This is a link to a Raphael painting at the National Gallery. In case you missed that day at Day Care, Raphael (1483 - 1520) was one of the most famous Renaissance artists, so famous, in fact, he was known by a single name. You will note that this picture would be banned by RO under the absurd child nudity rules. http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/cgi-bin/WebObjects.dll/CollectionPublisher.woa/wa/work?workNumber=NG744 While none of us want child porn to be displayed ANYWHERE, there is a point where rules become nothing more than a blantant flag of how up tight and ignorant we, as a community, have allowed ourselves to become. While The Madonna and Baby Jesus are BANNED at RO, it is totally OK for pictures that are so blatently obscene to be displayed merely because a V3 appears to be over 18! BTW, V3 is barely over 2 years old I believe...ok, I'd have to check the DAZ website to be sure, but she was born not that long ago. If this doesn't seem like a skit from Monty Python to you, as it does to me, you deserve RO's absurd rules limiting your art and creativity. Rules for child pornography that include some of the oldest and finest paintings known to the human race! I am ashamed to be a memeber of such a community. I am aghast.

To ankhheehisi, ashamed and aghast, who won't be hangin round here anymore. The reason why so much gets taken away around here is because too many members here make such a big friggen ruckus and song and dance about the smallest little doodoos and get upset about the tinyest little hangnails; this new TOS, big deal, so what if you can't render naked kids and display dancing nude fairies, look upon it as a challenge to do something else. Now, if this place ever happens to ban half naked Vickie's with enormous boob morphs and swords by temples, then you'd have something to really gripe about because that would take away half the artists and the merchants major bloodflow would be gone! Can you imagine?

While The Madonna and Baby Jesus are BANNED at RO, it is totally OK for pictures that are so blatently obscene to be displayed merely because a V3 appears to be over 18! FYI: V3 IS over the age of 18. The same rules/TOS applies to all figures. I use V3. If you made V3 look like she's underage, and that goes for any 'character', & naked/half naked then it will be a child TOS violation. Doesn't matter if she was created a year ago or even two years ago it all depends on how she is rendered, you can make V3 young as long as she is fully clothed. You can have children in your artwork, just with pants & shirts on.

Victoria 3 is based on a Real Life female who happens to be over 18...

I want to see these people who complain about the nudity rules take their naked kids to grocery store. That would be fun to watch. ;-)

ok I seriously doubt Raphael will be trying to post here for one, two I do not think the art gallery shall be posting it here so no worries with the TOS there either. no one is saying it is not art or it is not beautiful. they are saying -because of the sites TOS (due to many factors) they are not going to allow the child nudity on their site- not a hard concept really. I swear it is not. it will not kill you. it will not destroy your life. it will not destroy your income. it will not destroy your world. Heck I wont post my aiko renders here frankly not because they are obscene but because the TOS states nothing looking under a certain age can have nudity. so, to be safe I don't post the aiko.(she just looks young to me. so to be safe instead of geting anyones pannies in a bunch I just dont do it) see, I am still alive, breathing, typing, my work still goes on, the world didn't come to a grinding halt. (and I am one FOR nudity) Seriously, anyone using a old masters painting to argue about the TOS needs to step back abit. trust me none of the old masters post here. this is not a museum. the modanna and child are NOT the same as a pre-pubescent nude girl running around in Fae wings. Also no. I hate to break this to some, Civil rights are not being violated either. and I seriously think it is sad that anyone would scream that. go live in a country where wearing the wrong thing can get you killed before you come crying about not being able to post a picture on a gallery. Get a grip people.

Naked kids are not allowed at grocery stores?

Message edited on: 04/07/2005 13:47

Naked kids are not allowed at grocery stores? Hope not, the young ones would poop all over the place without a diaper on.

Child nudity enthusiasts don't persuade or convince anyone by using these same, tired, irrelevant arguments again and again. Child nudity enthusiasts don't persuade or convince anyone by trying to use shame and intimidation to get their way. But because child nudity enthusiasts have learned that those tactics are effective in forcing children to do their wishes, it's always necessary to remind child nudity enthusiasts that these tactics don't work with adults. Just to answer the question, this site is for original artwork, not for ripoffs, scans, photos of old masters. If we want to see the old masters' works, we can go to the sites where they're on display, so it's extremely counter-productive for child nudity enthusiasts to drag the old masters' names through the dirt again and again. Think up some valid arguments, and maybe the site management will listen. In the meantime, be of good cheer, since there are still one or two sites where child nudity enthusiasts can post their work to the admiring comments of the "amen chorus".

Can child nudity be done tastefully? Yes. Does Renderosity want to spend hours writing and revising a TOS spelling out how child nudity can and can't be used? No. Did the peddlers of child nudity post blatantly erotic renders of children on this site? Yes. Do I miss seeing child like fairies, nymphs, anime, etc, etc, in erotic poses being semi clothed or nude? No. Do I miss tastefully done child nudity? Not really, there wasn't that much to begin with. Its about time RO did something about the portrayers of child eroticism. If it takes a blanket statement in TOS so be it. Also I consider comparisons to child nudity here with Renaissance masters like Rafael short of blasphemy.

"Just to answer the question, this site is for original artwork, not for ripoffs, scans, photos of old masters."

Are you sure?, if so why the photography gallery is not removed?
I usually browse the architecture and medieval section and what can see are buildings that are not an original work builded by whom has posted the photograph, statues, paintings, sculptures that are not also an original artwork of the photographer.

I don't see "Child nudity enthusiasts", what can I see is perverted and sick persons that are only able to see peversion in any child image.
A normal person when see a nude faerie only see a mythological/mystic/legendary creature.
A sick and perverted person when see a nude faerie he see a pedophilic nude child image and screams that this image must be banned.
More he screams, more his need to hide what he really is.

Message edited on: 04/07/2005 16:30

I dont understand why people dont just go "Fairywylde" or the many othersites where their "kind" congregate. re-arguing this issue every week at rosity is a pointless excercise its a BIG internet!!! go show your nekkid littlle girls "faes' or whatever the latest cover story is elsewhere ;-/

kawecki, please read bessmertni post. yes child nudity can be done tastefully and innocently. no one is saying it is not. it is the "other work" that has caused the concern. unfortunatly it requires at this time a blanket TOS. not everyone that is agreeing with the TOS is saying all child nudity is bad or perverted. we are saying it is the TOS now and that is that.

.

.

again...Look around a different sites TOS regarding this issue...I don't think you will see a huge difference.. Then again..I'm primarily a Landscape artist... :-)

pushinfaders, Watch out, someone with a foot fetish will look at golden foothills and get all slobbery... and those barbed-wire fences? (be still, my undead heart!) And everybody knows that water stands for sex. It doesn't need to be a symbolist landscape, the landscape itself is symbol enough! :whistling innocently while setting up a tripod: Carolly

.

FYI: V3 IS over the age of 18. V3 is a mesh. She's only a couple of years old. She appears to be over 18 because she looks like an amazon, but you know what? SP is based on the same mesh, and so are Luke an Laura and also Maddie and Matt. As for the rest of this thread, there's no point arguing logic or history or anything else. The admins were stung by someone complaining too loudly and they slapped a more restrictive but more clearly worded TOS in place as a result. No amount of references to Raphael or da Vinci or anyone else will change matters. bonni

.

*And everybody knows that water stands for sex. It doesn't need to be a symbolist landscape, the landscape itself is symbol enough!*Well i never looked at a "reflective spheres over water" like that, that may explain why the Bryce-H20 is full of them O_o

Most people wouldn't even know what a mesh is. They just go by what they see in the image that is created from that mesh. They look at the image and see a person, place or thing, they don't look at it and say gosh, that isn't a real person, it's a 3D model made out of a mesh. :)

• Which were the reasons why the masters of the rennassaince have used nude childs in their art? - What have changed today? - Which concepts has been subverted? Once you find the answers you will be able to understand many things.

I have never posted any child nudity images, nor have I posted any adult nudity images, it's not for me but I never saw anything on here that could be considered indecent when it comes to the younger models. I've seen a lot worse sexual images depicting bondage and violence but that's okay because those models are over 18, I guess.

Most people wouldn't even know what a mesh is. Most people at Renderosity do. ;-) bonni

Locking this thread....Continuing to rehash this topic over and over again is only moving members to attack each other. Stacey Community Manager

You forgot to lock it...