Attached Link: Ready to join in Support

Doesn't matter what your opinion is, basically if you want to post in the gallery you will follow the tos or your image will be taken down. If I had a concern I would ask first, rather than waste the time arguing about it. These threads are a waste of space, since they will not change anyone's mind in one direction or another. They just keep showing up.

Quote - Doesn't matter what your opinion is, basically if you want to post in the gallery you will follow the tos or your image will be taken down. -  These threads are a waste of space, since they will not change anyone's mind in one direction or another. They just keep showing up.

this guys post is flamitory, disrespectful, and rude! not to mention killing the hopeful
thoughts that someday we may live in a community where we may be free to make/show art!
and his opinion is very offensive to me!

runs back to drawing crayon stick figure porn

jk with all the above, dont get grumpy :P <3

Quote - Doesn't matter what your opinion is, basically if you want to post in the gallery you will follow the tos or your image will be taken down. If I had a concern I would ask first, rather than waste the time arguing about it. These threads are a waste of space, since they will not change anyone's mind in one direction or another. They just keep showing up.

You should show more respect for the power of ideas to change human perspective.  Look at the history of the woman's Sufferage movement, at the Abolitionist movement, at the history of the cold War.  It's not that this particular thread, or that particular thread, will change a policy or a TOS; but that the cumulative weight of ALL the threads, like drops of water falling upon the hardest granite,  together will wear away resistance, and bring about change.
And even if they don't, at least we raised our voice, and didn't passively acquiesce to this usurpation of our RIGHTS to be the sole guardian of conscience, and to self expression.

Quote - These threads are a waste of space, since they will not change anyone's mind in one direction or another. They just keep showing up.

Wasn't it threads on similar subjects that got the child nudity guidelines put in place?

I would guess that a motivation that effects the bottom line in a similar fashion would change it to something different.

The trouble is that artistic freedom doesn't put any money in peoples pockets. Something that would probably would make a change for the worse not better.

Quite honestly, the strict guidelines are the result, I think, of the huge swing to the far Right here in the States. If Rosity was located in Holland or France, I doubt if bare breasts would be such an issue - correct me if I'm wrong. I'm afraid it is going to get worse here in the States. As a citizen, I think I am losing more and more of rights every day. I seem to recall that women can go topless at many beaches in Europe - like the French Riviera. Here, good old George W. would like to turn back the clock 100 years for women.

If I remember correctly it was money that started it since they have a tos to follow with the paypal folks. What does George Bush have to do with this??? There are quite a few posted topless beaches here in California and Oregon that I know of for sure....don't understand what that's got to do with the renderosity tos either.

well, considering DAZ is only about 10 years old (I think), they're all children..;)

Problem is, lawsuits and prosecutions aren't done by average people..;)

Quote - Incidentally, it is common on "adult" sites, that operate on a similar basis to Renderosity, to forbid ALL depiction of children, clothed or otherwise. I think this is perfectly right. The argument is, that on a site the very purpose of which is overtly erotic, any image appearing is eroticised by implication.

This makes perfect sense. The Coppertone girl (the toddler, not the newer parody) has a very different meaning displayed on a porn site. Let's stop calling them "adult" sites, shall we? Talk about Orwellian language!

Quote -
You should show more respect for the power of ideas to change human perspective.  Look at the history of the woman's Sufferage movement, at the Abolitionist movement, at the history of the cold War.  It's not that this particular thread, or that particular thread, will change a policy or a TOS; but that the cumulative weight of ALL the threads, like drops of water falling upon the hardest granite,  together will wear away resistance, and bring about change.
And even if they don't, at least we raised our voice, and didn't passively acquiesce to this usurpation of our RIGHTS to be the sole guardian of conscience, and to self expression.

Amen. There is the justification for every voice saying "Not me, you won't!" The world is full of compromises that degrade and acquiesences that perpetuated evil. Let the Neville Chamberlains peddle their piece, but don't buy.

M

"My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time."

The question that he WASN"T asked at the time was: 'Is it a real peace, or a piece of...'

Child porn in whatever form... Photographic and Digital ......is wrong!  And whatever we can do to stop it should be done.

Art showing children in their natural state, as long as artistic and not pornographic isn't wrong.

I do agree though if a picture shows someone that looks over 18 then it should be allowed.

Funny, if you look at nudes from the 1300-1600's, they have no pubic hair. I guess pubic hair was considered "offensive". Thorne's idead of covering the nipples might solve some of the offense but maybe not. Interesting idea though. Funny how morality changes. In the US, men love big breasts, in Brasil, they love big butts. To each their own.

Quote - Child porn in whatever form... Photographic and Digital ......is wrong!  And whatever we can do to stop it should be done.
Art showing children in their natural state, as long as artistic and not pornographic isn't wrong.
I do agree though if a picture shows someone that looks over 18 then it should be allowed.

The problem is that one man's ART is another man's Porn, and visa-vesa.  The best judge of what is porn and what is art is the artist himself, and in THAT it is best if he is left unfettered and untrammelled.  I AM THE BEST JUDGE AND GUARDIAN OF MY OWN CONSCIENCE!  And if, in the name of ARTISTIC FREEDOM, digital renders should be an interpreted as an advocacy for the right to perpetrate child porn, then so be it!
David P. Hoadley

Pictures showing children in sexual acts is child porn.....and that is wrong no matter what.

Quote - Pictures showing children in sexual acts is child porn.....and that is wrong no matter what.

True!

Attached Link: An Example of a wildly different perception

I haven't heard of anyone trying to post those here, but they haven't stopped at banning those, they have gone even farther in banning everything that is even remotely childlike and even slightly nude. To borrow the expression "It's throwing out the baby with the bathwater." > Quote - Art showing children in their natural state, as long as artistic and not pornographic isn't wrong. . The problem is that one man's ART is another man's Porn, and visa-vesa

That's exactly why judgement on a case by case basis is not a fair and consistent standard. The mods have seen a lot of stuff and know by and large what fits in the guidelines or not but there are some discrepanies where even a group of them are making mistakes on the close ones and that kind of thing can throw off the standard so that the fear is to not put the effort into any since they might not be acceptable. For example, someone (that went by the name of a senate majority leader that was kicked out no less) commented on the image and called it bestiality when the figure was only standing next to a horse. These are the kind of people that are the most vocal complaint that busuness are so afraid of the lawsuits from. Is it fair to have to kowtow to such just because of their perceptions?

"Pictures showing children in sexual acts is child porn.....and that is wrong no matter what."

"True!"

Alright, you two know-it-alls, put you money where your mouths are: Define for me the difference between child porn, as opposed to artistic license with nude pre-teen models. 
Draw for me a description that includes both adolescent nudity and artistry, that someone prude wouldn't consider pornography.
I doubt  you can.  Which is why it is the ARTIST who must be the judge of these things, because censorship is simply intolerable in a FREE society.
David P. Hoadley

Okay.......so if a person owns 100000s of pictures of kids doing something sexual that is grossly inapporpiate it's ok as long as your an artist?

Child porn no matter whether done in art form or not is wrong. FULL STOP...an under 16 shown, in any kind of image,  doing any kind of sexual act is wrong. Anyone who says different in   MY OPINION..is wrong and needs their head testing.

99.9% of "people" found to have child pornography on their computer/in their homes are paedophiles and who rape and murder our children.  I am not saying pictures of nude children are wrong as long as they are in their own natural environment....but personally and I am sure there are 1000s of other people who say the same .....I do not want to see 2 ten year olds in a sexual provacative act. It's not natural and again in MY OPINION...is downright sick.

I can now see the paedophiles who may come on this site (I am not saying that they do by the way....I am speaking theorectically) will now stand up in court, when caught, and say....."but it's ok your honour...I am an artist"

See what happens without a consistent standard? Who said anything about sexual acts, when the subject was about only nudity? Performing sexual acts wasn't why the character for V3 - Minuete was deleted, so why drag it into it?

It's those kind of overreactions that fuel the debate and skew it into the fear that keeps people avoiding the whole area since they figure why bother when someone somewhere is going to find something wrong with it.

Argon....sorry I know the question about v3 wasn't about sexual acts.....but someone asked what defined child pornography and I gave my opinion further up. If you read my first post you will see what I put and therefore responded as so.

Who said anything about children engaged in sexual acts, and for that matter, define for me what does and what doesn't comprise a sexual act.  You have both failed to meet my test, which I predicted that you would do.  Now, exercise your grey cells, and give me a decent defanition which will incorporate all fo my above stated parameters.  You yourselves said that artistic child nudity was acceptable, NOW define it in black and white terms that we can all understand -AND QUITE PREVARICATING!  AND QITE DODGING THE ISSUE WITH RIDICULOUS RHETORIC!  And if you cannot define it, then leave us in peace to live and let live.  The ARTIST needs to be the final judge of what is ART, not a pack of philistine prudes.
David P. Hoadley

Lmao DPHoadley I can assure you I am no prude in any sense or form. You should go take a peek at my gallery and then you will see what I mean. I am not against nudity at all. If you had used your grey cells and read my post properly you would have seen I said that child nudity isn't wrong as long as it isn't porn and I have said that in my opinion my defnintion of child pornography is showing children under 16 doing sexual/inappropiate acts.

If you are so clever why don't you tell us, the philistine prudes, what exactly defines child pornography in your eyes and art? I would love to see your answer.

And btw...I choose when to take a test...not to be ordered to :O)

"Okay.......so if a person owns 100000s of pictures of kids doing something sexual that is grossly inapporpiate it's ok as long as your an artist?"
Rhetoric!  Nothing more and nothing less than silly rhetoric!  It was just enough for me to read this tendencious one line to see little point in reading any further.

"If you are so clever why don't you tell us, the philistine prudes, what exactly defines child pornography in your eyes and art? I would love to see your answer."
I have no answer, but then I son't peresume to set myself up as a judge and jury over others.  I think it is the provenence of each man to be the guardian of his own conscience.
David P.  Hoadley
And by the way, I do have a name.

Quote - You have both failed to meet my test, which I predicted that you would do.

What did you mean by you both? since I had only proposed an ID to satisfy the limits that others wanted impose.

 I don't peresume to set myself up as a judge and jury over others. I'd agree with that, but then why did you want to judge the definition? Also why jump to conclusions rush to judgement  about your supposed test?

Sexual acts of any kind have been banned here, male erect nudity, and child nudity also, some with good reasons and some with not. But by judging on a case by case basis by a group who knows what will be judged to be in a banned category until simply standing by a horse could be judged as beastiality?

Right ok. I see. I am too tired to continue with this. I don't see any point really. You demand us to answer questions but then won't answer back. Last thing I will say is...I don't judge anyone. Anyone who knows me personally would tell you this. I have many friends from all genres of life and I take each and every person for their own individuality. The only people I do judge are the ones that hurt others intentionally.

I am probably gonna get flamed ALL to hell and back, but I agree with the TOS....I don't care if it IS just "pixels....I am a recovering sexual abuse victim..and I mean HORRENDOUS abuse....and trust me when I say....these sickos get off just as much on those "pixels" of nude children as they do a photo of them...I would rather BAN all child nudity...in "pixels" and in photographs on the internet than have the thoughts that some pervert is out there getting off on them.....wouldn't you? shrugs OH well.....I am out..and I am unsubscribing.. ;-)

(((((hugs))))))

Quote - (((((hugs))))))

smiles at the original kitten ;-)

The only people I do judge are the ones that hurt others intentionally. how is any child being harmed by a computer render of a nude virtual character?

I'm off to bed now.....but....If you read my posts correctly before commenting you would see I have nothing against nudity.

Quote - I am probably gonna get flamed ALL to hell and back, but I agree with the TOS....I don't care if it IS just "pixels....I am a recovering sexual abuse victim..and I mean HORRENDOUS abuse....and trust me when I say....these sickos get off just as much on those "pixels" of nude children as they do a photo of them...I would rather BAN all child nudity...in "pixels" and in photographs on the internet than have the thoughts that some pervert is out there getting off on them.....wouldn't you? shrugs OH well.....I am out..and I am unsubscribing.. ;-)

Isn't that the point I was trying to make? That truly is "throwing the baby out with the bathwater. "

If they are that sick that can get off on that, then they can do it with anything or nothing right?

It's not the "pixels" they are getting off on it's the ideas in their heads that they can twist into anything.

Why not just go to the source and ban the sickos instead of trying to mask the symptoms and make everyone else suffer for their damaged perceptions?

originalkitten, i read your posts and found them somewhat unclear. i also want to step back from the confrontational tone the discussion took then, in order to find out just how you define your terms -- i believe it's not possible to have a fruitful discussion if the terms are unclear. the really interesting stuff happens in boundary conditions anyway. ok, so you do not think virtual nudity per se hurts anyone. does that include nudity of virtual children and teenagers? two little maddies splashing around in a bathtub, would that be ok to render? a group of young lauras and lukes skinny dipping on the first warm day of summer, is that ok? a 16-year-old nude aiko sunbathing on a beach on sylt (german paradise for naturists)? what about fairies; virtual imaginary characters? would a nude sylfie sleeping in a flower be ok?

In the US of A, the definition is embodied in Ttile 18 of the US Code:

"TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 110 > § 2256

§ 2256. Definitions for chapter
 
For the purposes of this chapter, the term—
(1) “minor” means any person under the age of eighteen years;
(2)
(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), “sexually explicit conduct” means actual or simulated—
(i) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex;
(ii) bestiality;
(iii) masturbation;
(iv) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
(v) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;

(B) For purposes of subsection 8(B) [1] of this section, “sexually explicit conduct” means—
(i) graphic sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex, or lascivious simulated sexual intercourse where the genitals, breast, or pubic area of any person is exhibited;
(ii) graphic or lascivious simulated;
(I) bestiality;
(II) masturbation; or
(III) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
(iii) graphic or simulated lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person"

Of course, this refers to actual children, not "pixels," see: http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/04/16/scotus.virtual.child.porn/

This was the pre Roberts/Alito court but since Justice O'Connor voted with the minority and Justice Thomas agreed with the majority, that opinion might well be upheld even today. 

'Rosity's rules clearly ban most and perhpas all of the proscribed depictions, even involving "adult" models.  In choosing to ban all depictions of nude "children," they are steering clear probably the most perilous area that exists.  Porn aside, many people, especially in the United States, feel strongly that any depiction of underage nudity is evil, perverted, etc.  The constituency who would defend the validity of such  on artistic or fee speech grounds is vanishing small by comparison. 

Even many of those who might agree are reluctant to stand up for fear of being branded as sickos.  On very rare occasions, people with deep pockets say "enough."  Barnes & Noble defended their right to sell photography books by Hamilton, Sturges, etc. and won.  The movie The Tin Drum  was ruled not to be child pornography after Christian fundamentalists in Oklahoma City attacked the film.

'Rosity is only doing what makes sense to them and protects their interests.  You might find some fault with them if you believe that they are really about art but does anyone really believe that?  The only dragon slayer here is Vicki and she has her hands full with people who want her to put clothes on.

**pleonastic ......First of all in the Uk where I am, a teen can model nude from the age of 16 so the comment about a 16 year old aiko on a beach sunbathing nude I can't really answer as all my life I've been told it's ok. If I had daughters would I let my 16 year old sunbathe nude on the beach? No but I expect I wouldn't like my 22 year old year old either (i dont have 16 or 22 year olds again I am speaking theorectically). 

 But....I really don't know about the questions your asking. I think yes a nude sylfie on a flower fast asleep would be ok as there is no way, in my eyes, that picture could be taken as a sexual thrill by some pervert. The bathtub/skinny dipping is kinda hard to establish whether it would be ok. Because it could be taken sexually IMO. I don't render nudes of kids. Why? Because I wouldn't want some sexual predator taking them and getting pleasure out of something innocent.  I don't even put up pictures of my kids on the internet. I have them in one place and it's kinda secure and this has actualy reminded me to take them down as the people who I wanted to see them have seen them. It's wrong we cannot do this but evil people take our stuff and interpret them into something else. Something so innocent can be turned into something so evil. I was even cautious as I was bring up my boys who are now 7 and 11 (next mth) of letting them run around nude in our garden. Because in this day and age you never know who is watching. It's totally wrong....and shouldn't be. I mean we are born naked and there should be nothing wrong with it but unfortunately in this day and age we have to be careful and protect our young ones. 

What I was stating/arguing that was that a picture showing a child in some form of sexual activity is wrong. I hope you don't expect me to go into explicit detail because I won't and I hope you get the idea of what I mean.  I do apologise now if my answers are confusing because I haven't had sleep for at least 2 nights so kinda on autopilot atm.

Something someone said to me yesterday while debating this in private was that they thought it would be a good idea if merchants gave an age limit on their characters. I.e. this character is supposed to be under 18 etc. Or if Rosity gave guidelines for a character that could be classed as a child. I respect their decision to now allow any of the mil kids as nude and don't argue with that fact but if someone is cleary over 18 they should be allowed to present that picture.

Again I apologise if this is gobbledegook.
**

Quote - ...in this day and age you never know who is watching.

They are the same types of people who were there before.

any pic, no matter whats in it, can be used by some pervert somewhere in the world
human, animal, boat -_^......doesnt matter, but by going too far over the line of not
allowing pics, takes away freedom of art and expression

if i take a pic from past history that is in museums, and clearly celebrated as art
for centuries, it would be taken down, because a baby boy has a nipple showing
a statue of cupid, hello stone! it would be taken down (2 were accually, not mine)
if a guy is going to get his jollies off on a statue, i couldnt care less

so even world wide recognised art gets taken down, and the same types of people
that look at them, have done so since they were made

the people who look at kids, same types of people have existed all through time
did the internet, or any of these pics, exist during the roman empire? no they didnt
were the same kind of people there? yep

tech may have changed to allow more people in the world to see things, but the people
are still the same as they have always been, and that wont change by taking pics down
and taking away everyones freedom, and until a society recognises that limiting
a persons freedom doesnt solve the problem, a society will never be as "free" and
"superior" as it claims to be, and after a point, the society falls from its own lies

most of my gallery has long time been deleted, i have no reason to put up pics here
i dont make anything remotely close to this (mostly portraits), but if freedoms are
limited due to a few narrow minded people who are after money, then i dont need to
post anything at all, doing so shows they have control of me, which they dont

Quote - did the internet, or any of these pics, exist during the roman empire? no they didnt

These types of depictions have been made throughout history. I ran across one in a history book several years ago. The Roman Empire would not have been immune.

**it would be a good idea if merchants gave an age limit on their characters

****Isn't that what I've been saying all along? It would simplify things and clear up a lot of misunderstandings, if the characters had proof of age as required with an ID.

The only problem is that the artist can morph each image to be different than what the merchant supplied so there would have to be an ID supplied for each image.

Photographers and publishers routinely keep these kinds of records in the fashion industry so it shouldn't be that much trouble to set up such a system. Certainly much less hassle than wondering what the judgement is going to be after you put all the effort into it. That way you could tell beforehand if it was going to be acceptable.**

I can't believe that people are getting their knickers in a twist over images which feature GCI reps of the human body.

Whether or not you agree with Rosity's rules, if you're here you have to abide by them. Whether or not you agree with your country's rules, you should abide by them if you want to stay out on the streets.

The only people I can see with an agenda here are kid fiddlers.  Flame me if you like; I'm really past caring.

o_O i dont swing that way, to me its eww, but so is the stuff in that still growing fetish thread
im scared to enter that thread......shrugs especially after i saw the word cockroach

i have NO interest in that, yet im here, saying its against freedom, so your theory blows :P no offence

**Isn't that what I've been saying all along? It would simplify things and clear up a lot of misunderstandings, if the characters had proof of age as required with an ID.

In a medium where a lot of the art we generate is fantasy, and the characters portrayed can be anywhere from infant to thousands of years old, I find it difficult to see how one can prove the age of a virtual character, no matter how old it appears to be. 8-)**

Quote - I find it difficult to see how one can prove the age of a virtual character, no matter how old it appears to be. 8-)

Then how can their be underage models and child porn in the 1st place with them? As I mentioned before you can't have one assumption without the other. Either they're both true or both false. If you disprove one of them then you can disprove the other with the same facts.

Everyone should know that appearances can be decieving, that's why the judgements on a case by case basis can be shaky and inconsistent. In order to prove a character is under age or of legal age then a valid ID must be possible.

Quote -

I am probably gonna get flamed ALL to hell and back, but I agree with the TOS....I don't care if it IS just "pixels....I am a recovering sexual abuse victim..and I mean HORRENDOUS abuse....and trust me when I say....these sickos get off just as much on those "pixels" of nude children as they do a photo of them...I would rather BAN all child nudity...in "pixels" and in photographs on the internet than have the thoughts that some pervert is out there getting off on them.....wouldn't you? shrugs OH well.....I am out..and I am unsubscribing.. ;-)

xxxander, I truly sympathize with you and hope you find the equilibrium you seek and deserve. But there is a difference between the depiction of sexuality and the act itself. Child abuse is not, for the child, sexuality - it is brutal and manipulative, it is exploitation by a "responsible" adult of a person who is unable to assert his or her own human rights. I certainly wouldn't flame you for your personal beliefs, borne as they are from traumatic experience, and I'll say something that will be far more likely to get me flamed: I have no doubt that not all sexuality involving children is abuse. I'm sure that's not going to be a popular theory, but we are speaking about human beings here - we are, many of us, sexual creatures. Often, the ones who protest most loudly are the most sexual of all, but they have their own agendas to promote and either others' sexual agendas don't mesh with those, or they simply don't want other people to enjoy something that they themselves either can't or don't want to.

I don't think a 5-year-old has any business in a sexual situation. That doesn't mean that there aren't 11-year-olds that do enjoy and desire it, and even engage in it, with each other and with partners of vastly different ages. Are they mature enough to make that decision? Some are, and some aren't - again, it's the human nature that we don't all follow the same development schedule, either physically, intellectually or emotionally. The best thing that adults can do is to try to guide children in making smart decisions, and in most cases, that means deciding not to engage in sexuality at a young age. And it's hard for children, especially from that prototypical 11-year-old on up, to deny their sexuality, because while 'adults' are screaming about how our children need to be protected (because it's always better to seal someone away from something than it is to engage in intelligent and informative discussion, right?), they are also using that imagery to sell clothes, music, cell phones, make-up and even toys to those same children!!. We say how wrong it is to even think about children sexually while we sell schoolgirl and Girl Scout costumes to women - we say it's okay, it's only an "accessory," but what is really happening is the most gross form of hypocrisy; we don't bat an eye when we buy the DVDs and look through Playboy - a magazine where the minimum age of the models is 18, but the average age of the viewer is probably 50. So if we are going to claim that youthful sexuality is unforgivable, we are going to have to take a serious look at ourselves first.

If people find sexual satisfaction in digital simulation (and I suppose they probably engage in digital stimulation at the same time ;)), no one is being abused (okay, except for the self-abuse, and that's a stupid term, too, when you think about it). Child pornography laws need to exist to protect children from people who can't determine the difference between right and wrong - they do not need to exist to prevent people from thinking about children in a sexual way if that is all they do or will ever do. There's no proof that the average person will enact any fantasy that comes to his or her mind, sexual or otherwise - most people do know the distinction, and those who don't clearly aren't being restrained by the laws, are they? How often do we see on the news that some "sicko" has kidnapped a child, has abused that child and sometimes worse? The laws exist, but the only thing that they can do is prosecute someone who has already offended - they don't stop the people for whom this is an actual problem.

If people "get off" on pixel pixies, whether they be fairies or realistic CGI depictions of young teens doing more than making a sand castle, I'm okay with that - better that they do that than acquire photographs, because there is a likelihood that a child was abused in the creation of a photograph, while the only abuse going on in CGI is to the CPU. I say, the more realistic, the better, because whether one considers it perverted (I personally find bondage, latex and water sports perverted and sick, but they aren't illegal) and anti-social, the act of enjoying visual sexuality is not abusive of another human being, and if the audience finds the satisfaction of a realistic fantasy without the involvement and exploitation of a child, that's better than the law coming in after the fact, when a child has already been hurt, perhaps for life.

You say "Ban the perverts"...laughs saracastically HOW do YOU know they are perverts..the man who brutally raped/molested/abused me for SIX years.....from age FIVE to ELEVEN...was a CHURCH member....an "upstanding citizen"......you NEVER KNOW who the perverts are....and yeah I DO agree that a sick f**k can get off on ANY type of art....CG, photos, etc.....but WHY WHY WHY give them anything TO look at as far as children go?? What's the big deal...and WHY would anyone want to render/paint/photograph (for the public)..NAKED CHILDREN???? I have seen BEAUTIFUL child like faeries that are FULLY clothed..they don't have to be showing breasts..or God forbid...genitals!!!! 

I am now an advocate for sexually abused children..I ALSO go into chatrooms.....under other names portraying young boys and girls (to keep the real kids from those bastards)..and you would be FLOORED at how fast....this "child" gets bombarded with cam invites of OLDER MEN masturbating..or IM's asking for sex.......it makes me physically sick sometimes to have to talk to those pervs, BUT, if it keeps them from preying on REAL children..then I will suffer through.....it's a SAD, SICK world we live in.....and it's even more sad when people bitch and moan because they can't put art of naked babies on the internet.......Get over it!

Quote - Everyone should know that appearances can be decieving, that's why the judgements on a case by case basis can be shaky and inconsistent. In order to prove a character is under age or of legal age then a valid ID must be possible.

How can you have a valid ID for someone that isn't real? The age of the figure is about as valid for being "real" as the figure itself.

Let's say you use the millenium baby to create a one thousand year old gnome figure. The only thing you do is put gnome clothes on it. No major morphs or anything. How can you prove it was a thousand years old and not two months old?

Quote - > Quote -

I am probably gonna get flamed ALL to hell and back, but I agree with the TOS....I don't care if it IS just "pixels....I am a recovering sexual abuse victim..and I mean HORRENDOUS abuse....and trust me when I say....these sickos get off just as much on those "pixels" of nude children as they do a photo of them...I would rather BAN all child nudity...in "pixels" and in photographs on the internet than have the thoughts that some pervert is out there getting off on them.....wouldn't you? shrugs OH well.....I am out..and I am unsubscribing.. ;-)

xxxander, I truly sympathize with you and hope you find the equilibrium you seek and deserve. But there is a difference between the depiction of sexuality and the act itself. Child abuse is not, for the child, sexuality - it is brutal and manipulative, it is exploitation by a "responsible" adult of a person who is unable to assert his or her own human rights. I certainly wouldn't flame you for your personal beliefs, borne as they are from traumatic experience, and I'll say something that will be far more likely to get me flamed: I have no doubt that not all sexuality involving children is abuse. I'm sure that's not going to be a popular theory, but we are speaking about human beings here - we are, many of us, sexual creatures. Often, the ones who protest most loudly are the most sexual of all, but they have their own agendas to promote and either others' sexual agendas don't mesh with those, or they simply don't want other people to enjoy something that they themselves either can't or don't want to.

I don't think a 5-year-old has any business in a sexual situation. That doesn't mean that there aren't 11-year-olds that do enjoy and desire it, and even engage in it, with each other and with partners of vastly different ages. Are they mature enough to make that decision? Some are, and some aren't - again, it's the human nature that we don't all follow the same development schedule, either physically, intellectually or emotionally. The best thing that adults can do is to try to guide children in making smart decisions, and in most cases, that means deciding not to engage in sexuality at a young age. And it's hard for children, especially from that prototypical 11-year-old on up, to deny their sexuality, because while 'adults' are screaming about how our children need to be protected (because it's always better to seal someone away from something than it is to engage in intelligent and informative discussion, right?), they are also using that imagery to sell clothes, music, cell phones, make-up and even toys to those same children!!. We say how wrong it is to even think about children sexually while we sell schoolgirl and Girl Scout costumes to women - we say it's okay, it's only an "accessory," but what is really happening is the most gross form of hypocrisy; we don't bat an eye when we buy the DVDs and look through Playboy - a magazine where the minimum age of the models is 18, but the average age of the viewer is probably 50. So if we are going to claim that youthful sexuality is unforgivable, we are going to have to take a serious look at ourselves first.

If people find sexual satisfaction in digital simulation (and I suppose they probably engage in digital stimulation at the same time ;)), no one is being abused (okay, except for the self-abuse, and that's a stupid term, too, when you think about it). Child pornography laws need to exist to protect children from people who can't determine the difference between right and wrong - they do not need to exist to prevent people from thinking about children in a sexual way if that is all they do or will ever do. There's no proof that the average person will enact any fantasy that comes to his or her mind, sexual or otherwise - most people do know the distinction, and those who don't clearly aren't being restrained by the laws, are they? How often do we see on the news that some "sicko" has kidnapped a child, has abused that child and sometimes worse? The laws exist, but the only thing that they can do is prosecute someone who has already offended - they don't stop the people for whom this is an actual problem.

If people "get off" on pixel pixies, whether they be fairies or realistic CGI depictions of young teens doing more than making a sand castle, I'm okay with that - better that they do that than acquire photographs, because there is a likelihood that a child was abused in the creation of a photograph, while the only abuse going on in CGI is to the CPU. I say, the more realistic, the better, because whether one considers it perverted (I personally find bondage, latex and water sports perverted and sick, but they aren't illegal) and anti-social, the act of enjoying visual sexuality is not abusive of another human being, and if the audience finds the satisfaction of a realistic fantasy without the involvement and exploitation of a child, that's better than the law coming in after the fact, when a child has already been hurt, perhaps for life.

if TWO 11 year olds explore their sexuality together..that is FAR damn different than some sick pervert raping one OR staring at art work of a nude child and jacking off!!!! And you say that if they use "fantasies" about children sexually....it's better than the law coming in AFTER they have been hurt...WELL I am SORRY.....those people that have the "fantasies" ACT UPON THEM......they don't just use the art.....shakes head......I am sure everyone that is all for child nudity would feel really different if it happened to you...OR your child!!!!!!!

I am sorry after reading this crap....I have no words...........

I am SO done with this thread.....I hope all of you that think child nudity is  an "ok " thing can lay down and sleep at night!!

Quote - How can you have a valid ID for someone that isn't real? The age of the figure is about as valid for being "real" as the figure itself.

By the same token how can someone who isn't real be underage or child porn then? If you can't prove it's underage then how can it be considered to fall under that law? The whole question becomes moot under that assumption then doesn't it and all the child nudity guidelines are unecessary right?

That doesn't seem to stop them from having them so by those rules they should be able to provide some system to prove the age of the children under the guidelines which are underage and which are of legal age in order to have a consistent standard and not a subjective judgement.

I am SO done with this thread.....I hope all of you that think child nudity is  an "ok " thing can lay down and sleep at night!!

There is definitely a difference between child nudity and child porn. This statement suggests that I would have to cover my six month old nephew when I give him a bath?

Quote - >>I am SO done with this thread.....I hope all of you that think child nudity is  an "ok " thing can lay down and sleep at night!!

There is definitely a difference between child nudity and child porn. This statement suggests that I would have to cover my six month old nephew when I give him a bath?

Please don't twist my words..you know EXACTLY what I was talking about....shakes head I have a four year old..that I bathe......come on!!!

I now see WHY I stay out of these threads.......this IS my last word on this subject..