flagged that one personally for Doc to weigh in on. ~On a personal note, The last image bothers me only because I have no tolerence for blood and bodily fluids physically. This is a reason why my nursing instructor told me in High School I should consider another field.~ So it's either all or nothing, but do not start saying that Renderotica is a haven for pedophiles and not expect someone to step up and defend them either...

Hey everyone - just a couple reminders One - it is against the TOS to post links to Advertising or linking to any publications and/or web sites that are age restricted due to content, and/or pornographic in nature :] Two - please keep the member code of conduct in mind when posting. Members and users are expected to conduct themselves in a manner that is constructive and respectful of others at all times. Additionally, we would hope that each member/user would do their best to facilitate a culture of collaboration and positive reinforcement, so that we can all share our passion for art while realizing our personal ambitions, and developing friendships Dee-Marie

Knowingly spreading disinformation designed to injure a party is slander. I don't know if you knew the facts of Renderotica's TOS, but it's well-known among anyone who has ever gone that child images are completely verboten there. Speaking from ignorance only gets one so far, though, especially when you essentially insult an entire group of people who have done you (or anyone else) harm. Then people who you have just defamed will, indeed, call you on it. If you have a problem with that, choose your battles more wisely in the future. RC Quiet Member of R'otica Non-Pedophile

Oh, and bonestructure, I know. "You like petite women? There's something wrong with you..." Torqued me quite a bit, that did.

sorry Dee, I had only posted those in refrence and shouldnt of. this thread was nice and civil..O.o dont know exactly what happen. Renderotica always has been to my knowledge very prompt on dealing with the matters. that is why i asked if they had been brought to the attention of the admin there. renderotica is not a bad place. not everyones cup of tea but not a bad place. and they usually handle things very responsably.

Oh yes. the petite woman thing. yes everytime I get a very nice delicatly boned slightly oriental looking morph going on aiko that is -not- a underager..she still looks to young. very hard to get this petite delicate look right without it looking underage.

I tend, when someone commens on my taste in women, to call the kind of women I prefer elfish. But really, my taste in women was formed by movies from the 20s and 30s, whan that type od woman was commonly seen. Now those same women are perceived as being 'childlike'. I guess if you're not 50 lbs overweight and don't have huge mutant breasts you're a child.

God forbid you should shave the naughty bits. That automatically makes you 12 years old.

biting my tongue hard Renderotica member & Premier Featured Artist

Since we are coming out of the closet...

I am a mother of a 9yr old aspiring little poser artist (once I get her rig up and running).

My rule of thumb, If it resembles my daughter, then I report it.

My child also has full internet access and an AOL screen name (Under 13 catagory with full parental control enabled). She also knows that mommy is a net geek and does know how to track her footsteps on-line should she not adhere to my rules. Mommy has already removed access for a week for spamming others. Not because someone reported it, but because I supervise her on-line. (Mommy has also busted her uncle the one time he decided to use my machine for his porn... Hes not so picky and has trashed a computer and rang up phone bills by going to not so legit sites.)

I also go by Lilliana and I'm Assoc. Editor for the Renderotica E-Magazine.

I'm not against the TOS revisions here when applied evenly and responsibily. I am against the blantant stereotyping of R'otica as a "safe haven" for peodphiles... Perverts maybe, but we are picky perverts...

=P

Message edited on: 03/25/2005 17:37

How many of you remember seeing parents dragging their kids into public places with shirts on but no pants...and it was almost exclusively just boys?I remember seeing mothers who had sons and daughters like this and their daughters always had pants or diapers but their sons were fully exposed.Around here that stopped only because of decency laws created just to address issues like this because absolutely no one could make any sense of it. I remember growing up seeing images of nude faerys and such in literature as well,but it wasn't widespread and often if it were a realistic depiction it would be reproductions of the same images you might find elsewhere.I myself see nothing wrong with images of that nature so long as the artist employs discipline and the nature of the image is innocence. Let me provide a query here...lets say you have a fantasy character whose body has not aged since childhood but her mind has developed fully into that of an adult.In fantasy you could create such a person and logic would say that she might look like a child,but she would act wholly like an adult and even pursue relationships of a sexual nature.You can envision such a character existing...but it takes discipline not to create sexually explicit images of the character and set a standard by which others would use your work to excuse their own which is not innocently motivated. Thats what I mean about discipline,examine the possible follow up on your work by others...do it only when you cannot find another way and even then the way you pose or set the characters have to be of concern.The reason this issue is important is because you have to get together to establish standards which others can borrow from...standards you make work and that even if some are uneasy with certain works,they nonetheless accept them because most can see the "reasoning" for your vision. Whats important to know is that if you support or oppose images pertaining to child nudity...its not the radicals who should be allowed to set standards,but the majority on both sides finding common ground we can all accept.I think Rosity,DAZ and others would be very interested in seeing the artists themselves conducting dialogue for that purpose...not just saying I see nothing wrong so leave it alone or I think its wholly wrong so do away with it all.I hoped to start such dialogues in the past but feelings among some are clearly divided to the far right or left so it was hard to get things going where we ourselves could set a standard. On my site its easy...get out of line and insult someone and I'll pound ya lol (only one on my site insulting people is me...can't have people stealing my thunder;).We can have such discussions because we kinda have a little family going there.Try to think of yourselves that way...a few cross words here or there but you were respectful to other commentors by in large. You don't have to give a mile to give an inch,you just have to realise we all have the same destination in mind and get there together. I'm proud of you guys for keeping things relatively civil...was afraid I'd come home from work today and find myself roasting on a spit lol.You surprised me and I'm delighted you did...thank you:)

Well, Armorbeast, While you do tend to pontificate, you do have valid points in this matter. ;)

I know what you mean of the 20s and 30s. the lithe art deco comes to mind. willowy lean. kate moss type. I think it also has to do with the look in the eyes. the pink princess picture that looked WAY to young..it wasn't her body it was her face her eyes. and yes I have even an angel in my gallery nude(I better double check that one now come to think of it) because as I said why would something utterly mystical and wild and natural cloth themselves? yes I love the diaphanous cloths and cute cloths. but it is when you get that -look- that it borders. and as I stated in the other thread in this day and age unfortunately even the most innocent picture can spell trouble.when dealing with youths today, playing with AIKO...I finnnnnnnaly have a realistic face on her I am in love with(in truth I like her better then V3 at the moment just disparaging the lack of cloths) and sat, did a test render..and was like bloody 'eck she STILL looks too young. If aiko as a rule will be in a questionable stance being nude even with a realistic morph, I need to know upfront. it will save me and the mods time lol. O.o oh and btw...nothing wrong with a large chest...~nods~ LOL.~pleads the fifth from here on out~

Lol...yeah I do tend to make long comments Natolii but often moreso when I am trying to spark conversation and make people think.You've seen what happens when my thick skin gets a nail shoved through it...my fault for not watching where I was stepping but I did have my reasons as I did see an outright ban coming and was hoping to avert that with civil conversation (danged nails;)

::grins:: No worries. I had other concerns crop up based on this. It seems like people are out to bag R'otica even though Admins are on the job and are doing what they can. I'm a pervert with some morals! =)

I don't care what the TOS says, I'M STILL GONNA POST MY
NAKED PUPPIES,AND KITTEN'S!!
AND THAT INCLUDES BABY CHICKENS TOO!!
Heee hee! I thought I'd inject a little Humour,cause these forums tend to get carried away with heated emotions!
.....BTW,I was just kidding about the chickens...PLEASE DON'T BAN ME!!!..lol!!

Message edited on: 03/26/2005 00:46

"Speaking from ignorance only gets one so far, though, especially when you essentially insult an entire group of people who have done you (or anyone else) harm." - Rowancrisp

No worries Rowan, that post in the other thread at least made up for the lack of basic research skills by being sophomoric and pretentious. ;]

For anyone wondering what us "People from the Dark Side of the Poser" are talking about, Rotica is NOT a haven for any art that falls under Rendo's new ToS:

**Renderotica ToS:

You may not post any images of the following on this website:

CHILDREN

DEPICTION OF CHILDREN OR CREATURES RESEMBLING CHILDREN (INCLUDING IMAGINARY CREATURES SUCH AS FAIRIES) UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE IS STRICTLY FORBIDDEN, EVEN IN NON-EROTIC SITUATIONS.**

As a rule of thumb, make sure that all your models, virtual or real, look clearly over 20. We realize that this is subjective and hard to determine with virtual figures, but we prefer to err on the side of caution in this matter.

PICTURES THAT INCLUDE A TEXT SPECIFYING OR IMPLYING THAT AT LEAST ONE OF THE CHARACTERS IS UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE, OR THAT INCLUDE PROPS AND SCENERY IMPLYING SUCH, ARE FORBIDDEN.

This includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of "teen" anything, high school desks and classrooms and other words and situations implying that one or more of the participants is under 18.

IMPORTANT: In the case of photographs where the age of the model may be in question, please send a copy of all models IDs, or proofs of age, to the moderators PRIOR TO POSTING.

It's an erotica site, one that's intended for adults. We disallow even "innocent" images containing children because of the rest of our content. They clash with the decor.

Don't do it. If Legume doesn't land on you, Diane or I will.
It won't be pretty.

It's a good idea to actually read the terms of service on whatever site you're posting at [or talking about]. You can save yourself headaches that way. ;)

• Ironbear
  DTG Studios/Renderotica Admin

"I honestly don't know why Renderotica is brought up EVERY time there's a discussion on child pornography " Easy answer, just because those idiots are in a crusade against the work of the Devil! Did you knew that Disney was censured?. The original faeries of the movie Fantasia were nude!, he must have been a paedophile and follower of Satan.....

i think rules like this are just ridiculous..i have posted here for years now and havent seen anyone abuse images with children..it is always the lookers who seem to make it dirty..i have close to 100 images that break these new rules in my gallery and not a single one puts children in a bad light..i am a father of 4 children and yes i respect their inoscense..but i dont want to teach them that sex is dirty when it is one of the most beautiful things there is.and if its because someone is getting off on these images,well people get off on shoes..will we ban them next? also i now see alot of people asking were we will be posting and shopping next...seriously...renderosity should listen cuz some of the finest artists here are looking.

What about posting images of the great masters from the past? If someone posted one of Michelangelo's pics with a nude cherub or whatever they are would that image be removed? That poster be banned? Where is the line to be drawn? Are we even allowed to have our own opinions here at Renderosity or will we be banned for that? I suppose what I'm asking is "If we voice our opinions" will we be banned and ostracized as kiddie porn peddlers who have no business on the site? I dispise kiddie porn (never ever seen any) and the entire concept of it, but In my opinion the TOS is too extreme and unforgiving in it's enforcement.

"It's a good idea to actually read the terms of service on whatever site you're posting at [or talking about]. You can save yourself headaches that way. ;)" Makes sense IB, but what about those that can't read? :) " You accused me of SLANDER ...and I can't defend myself? really??? I'll just roll over and die than" Promise?

DE: "also anime...notorious for them looking forever teen. that I can understand makes people uncomfortable." Er... my understanding is that the Japanese see the characters in anime as typically 5-10 years older than the Westerners do.

I never saw anime as children, kids, preteen, etc, for me are only personages with their respective style and action. Well..., I don't go to church and so, my eyes are different.

I would think when you consider where Anime comes from(Japan) that might explain the style of figures in anime. Many Japanese women ARE petite, thinner, and small breasted. Stands to reason their art would reflect that, yes?

Precisely, Spirit.

And one of the images that was previously linked to was a Hentai (Adult Anime) strip.

I just find it kind of ironic that the person that was throwing the dirt and claiming to support R'osity TOS broke it by posting the links. If the person kept it to Private messages that's fine but this was over the line completely.

This is one matter where I completely agree with Kawecki ;)

(Thank you to the Mods for removing them, too many youngsters around here we don't want having quick access to the site)

It's all or nothing...

Message edited on: 03/26/2005 14:52

It doesn't surprise me Nat :) I could say more, but would get banned. So suffice to say, lets hope you set the record straight for those that will listen, and those that won't aren't important anyway :)

typically allot of people take hentai/anime/manga as being of teens or younger. I know that Japanese culture sees it differently.(and I agree normally Japanese woman are more petite and delicate then western woman. also have the features which tend to look younger longer. but generally speaking large round wide eyes and small mouth larger head tend to denote youth. that is why it is often taken as being teen or younger) the site though, is American based. the cultural differences here usually do not equal out. as stated in the other thread about Europeans that see naked kids on the beach and think nothing of it. or cultures that still have "child brides"(though if I remember correctly the child bride is not allowed sexual intercourse till she hits her first menstruation) there are many many views on child nudity and how Innocent or not it is. the TOS is -very- conservative(heck I even asked a mod if one of my pics was ok to be safe) just because Rendo is saying no nudity on children..doesnt mean the old masters aren't works of art. means they cant be posted here. not all "art" can be posted or even accepted everywhere. that is a fact, not pleasant all the time, but fact.

Surely Kismet_Queen had more than one post ? I can understand rendo deleting part of K_Q's initial post, but weren't there more than two ? And will rendo at some point get the goddamned courtesy to at least insert a note a post has been pulled ? I actually popped by to comment to K_Q to the rotica links post: In the last image linked to, there is a post that made my freak radar go ping! - not on the pedo front, but on the generic "boy, you've got ISSUES, kid" front. How come someone like the K_Q gets her knickers in a twist over reasonably innocent hentai/anime figures, but can seemingly read some fairly violent stuff against women without having a single shitfit ? I'm not talking consentual BDSM of any sort here, btw, and yes, I know statements and images like that are within 'rotica ToS, and I am not attacking it, or judging it: Just pointing something out to K_Q, should she still lurk the thread. Not that I feel it'd make a difference, but I just wanted to ask... ~S

Cherubs have very often been depicted as nude chubby little boys with wings. Many a religous scene contains such cherubs. I can't for the life of me find anything immoral in such an image. I have never seen a dressed Cupid anywhere. Why should Hellenistic mythical scenes involving Cupid be banned? I can imagine 'rosity will not allow Hermes images - according to Greek mythology one of his attributes was a permanent erection. But a harmless Cupid? Fairies, dryads, nymphs and the like are supposed to be creatures of nature. The only species that has managed to loosen the ties to nature is homo sapiens. It is also the only species that is wearing clothes. I won't say that wearing clothes is unnatural - I'm not a hardcore nudist LOL - but I can't see why a spirit of nature would ever bother itself with the concept of clothing. A father or mother bathing a toddler. Just a sweet family picture. Again, I can't see anything immoral here. All this would be prohibited by the new TOS. But what do these new TOS accomplish? Do they prevent "stroke material" for paedophiles to be posted? Not at all, see spinner's article. In short, these new TOS do not accomplish anything constructive at all. But they do limit the creativity of a lot of very fine artists. I second Armorbeast. The responsibility should lie with the artists themselves. Only a few of them don't handle this responsibility in a mature way. Those few can get their butts kicked into low orbit for my part. Establishing a draconic over the top rule to get a sort of "legal handle" is unnecessary and counterproductive. After all, the TOS already have a catch-all clause. Using that catch-all clause wisely is a responsibility of the moderators. We will have to trust them to act responsibly. I can even read these new TOS as a sign of distrust towards the mods - aren't they capable of distinguishing between innocent images and unsavory material? In my opinion the 'rosity team is very well capable to do the right thing without having every little thing outlined by the rules. Steven.