Recently in reading quite a few of these posts I have discovered that there seems to be a problem with nudity, sexuality, what age is appropriate for a render to be posted here and who it offends.

When did the art community start censoring art. I fully understand the need for rules and regs but I also feel that some of this has been taken a bit far. Fae are Fae and always look young....that seems to be their appeal... and by the way are usualy scantilly clad or unclothed....please check any art books on the matter....and when did we start judging sexual preferance because somes child might see it?

I have a suggestion for the communitiy at large....open a sister site where these things will not be a problem and can be posted without the type of censorship i am seeing here. So what if Vickie looks to someone else as if she is young when she is really an old (350 years or so fae)these would be the people who dont know much about the fantasy genre.....and who cares if there are 2 male or female characters hugging(which to all i can see, seems more acceptable) as long as they are not preforming lewd acts and are fully or partially clothed. To conclude, my gripe here is that, once again, as i have mentioned before, art is art and your preferance is your own. Please either do not try to impose your sensibilities on others or at least be a little more open minded and see these things for what they are and not what your mind imagines is offensive.

Recently in reading quite a few of these posts I have discovered that there seems to be a problem with nudity, sexuality, what age is appropriate for a render to be posted here and who it offends. The problem is not with nudity and sexuality (if that was the case the galleries would be nearly empty). The issue seems to be centered around Paypal's restrictions on what is and is not proper, and being that Renderosity lets people purchase things with Paypal they have to abide by the rules. No underage nudity. At least, that was my impression of it when it came up in threads a few months back. http://www.renderosity.com/messages.ez?Form.ShowMessage=2006407 http://www.renderosity.com/messages.ez?Form.ShowMessage=2006568 Personally, I think it's gone to an extreme, but there isn't much that can be done about it at this point.

I have a suggestion for the communitiy at large....open a sister site where these things will not be a problem... I would suggest that those needs are already well-served by Renderotica (for images of a more sexual nature) and FaerieWylde; Renderosity has no intention at this time of launching sites in either of those fields. Of course, there's nothing to stop you or anyone else doing so if they choose :-) Karen Poser Mod

This most recent crack down is due to something else. Do a search in this forum for Heart'Song (or Heartsong or HeartSong) and you'll get a better idea. Basically, some images were removed, the admins didn't follow up on the mail they sent with the warnings (the messages were sent from private addresses and got lost in the user's spam trap), the user got banned, a large stink was raised, the TOS was changed, and now they're deleting clothed V3 figures on the grounds that they're secretly naked children. bonni

To Karen...i would if i could...at this moment in time i do not have the resources to launch such a page...but in the future i may very well take up on that suggestion :) And to Deecey.....i agree the whole thing has been taken to an extream....thats what made me begain this post....i was so irritated by what i was reading, and that artworks were seemingly censored on the basis of opinion of what was acceptable and what was not that i just blew a gasket.....after all no one censored the "masters" art works and quite a few are of nudes, some very young nudes to say the least...but if it is paypal requesting the restrictions then i apologise to the renderosity moderators....i am grinching at the wrong people.....the rathar puritanical attitude that is being spoon fed to the public and restricting creativity at every turn is just irritating.....i do not believe children should be seen as sexual objects or that women should be hasseled or raped or forced into a situation they do not want or for that matter any thing to the effect....i just believe the morality that is being spoon fed to the public, the whole 'whats acceptable and whats not, the sexual harassment in the work place or anywhere else has been taken to the extream. And if people do not want the under age seeing what ever it is their parents feel is offensive then the parents should be the ones responsible for restricting access not the artists(of all types,movies,tv internet ect)who created it. I just feel very strongly that handling these types of issues has been taken too far. In trying to protect the innocent (as the saying goes) we have also caged our creativity, narrowed our minds, and in some cases negated the very essence of the nature of what we are as humans. I will attempt to get off my soap box now...this is just one of my biggest pet peeves and i really hate to see a wonderful artist community like this one fall prey to it. and lastly but not leastly...to bonni...i will do a search on that artical and see whats up....but i warn you all...me and my soap box may be back...lol....i am a very opionated person..as i am sure you all can tell....and sometimes i hope all of my ranting and raving will get through to people who understand and maybe..just maybe...be able to effect a change for the better.

I would suggest that those needs are already well-served by Renderotica (for images of a more sexual nature) and FaerieWylde This is a very good point. There's also RaunchyMinds, which has a really pleasant forum community and the site design is much, much more work-friendly (although the gallery isn't ;-). Also note that while Faeriewylde does allow non-sexual nudity in persons who appear to be underage, they definitely do police the boards and they have and will delete inappropriate images. The key is that any nudity must be non-sexual (unless it involves persons who are obviously adult, and even then there are definitely limits). I only mention that because people often say "Ooooh, nekkid children, woohoo!" and that's not quite the case... ;-) bonni

One other thing i forgot to say, i am more offended by the reality show violence that i see on tv's cop's type shows and the news that i am any of this other stuff...but i have no control over that and have no desire to force my ideals on the producers of it...as i have said many times before...if you dont like it, change the "channel" dont look at it. oh by the way, Karen, i neglected to say that i should be griping and grinching at the pay pal people not you guys, if that is one of the issues at hand.....:)

The key is that any nudity must be non-sexual (unless it involves persons who are obviously adult, and even then there are definitely limits). For once all i have to say to that bonni is Amen to that. That is the way (in my opinion) it should be.

Trinity7, actually, the 'masters' artwork was routinely censored in one way or another. Sistine Chapel - see addition of whispy cloth on Michaelangelo's figures' 'private parts'. Leonardo DaVinci's human dissections (and sketches thereof) raised the ire of the church on several occasions. One of the reasons that he wrote in a backwards using a mirror to conceal his notes. AshCroft and the statues of the US Justice Department. And of course, artworks from various civilizations has been ravaged, destroyed, defaced for various reasons: Napoleonic soldiers target practicing on the Great Sphinx, Taliban eradication of all Buddhist art and sculpture, and so on. Even today, many museums receive warranted or unwarranted complaints about exhibits which are removed in some cases. My view on Renderosity is that it seems to be moving more towards a commercial site and less of an art gallery. There are plenty of other venues. :)

This TOPIC is the forum version of the Energizer Bunny.

And it's getting to be just about as irritating.

As has been pointed out, there are other sites to post on......so why spend so much time sweating/fuming over the policies around here?

If Renderosity chooses to do things in a certain way: then I feel safe in saying that the prime concern for them has to do with business issues.

Big deal. This isn't some sort of Nazi conspiracy against anyone's artistic freedom.

It's just a pragmatic decision based upon the effect that it will have on the business end of things -- no more, no less.

If I owned this business, then I'd be doing the same thing. If it helped me to grow the site and increase cash flow, then I'd go for it. And I'd simply weather the fallout from some.

Purist ideology tends to get in the way of making money.

Sure -- it's easy to be ideologically pure. Until it's an issue of your back pocket. At that point, most people tend to forget ideology.

For some strange reason.

Good night, folks. Have fun.

My advice would be to forget this tempest in a teapot here -- and then go post your stuff at the sites which are geared for it.

If you want to post something in the gallery here -- then make it something that you know will pass the gallery litmus test at this site. It really isn't very hard to figure out what they'll accept.

Attempting to do anything else as some sort of a feeble "protest" is just wasting both your time and theirs.

Message edited on: 04/25/2005 03:04

Paypal doesn't care about sexual preference. Just if anyone else is under that impression.
http://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=p/gen/ua/use/index_frame-outside&ed=mature

Some people still think gay is a fetish. So I expect misjudgements now and then.

I always found Thornes faeries quite tasteful. No latex or anything. Just like you would expect fearies to look. I don't always like the snide way some people refer to Thorne and Renderotica. They are often disrespected in subtle ways not so subtle.

I look at it like this: Rendo is a store. All the other features just draw traffic. They can do what they want though we may not like it or see the sense in it.

Karen wrote-"I would suggest that those needs are already well-served by Renderotica (for images of a more sexual nature) and FaerieWylde"

In fairness, rendo sell fearies and bondage though. I guess those needs aren't met. Just joking.

Favorite funny and imature Marketplace search words:
Marital Aid
Don't touch me ever
Really big boobs
naughty nuns
A big thick piece of meat (steak I am assuming)
Devil's bitch

and even...
Anton Kisiel
(on stuff I have no connection too?)

All valid search terms. The engine finds em. I swear the search engine is like the DaVinci code.

Message edited on: 04/25/2005 03:13

ok...xenophonz.....i understand your gripe but....i posted here because i read it here....i have already made my apologies to renderosity about the 'who i should be upset with issue'...this tea pot will only stop boiling when these type of things stop occuring and the artists to whom these things are happing no longer post thier displeasures about it. i understand that this is a finantial decision on the part of the renderosity owners....which is why i said to karen that i am griping at the wrong people. and to kuroyume0161, i will have to do some more research on this...thanx for the info. i never knew they covered up the 'offending' parts on the paintings of michelangelo

Thanks for the kind words about RM, Bonni. :)

oh yeah one last thing....i am just stating an opinion here...a rathar strong opinion i admit, but an opinion all the same...after all thats part...and i do mean PART.. of what the forums are for arn't they.

Considered going with a merchant account besides paypal? There are lots of alternatives out there...

go post your stuff at the sites which are geared for it I completely agree. I also believe that if enough people who are dismayed by R'sity's policies will just go elsewhere, eventually R'sity will feel the pinch. Hit them in the pocketbook, folks, that's the only thing they really care about around here. As for me, I don't care one way or the other. I do all kinds of art, from completely Disneyfied through erotic, including fairies. I post the images where I know they'll be appreciated and where they'll be welcome, and if that's not R'sity, well, it's R'sity's loss. shrug bonni

Ohmy ... I cant believe its true ... the same old story again ... :sitting with a popcorn tub: (please, at least when the insults begin, be a lilcreative, last time I cried with XENOPHONZ and IDONTREMEMBERWHO, I was ROLF)

We don't need a tub of popcorn... we need a full concession stand and convenient bathrooms and nice place to sit while watching the fireworks. However, I agree with XENOPHONZ and Casette that this topic is tired enough... if you mow the lawn too often in the same pattern you end up with bald spots, and hard-packed ground from the constant trampling. I am amused that the person starting this thread has plenty of advice for others: start a new site, etc.. but has no intention of following it herself. That would actually take effort. Carolly

Attached Link: Faeries are evil!

The link leads to a 404 now. bonni

Attached Link: Faeries Are Evil

Well that didn't work. Sorry, but I'm reposting Kawecki's post exactly. For those of you that had problems, I'm sorry, but the link doesn't work, for some reason sigh *************************************** Kawecki's Post Attached Link: Link Faeries are evil! http://www.yahoo.com/_ylh=X3oDMTEwdnZjMjFhBF9TAzI3MTYxNDkEdGVzdAMwBHRtcGwDaW5kZXgtY3Nz/s/237394

Folks, when you go to Renderotica, do realize there are two things that will get you banned so fast you won't have time to cry about it in forums...

Images with children and beastality...

Images with Children is easily summed up by saying, no image with anyone that resembles a child (Under 18); Non-sexual or otherwise. If it has a child, it's deleted... If it is questionable, then the moderator in charge of enforcing TOS makes final call.

Beastality is plainly put as sex between a human and an animal that exists in today's world. I don't care if it is a masterpiece on Leda and the Swan, if the swan is someplace that a swan wouldn't normally go, then it is deleted. (The previous example has been attempted, then the artist attempted to argue that her countries law allowed it. Sorry, in a court of law the Laws of the US and the State of California apply).

Barring the above pictures, any type of Festish is allowed. If you are looking for a more family friendly site, also check out www.animotions.com. The different is that Animotions is a smut-free zone.

So a word of caution to the moderators when referring people over to Renderotica. Please keep in mind that we do have a TOS which prohibits the two above mentioned activities. Anyone that wishes to break either rule then attempt to argue it away like we see here will get told "There's the door, use it."

Sorry to be so blunt, but I do wish people would stop trying to test the limits on the site. We don't need for some over-zealous moron to get the site shutdown because there is an idiot out there (in general) that wants to test the rules. As for the continued protests over Renderosity's TOS and limiting and artist's right... I'm sure alot of mods would love to say, "There's the door, Use it." The point I am making here is that this is a "PRIVATELY OWNED BUSINESS." If you don't like the rules, use the door.

Message edited on: 04/25/2005 07:16

Only a comment: each thing in each place and each TOS

If you draw explicit sex, go to Renderotica

If you draw bestiality, go to EroticIllusions

If you draw nude faeries under 18, go to deviantArt

If you want to post these things here, sorry, you cant

Boring pic. Carolly, do you wanna dance? A waltz?

;) And an edition: I dont like the prohibition of nude faeries here. But to chew the topic until The End Of The Days kill me, aaahung ... =O=

Message edited on: 04/25/2005 07:25

I really don't understand the narrow minded mentality to insists on grouping fantasy fae images with "child pornography". Seeing as how it was my image that started this whole mess then let me state once again; My Victoria3 image was (and still is) that of a 350 year old faerie, she has breast of that of an 18+ year, yha sure it's been pointed out that some members here have children under age who don't look under age but that doesn't mean that EVERY female figure with breast is 'under age'. As for all the crude about "head/hands/feet proportions" - Then WAKE UP, she was made with the VICTORIA FIGURE and WITHOUT altering her 'head/hands/feet proportions' at all, only some tweaks to hear facial features and ears and narrowing her figure - "proportions" mentioned were Not touched. As for stating that I attempted to 'put a faerie texture on a child and pass it off as an adult' and 'attempted to insult the mentality of the whole community' - BHA! those who stated such insulted the mentality of this community! Perelandra is a normal texture and not any such "faerie texture"....just goes to show that those doing all the screaming around here have their heads buried in the sand and will say anything to support their own private witch hunt to get the masses to rally around them. Hey, lets just tie all the artists to a big rock and throw them in the river, if they float then they are pornographers and we will burn them at the stake, but if they sink and drown then they will be allowed to stay.... oh well, I hadn't spent a dime in the MP here for nearly two years due to past garbage that keeps springing up...and it was only about a month ago that I stepped back into the MP...now I'll have that much cash to go elsewhere once again. If I was a "pornographer" then I could see a point being made, but since I am not then I fail to see the persecution that the minority here wishes to impose on the community...and the merchants in the store :? (oh, and I do buy, just look at my purchase records at DAZ and RDNA) But I do see it funny that when the moderators where unable to support their own decisions and actually began hurting their own points in the last thread, it got locked so fast...

igohigh - All of your questions were answered. You kept asking the same question over and over. It DOES NOT matter what model is used. If the end result is an image where the model APPEARS under 18 and is nude, it is in violation of our TOS. If you have problems with that, either IM one of us, or feel free to email admin@renderosity.com MorriganShadow Poser Coord.

Complaints here are not only about faeries either...in the past there have been great debates about: Pin-Ups, Fantasy of all types, images that protray recent movie releases, cartoon characters (Koshini, Akio, etc), complaints about "amatures", and even complaints about 'portrait' makers. So lets see, what does that leave that aceptable for the gallery? Oh, I see, one mod wrote that I should IM a moderator and let them determine if my image is acceptable for the gallery. Now I get it, the 'community's gallery' if for only "moderator approved" stuff, it's no longer an 'Art Gallery' but strickly a "Moderator's Approved Gallery" now. No, I am not defending 'child porn' or 'porn' of any type, I am only defending "Art". Something that fewer and fewer people here at Renderostiy seem to know anything about any more. MorrganShadow wrote: "or feel free to email admin@renderosity.com" I did, as a matter of fact I cc'ed Tim, Spike, ClintH, and JeffH. I just wanted to find out if this is still an "art comminity" or if it's just become some little 'moderator click'. -goodbye!

You are not understanding, igohigh. IF there may possibly be any question about a render you (or anyone else, in fact) plan to upload to the gallery, if one asks a Mod or Coordinator to preview it, we can give one an answer BEFORE one uploads it. That way, there is no question once it is in the gallery. Personally, I like your image. HOWEVER, it is in violation of our current TOS. Personal preference does not override the TOS. Some people whom I consider friends have had to remove their images from the galleries here due to the updated TOS. We ALL are obliged to follow it with every post we make and ever image we upload. Unfortunately, we do not catch every image that is uploaded. If any member finds an image that they find offensive, or that they feel violates the TOS, feel free to send us an IM. We will review it. That is NOT a guarantee that it will be removed. MorriganShadow Poser Coord.

Carolly, dance with me, please :)

Everyone keeps saying that IF it doesn't fit the TOS, then go post elsewhere. I was unaware that faereiwylde had a gallery. Faeries don't seem to belong at Rotica. My biggest problem is that the TOS is ambiguous and vague. If it don't look 18 then.....well, I've seen 14 year olds (I've got one of them) that could pass for 20 with the right make up and clothes and I myself got carded to see a rated R movie last month...and I'm 32 (17 to see rated R without a parent). What I'm saying is that the system is really vague. It's hard to determine what is allowed and what isn't.

Hi, Kristta, If you feel that there could possibly be any question regarding your image, feel free to IM either myself or any of the rest of the Poser team, and we will review it as a team. I want to clarify, that the TOS does not ban fantasy images and/or faeries. We still have both categories in the galleries. We just ask that you read the TOS (if you have any questions, we will gladly answer them to the best of our ability), and post responsibly. Nothing more. We are not saying that you cannot create images with what appears to be underage nudity, only that it cannot be posted here. MorriganShadow Poser Coord.

igohigh - I know you for a good guy and I make no judgements here. Child nudity does not necessarily equate with child pornography and I don't think RO are even implying that's the case. Unfortunately, naked children are going to be a subject of contention because for every innocent minded viewer there is always going to be some other type whipping his skippy to pics - virtual or real - of 'em. RO, AFAIK, have decided to go this route to avoid any possible comebacks. This is, IMO, a very sensible approach, because at least they can say - regardless of the fact that we're dealing with mesh and not real live humans - the models appear to be at or above the age of consent, thereby avoiding - in any way - accusations of promoting or otherwise furthering paedophilia. In any case, there are weird types who get off on catalogue pictures of children in underwear and swimwear. Should they ban those, too? Well, maybe that will come and there could be a time when all images of children are banned here. I don't think it will happen because at least RO can then say "At least they are decently clothed". Example being, if they were called to defend themselves in court, which would go over better with the jury - pictures of naked kids or pictures of clothed kids? Remember, we're dealing with emotions and Joe Sixpack, not reasoned argument. I don't blame RO for doing this - I blame the predatory scumbags who took away innocence. Oh yeah, pass the popcorn.

I suddenly had a mental image of a person hitting a jar of peanut butter with a belt. I guess that would fall in the violence category and would be banned as well. 8-) I wonder where the notion came that fairies had to look young? While I realize that Thorne's wonderful work (I love it too!) is a big influence in the Poser community, there are other ways to depict fairies. For example, if you look at Brian Froud's art (he is perhaps the most well-known fairy artist of them all) he depicts his fairies as varying in age, and also varying in clothing or lack of it. Also, the bodies have a style that indicates that they are "fantasy" creatures ... you often see Froud's fairies with elongated bodies and limbs and faces that are more caricature in style. Perhaps if those who like fairy art can "think outside of the box" a little bit, a genre of fairy art that is acceptable to all can be established while still remaining within the TOS.

Strange things with the Yahoo links, what I can see are two differents links to the same page. One link is what I've used and is from the main Yahoo page, I never had problems with this link. The other link is from the browser's window when you are in the page, this link many times when you copy and paste is truncated.

(Ooofff) We have talked about all this nice topics several times. I dont like censorship. I never have drew a nude faerie. But I know that NOW, with the new Child Guidelines (likeness or unlikeness for me) I CANT DRAW A NUDE FAERIE WITH AN ASPECT OF A CHILD AND POST IT AT ROSITY. Good or bad, this is the law. I dont think that a nude child is something bad, I dont think that (ha!) paidophiles come to Rosity to enjoy their pervert instincts (the Internerd have dark corners where they can find the shit that they eat). But all this topic is a continuous blahblahblah. The past Pope is dead. You cannot revive him. The past TOS is dead. You cannot revive the past Child Guidelines. Case closed, your honour Carolly, a tango????

And kawecki is true: FAERIES ARE SATANS CREATURES!!! THE END OF THE DAYS IS COMING !!! ROFLMAO

I always found Thornes faeries quite tasteful. No latex or anything. Just like you would expect fearies to look. I don't always like the snide way some people refer to Thorne and Renderotica. They are often disrespected in subtle ways not so subtle.

What I find amazing is the people that feel this way even know these sites and what they contain from a personal standpoint!

Attached Link: http://www.aplus.net

" Everyone keeps saying that IF it doesn't fit the TOS, then go post elsewhere. I was unaware that faereiwylde had a gallery. Faeries don't seem to belong at Rotica."

Only if they look like a child... Then they are out.

In Dungeons and Dragon Faeries look like adults... Granted they have children and communities, for the most part they look like adults.

Igohigh, You arguement is flawed as to the age of the character. You have to realize that that in fae communities age does not equate maturity. For example, Elves (Dungeons & Dragons) do not reach adulthood until they are 120 years old. SO they may be 119 years, but they are still considered a child!!!

The point I am trying to make here, even though it appears to be rambling, is that if it has the appearance of a child (and is naked), then it is gone. You can argue symantics to the cows come home, but that is the rules of this web site.

You can argue that this website is taking away your artistic freedoms... Well the answer to that is Build your own site... ANYWHERE you go, you are bound by TOS (Terms of service). With all the free and inexpensive alternatives out there, there really isn't any excuse. (The one I use is above.)

It's Ludcrious to think otherwise. Goes hand in hand with the freedom of speech. Welp, Given that the Moderators here are referring people to Renderotica. I felt it necessary to drop a line to Diane and let her look in. Karen, Morrigan, et al... Please keep in mind, If it is violation your standards on Child nudity, then it WILL violate Renderotica TOS. I think you need to keep that one in mind before using the site as a "Referral."

Message edited on: 04/25/2005 11:19

I am with Natolii and XENO on this. Renderosity is private property, and the property owner gets to decided the conditions under which it allows guests on it's property. It can even change the rules and ask people to leave. This is NOT censorship. This is the exercise of property rights.

As noted, any human can set up their own house and invite people in under a different set of rules.

CENSORSHIP can ONLY be conducted by government, which has a monopoly on the legal use of force. That is why "Freedom of speech and press" constrains governments from making laws that prohibit the exercise thereof and supports individuals in saying anything they want(but not libel and slander), including "you can't do that on my property."

::::: Opera :::::

P.S. The assessment of 'Renderosiy is/is not enjoyable, worthwhile or interesting enough to stick around if it makes stricter and stricter rules is a different matter.

And Casette, sweets, If Carolly won't dance, I don't have a partner. Natolii (aka Lilliana)

As the dictators use to say: "If you don't like the goverment, leave the country"

2 things-

1. I do believe the Napoleon bit about target practice was later proved to be wrong (but, like the bit about Eskimos having 50-odd words for snow..they don't, just 2..in the air, and on the ground..it just won't die..;) I think it was proved that a Muslim leader in Egypt had the Sphinx defaced a coupla centuries prior to the French showing up..(at least that's what the History Channel has said..;) Gentlemen, 38 centuries look down upon you..;) neither here nor there..;)
2. I know someone with more skills than me can do the following. In the Victorian, Pre-Raphaelite times, there were several paintings of faeries (faes, feos, whatever..;), and the technique for getting around this was just to delete (or not paint) the nipple. Just 2 flesh-colored 'bumps'..look at the 'White Rock girl', and some things like that. Seems someone could come up with a morph/texture combo that would do that, and you get to make fairy pictures, the TOS isn't violated (you can cite the pre-Raphaelites..;), and everyone's happy. Any takers?

Renderotica is an adult site and its TOS dont allow Child images. Dressed or undressed. Any character with a look under legal age is deleted, nude or not. Not any class of child, no problemo

Hey Kawecki, Would you let someone come in and dump cow dung all over your house? Honestly, would you allow that knowing you are going to be the one who has to clean it up? Basically that is the better similarity.

Seems someone could come up with a morph/texture combo that would do that, and you get to make fairy pictures, the TOS isn't violated (you can cite the pre-Raphaelites..;), and everyone's happy. Any takers? I doubt that would get past the critics. Besides, when DAZ released their Young Teen textures they tried that, and it created yet another stir. 8-)

And Natolii, I prefer waltz better than tango... but in a properly background Vienna, for example ... :)

Ohhh, A Waltz... =)

As far as pre-Raphaelite artwork goes, I doubt that can be used as a precedence. They also used to paint the baby Jesus in the nude (the baby Jesus, that is ... although the artist could have painted while in the nude! LOL). A nude baby Jesus would even be against the TOS here in spite of it being a classic representation.

Message edited on: 04/25/2005 11:32

Pakled, while a good suggestion, that would still violate the Child Image Guidelines: "No use of: transparent clothes, blurring of nude areas, or the use of blots or Censored wording or props to cover areas that are otherwise not clothed." It was a good idea, though. MS

"and the technique for getting around this was just to delete (or not paint) the nipple. Just 2 flesh-colored 'bumps'."

You can't do it, a part of the new TOS tells:
"No use of: transparent clothes, blurring of nude areas, or the use of blots or Censored wording or props to cover areas that are otherwise not clothed."

EDITED Damn, just was posted the same at the same time

Message edited on: 04/25/2005 11:31

Xeno, I just want to know where are the Nazi's. Aren't there supposed to be beer, popcorn and nazis in all of these posts? rereads Xeno's post AHH HAA! There they are, I knew they had to be in here somewhere. Stoopid Nazis. hits Nazi with pie, chugs beer and grabs a handfull of orville redenbacher Ok next person to say 'Nakkid Fairies aren't kids, or anything about censorship and free speach gets it. I HAVE POPCORN AND I KNOW HOW TO USE IT! chugs another beer