Blackhearted has been around long enough to know that this discussion is probably one of the most civil, non-heated discussions on this beloved "dead horse" that we've had around here in a while. [grin]

Here's an example of a picture that for some is porn, and for some are just... probably a crappy render. A few may consider it art (blind people I guess) but still... a pic that is fully within the Rosity TOS and still both very erotic and decidedly pornographic - if THIS is your kink (it's NOT mine, just for the record, but I know someone who would find this absolutely tittilating)

Oppressing white males like that is truly pornographic! [grin] Bobasaur wanders off muttering, "Oppress me, too. Please oppress me, too."

^  because of the cropping, id say that is that is erotica - not pornography.

still, it walks the line since some may classify that as S&M. something like that, if you submit it to the RO gallery one moderator might pull it, another one might think its perfectly acceptable.
...and both would be perfectly valid in their reasoning.

and in case you were wondering, if i were a mod id probably pull it.
not because i object, but because of the stigma associated with such fetish imageryand the family atmosphere renderosity is trying to maintain. sure, i do pinup myself - but ask yourself if your boss, or the neighbor's 10 year old kid walked in on you while you were viewing them which would you rather they see on your screen: a simple pinup, or something like the above.

also, when you look at an image to decide whether to allow it in the gallery, other factors should be evaluated -- such as the immediate 'before' and 'after' of an image, as well as what is deliberately hidden by cropping.
for example, someone can create an image of a leering man buttoning up his pants standing over an unconscious woman lying in an alley with torn clothing (yet still covered). while the way they render it might not have any nudity, violence, or anything that directly violates the TOS - i still do not think it is appropriate for this site. such examples are commonplace at renderotica.
i am by no means comparing that to the above image, just using it to illustrate a point on how an image can not violate the TOS directly yet still be inappropriate.

erotisism and pornography are the children of of imagination. art isn't art because someone painted it, a poem isn't poetry because it has words that are used in a certain way. art is and always will be what we percieve it to be. often we are told by academia and critics what to accept or dismiss as art but we as individuals overide any social or educational summerisation of what art, erotisism or pornography are. we as the individual often dismiss the socio and cultural iplications and tolerences of what is and isn't art. it isn't beauty that is in the eye of the beholder...it's art. one man's fodder for masterbation is often another man's depiction of form and function. is  the mona  lisa art. many say yes.....but is it or is it some tart with a silly smile..oh yes i can see how it's an amalgam of female and male. i can see how the landscape has been used to good effect but is it art? of course it is..to me at least but to some it's utter crap. thats not an inegmatic smile..she looks like she's got heamaroids they may say...missing the fact that heamaroids could indeed cause someone to have an inegmatic smile lol.  i personaly think renee macintosh's work re his furniture and  interior design to be good art. many would disagree saying how  can a chair be a work of art. often for me the art isn't in the functionality but the design, the clean lines, the ergonomics can fry if the design looks good for me. i used to collect japanese swords. the old ones. some of them again for me were works of art. they all measure the same length and width all have the same style guard but each one is differrent. each blade carries its own definition. anyway i'm starting to confuse myself and drift.......art  (something) is art because we make it so on more than one level. sociaty  tells us whats porn we tell sociaty whats art. jmo

billy

Quote - and in case you were wondering, if i were a mod id probably pull it.
not because i object, but because of the stigma associated with such fetish imageryand the family atmosphere renderosity is trying to maintain. sure, i do pinup myself - but ask yourself if your boss, or the neighbor's 10 year old kid walked in on you while you were viewing them which would you rather they see on your screen: a simple pinup, or something like the above.

What, an image representing the burgeoning feminist power of the 20th century finally "getting a leg up" on the patriarchy?

Or an image representing the oppression some men feel women have when it comes to divorce?

Or a closeup from a strip where the dominatrix-style villain has the hero at her mercy?

Or a fetish image?

Wait, wait, it might be one of those sexualized ads you see all the time these days for a line of women's boots.

If your neighbours' 10 year old walked in and immediately thought S&M image, I'd wonder what exactly your neighbours were teaching their 10 year old.

:rolleyes:

Quote - ... when you look at an image to decide whether to allow it in the gallery, other factors should be evaluated -- such as the immediate 'before' and 'after' of an image, as well as what is deliberately hidden by cropping.

What's not in the picture is only the imagination of the viewer, and is going to be different for each viewer.

The artist can say what the context of the picture is intended to be, but even that's just imaginary.

Arguing that a different camera angle would change what's shown and bring something none TOS compliant in to view, would only hold up if the imagined transgression had actually be modelled.

Quote - What's not in the picture is only the imagination of the viewer, and is going to be different for each viewer.

people have been cleverly trying to manipulate the TOS ever since the rosity galleries first went up.

sure, some images have interpretations that will change with every viewer. they might be innocent artistic nudity to one person, and extremely erotic to another.

but if someone renders the immediate aftermath or prelude to a violent rape, for example, where the logical progression of events takes the average viewer in a direction that is clear violation of the TOS, then the image should be viewed as a TOS violation in itself.

same applies to someone who cleverly obscures TOS violations with objects in the foreground, hands, clever cropping, etc., for example. IMO a render of two people having sex, with the genitals obscured by a cup on a coffee table in the foreground is no less a TOS violation than if the genitals were in plain view.

again, this is my opinion. i consider this my place of business, so im not happy when images like the above two examples are submitted. my family, friends and  even business contacts sometimes come here, and to be honest i am glad that the administration is cleaning the place up a little. if anyone wants to view totally explicit and pornographic renders, renderotica is just down the hall. you sign no agreement when joining renderosity that this is the only gallery you can submit images to, or view.

Quote - ... but if someone renders the immediate aftermath or prelude to a violent rape ...

I have no problem with "immediate aftermath", that's something in the picture.

Just about any picture with two people in it could be projected as a prelude to some sort of violent activity.
If a violent act isn't in the image, the possibility that one will take place can only be supplied by additional context from the artist or the thought processes of the viewer.
Nobody can actually say what happens next, because that's not what's in the image.

Quote - same applies to someone who cleverly obscures TOS violations with objects in the foreground, hands, clever cropping, etc., for example. IMO a render of two people having sex, with the genitals obscured by a cup on a coffee table in the foreground is no less a TOS violation than if the genitals were in plain view.

But at least in these cases your opinionating about what's actually in the picture.
Although the technique of interposing objects between people and the viewer is acceptable to film and television regulators.

I have no problem with catch all clauses that provide the right for any objectionable image to be removed, but the objection has to be about what's in the image, not some projection to an imaginary picture of a future event.

Blackhearted, who gives a flying duck?  the only one yabbering on about rosity's TOS here is you.  the rest of us were having a perfectly civil discussion of perceptions -- about erotica, about porn, about art.  until you came in with your arrogant eye-rolling and your know-it-all pronouncement of how obvious porn is, and how absurd discussing it all is (yeah, so absurd that it's been discussed by lots of smart people, including the supreme court of the US, with its well known penchant for absurdity).

now that you've managed to completely derail that oh-so-absurd discussion, would it be too much to suggest that you spare yourself, go away and roll your eyes at our absurdity in private?  surely it's an enormous waste of your time to step down from your exalted level and mingle with us idiots.  in private you can think some more about fine-tuning your assertions, such as that it becomes blindingly obvious why a mild fetish image is unacceptable to families with 10-year olds and your business contacts (who are all perfect clones of yourself?), but hundreds of scantily clad (if that), large-breasted women with come-hither poses are perfectly conducive to that wholesome family atmosphere.   i must be completely unobservant of my neighbours, being as i think they'd consider those child-unsafe.

oops, did i just mock your superior knowledge?  us uppity peons just don't know our place...

isnt it past your bedtime, pleonastic?

Nobody mention, ladies, lakes, swords, or peasants :glare: or I'll feel duty bound to quote some Python :biggrin:

weekend silliness overtakes me

so is that python allegorical or the coding language or as in the animal ?

It's Monty Python's Flying Circus (and he was right; some moistened bint lobbing a scimitar at you is no basis for a form of government).

Lets face it she could have been going to anything with that :cursing: sword, I mean how's a potential monarch to know whether their about to be on the right end of a bit of divine providence :woot: or cut short :crying: in their prime by a NVITBOTW :sneaky:

Quote - also, a site with very few rules and low moderation generally attracts the dredges of the internet - who thrive in such an environment.

Blackhearted, that may be your opinion, but after being around the Poser Community since the PFO days, being involved in running more than one of the sites, and watching how the sites grow and develop, from my perspective I can see that the more rules and moderation a site has, the more aberrated its community becomes and it's there that the dredges thrive. This seems to pretty much hold true in any community. Online or RL. Granted, my definition of dredges may differ from yours.

Quote - but if someone renders the immediate aftermath or prelude to a violent rape

Quote - same applies to someone who cleverly obscures TOS violations with objects in the foreground, hands, clever cropping, etc., for example. IMO a render of two people having sex, with the genitals obscured by a cup on a coffee table in the foreground is no less a TOS violation than if the genitals were in plain view.

Trust me...these things would not pass here, so no worries ;)

Quote - " same applies to someone who cleverly obscures TOS violations with objects in the foreground, hands, clever cropping, etc., for example. IMO a render of two people having sex, with the genitals obscured by a cup on a coffee table in the foreground is no less a TOS violation than if the genitals were in plain view.".

So what's being said here is that a man and woman in a clinch would be breaking the tos cos they could be doing it through the zipper. how on earth can you surmise there screwing if you cant see. couldn't they be just smooching or cuddling. so now no one can do couples and coffee cups. ...how can you cleverly obscure a tos violation for gods sake. you either break the tos or you don't. if a violation is obscure how can it be deemed a violation as such and if it is how can it be deemed obscure. sorry but it sounds a bit to pedantic to to be actually talking about coffee cups and willys in the context of removing something. what next...nudity advisories for figures obscuring breasts and ass with lingerie........as for 10 yr olds and what you allow. ...this site would be a complete no no to my kids. whilst a lot of whats here could loosely be called art much of it that leans towards big tits and come hither smiles is mainly tutilating smut...i don't expect anyone to agree with me but pulleeeeeeeeze. take a look at some of the jugs on a vast amount of the female renders. i suppose little johnny needs something to work with whilst exploring himself lmao...in my day it was the gus catalogue . when my kids wanted to see art i took them to galleries. not smut filled websites.  and i do realize there is some fantastically great work on this site and others like it.  just that intermingled with the good stuff is ...no other word i can think of but smutt jmo

billy

:)

There's several arguments raging elsenet on the issue of just what is and is not sexual. And the US Government seems to be doing one of those insane censorship death-rides. Neither seems to be a proper topic for this thread. But, with the limits of Poser, I have to wonder why anyone even wants to try and show the sort of explicit detail that, I gather, is known in the porn business as the "money shot". I've never been uninvolved enough to take note of just what actual penetration looks like, but any time you get one part of a character in contact with another, things get difficult in Poser.

Quote - > Quote - also, a site with very few rules and low moderation generally attracts the dredges of the internet - who thrive in such an environment.

Blackhearted, that may be your opinion, but after being around the Poser Community since the PFO days, being involved in running more than one of the sites, and watching how the sites grow and develop, from my perspective I can see that the more rules and moderation a site has, the more aberrated its community becomes and it's there that the dredges thrive. This seems to pretty much hold true in any community. Online or RL. Granted, my definition of dredges may differ from yours.

and youve done an admirable job of running rotica dispite some of the problems youve faced.

Quote - I can see that the more rules and moderation a site has, the more aberrated its community becomes and it's there that the dredges thrive.

ehh, i disagree there. there is a type of person that will always push and push against the rules of a site, club, group, etc -- doesnt like being told what to do, and likes to stir up the hornets nest because they get off on the attention. a handful of those pop up at renderosity because its much easier to stir up shit in a community with rules than in one without.
but as for dredges of the internet i was referring to something else. over the years at rotica ive seen a few quite disturbing images. i dont mean porn, or even fetish, S&M, bondage, etc. its the ones like female dismemberment that really frighten me, because someone who gets their rocks off on creating and viewing images of women graphically being cut up into pieces, beheaded, etc is a severely disturbed individual.
its always been my opinion that everyones sexual interests are their own business - as long as they involve consenting adults i really dont care what people do in the bedroom. but i do draw the line at things which hurt non-consenting people. yes, onc ecould argue that there is no way to determine consent in a render, but no sane  person would allow you to dismember, cannibalize, etc them -- and no court would find  you innocent of guilt. some  people use sites like renderotica as a haven and an outlet for their criminal fantasies. dont get me started on some fairy renders either  (i am not pidgeonholing them all).

renderosity is cleaning itself up to become a family site. that doesnt  mean that you cant post nude or erotic renders - it just prohibits images that are more sexual in nature than a pinup. i see nothing wrong with this. if ever i feel like i need to post a hardcore render, i will go to renderotica and post it there. if ever i feel like i need to go off on someone in an unmoderated forum, ill head over to the chicken coop at poserpros. noone is forced to pick only one community and stick to it. i am sick and tired of seeing people constantly try and bend these poser communities to their own idea of what a community should be like.

ack, too late to edit to clarify:

Quote - and dont get me started on some fairy renders either  (i am not pidgeonholing them all)

-- all it takes these days is a pair of wings to disguise child porn. 'fae' engaging in hardcore sexual activity, or having meticulously handpainted prepubescent genitals :rolleyes:

wow..where to begin..;)

As I recall it, Bach was a Kappelmeister (sp?) for the Prussian royalty at the very start of the 18th Century. His job (aside from helping to churn out rug rats, something he was equally prolific at..;) was to provide music on demand for the Kaiser (if that term was in vogue that far back).

Since, at the time, there wasn't 1 Germany (there were hundreds), it's possible he got lost in the shuffle. It was in the mid-19th Century that Mendelsohnn got him properly introduced into popularity, so he was kind of obscure until then.

One thing about 'rotica is what I consider a limitation of Poser; that extreme emotions of any type don't come out looking as well; aside from the regular teeth, glowing nostrils, and slight deformations of the mesh, they tend to look more artificial than the serene (sometimes zombie-like) default expression you get 'out of the box'.  This tends to make them look more fake than different modes of 'prawno' would. So that explains some of the crappines..;)

As for the Trekkiegrrl pic..I've heard (from reading..I ain't the 'whips and chains' crowd by any means..;) it's actually the sub (submissive) rather than the dom (dominant) that 'calls the shots' in the action..the sub sets the limits, and the dom has to follow them..I call it, 'Master and Servant'..;)

enough for now..this is becoming 'the thread that would not die'..;)

Quote - i dont mean porn, or even fetish, S&M, bondage, etc. its the ones like female dismemberment that really frighten me, because someone who gets their rocks off on creating and viewing images of women graphically being cut up into pieces, beheaded, etc is a severely disturbed individual.
its always been my opinion that everyones sexual interests are their own business - as long as they involve consenting adults i really dont care what people do in the bedroom. but i do draw the line at things which hurt non-consenting people. yes, onc ecould argue that there is no way to determine consent in a render, but no sane  person would allow you to dismember, cannibalize, etc them -- and no court would find  you innocent of guilt. some  people use sites like renderotica as a haven and an outlet for their criminal fantasies.

First off, there is no such thing as a criminal fantasy. There are only criminal acts. Last time I looked, we don't have thought police. At least not yet.

These images are fantasies. To assume a person would actually engage in this behavior is as silly as assuming all the people who post at rosity are going to suddenly force their women to go out half naked in ridiculous armor weilding swords a person twice their size couldn't heft. Not exactly sure which one is the more disturbing fantasy.

Attached Link: http://www.babeswithblades.com/photo_gallery.htm

I can't miss a lead in like that:

I can't remember where i picked up this image but it seems rather apropos:

Bobasaur, only YOU could have found a site like this!
DPH
; - D

I'm actually slightly miffed at the way you deem my image, Blackhearted. Let me tell you, my 10-year old actually watched when I did this. So now I'm a Bad Mom™ because I subjected my kid to smut? - even if I don't personally see that pic as the slightest bit erotic MYSELF?!

Yeah I know some people find it erotic, but I don't. And I was in NO WAY trying to "bend the TOS" - I don't NEED to. If I want to post pics that are not suited for the TOS here, I know where to go. And as some of my pics are "too much" for the TOS at even those places, I can post them in my LiveJournal where noone decides but me what is posted there.

Some people find nude or scantily clad females erotic - I don't. For the record, I'm female, if I want to look at one, I can go look in the moirror, something I'd prefer not to do more than absolutely necessary, thankyouverymuch.

I wouldn't even mind showing my pic to my mom who's 77 - she would probably not see it as a porn/erotic image either. More likely she would see it as a manifestation of a metaphor, hence the "under foot" title.

The point is, you can't decide clearly what is porn and what is not.. Some people may see blatant porn if you happened to see someone's hair. Eroticism is culturally decided. In some cultures, this lead to the overly enlarged lips (like some african and southern american tribes has used) - or the elongated necks, the lotus feet or something similar. Some thing it the heigth of beauty and therefor also erotic, some find it a gross mutilation.

Personally I find circumcision a gross mutilation.

If anything, my first pic in this thread (the one I merely linked to) is more disturbing to my 10-year old, because she's also an avid Harry Potter fan and she's not quite sure why or how I can possibly place those two people in a picture together (and yes she can see who they're supposed to be)

So far I've tried all sorts of bad explanations as to not scar her for life with a too early introduction to slash but... It would still need more explanation than simply a pic of a man and a woman embracing each other, in the nude. Not that I mind, I'm just not sure she's old enough to properly understand the different aspects of sexuality. (or perhaps I'm not ready to explain it to her? Could very well be the case as well L)

Quote - First off, there is no such thing as a criminal fantasy. There are only criminal acts. Last time I looked, we don't have thought police. At least not yet.

These images are fantasies. To assume a person would actually engage in this behavior is as silly as assuming all the people who post at rosity are going to suddenly force their women to go out half naked in ridiculous armor weilding swords a person twice their size couldn't heft. Not exactly sure which one is the more disturbing fantasy.

youre not? perhaps youve been at rotica a little too long.

someone that fantasizes about gruesomely dismembering women, literally gets off on such imagery, is a sick person. encouraging them to share such images in a community puts them one step closer to thinking that such things are acceptable, and one step closer to them acting on them. same goes for child porn.

Blackhearted, after beaten ye olde strawman some more, says: yes, onc ecould argue that there is no way to determine consent in a render,

one could?  blink.  damn straight.  it's a given.  consent cannot apply to digital meshes.  they cannot give it.  they cannot even understand the concept.  they are not people, they're not even animals; they have no central nervous system, they cannot think, they cannot feel pain, they're not real.  digital meshes are like fiction.  no mystery author gets put on trial for murdering their own fictional characters either. 

one might make a contrary argument about a mesh that is intended to be a real person's physical likeness -- i am distinctly uncomfortable with renders that do so even in a completely wholesome context because they go over my line of data privacy:  i believe all people should own the right to their own data (which includes their physical likeness), and usage by others should be very strictly regulated, much more so than it is now.  i dislike real-people fic and tabloids as well, and don't consume them.

as to people's fantasies -- spare me your thought police.  fantasies are not criminal.  they are, like written fiction, and like 3D renders, imaginary.  there is no punishment for thinking bad thoughts, and that's a good thing, or we'd probably all be in jail.

Keith, that image rocks my socks.  :)

ernoka. the boot was for me  one of the good pics. and doing it (excuse the pun in front of your kid was no big deal.  what i would call smutt are all the bursting out the bra pics lmao. for me they are smuttier than most nudes. but i doubt they harm anyone....that said i would'nt let my kids at the age of ten near a site that had a violence, bad language or a nudity advisory capability without supervision.

blackhearted..of course you're right in the main...every site needs rules.  some things do go beyond the line. the reason we need the rules are because as a collective we could never agree as what does and does not constitute line crossing. someone, usually the owners or managers dictate it for us and themselves depending on what kind of site they want. we read the rules and if we agree join. what i can't agree with is someone saying....we'll pull a pic if it tries to evade or obscure the tos of the site....isn't that what most of the sexual pics do. sounds pedantic and heavy handed to me. isn't it good enough that a pic will be pulled if it simply breaks the tos without people claiming we'll do this and that if you put a teacup in prominant position.

as for art in genral depicting nudes or even sex. whilst i wouldn't let my kids at a young age surf for it. i wouldn't mind them by my side asking any questions they wanted while i was here or at any other 3d sites or while  i was creating (trying to anyway ) a nude model figure or anything else.  even if i stumbled on a porno site while they were here i wouldn't be phased. its a fact of life they're gonna see stuff like that themselves when they do surf on there own. i'd sooner have them know what it is and why it's there. that it's fictional has little or nothing to do with love and rarely happens the way it's depicted on a site or film as it does in real life. i rarely censored them from watching  films when they were doing so with me or their mum. they knew at an early age the blood was fake, the head that was chopped off was false and the tits that stuck out likebasketballs were plastic.

billy

billy 

and like 3D renders, imaginary.

sorry but once the mesh is rendered and put on display it stops being imaginary and becomes a reality that depicts a physical thing. it may like all art have come from the imagination but but it's tangible can be noticed by one or more of the physical senses be it sculprure, painting, or street drama. maybe writing would be the hardest to prove as being physically but the words are their to see. it being a work of fiction or not has no relevance.

as for no crime  for thinking something..you're obviously not a catholic lmao.....thinking about killing someone to a devout catholic is almost as bad as doing the deed and unless you repent before death will not enter the kingdom of heaven. though i know thats not what you meant lol

billy

Do anatomicaly correct drawings in a textbook qualify as porn? Or is it erotica?  For that matter, I seem to recall getting excited over the latest issue of Fredericks of Hollywood, when they used drawings and paintings.  Is that porn, erotica or just catalog art? 

Back to the textbook question.  If the drawing depicts the innerworkings of sex, is that porn?  If it isn't, then if that same textbook used photos instead of drawings to show the same thing, is that porn?

We as americans, as a whole tend to be very prudish about these things in the open, but in private it's another story.

I believe the Japanese have a saying that goes something like this, "Nudity is often seen, but rarely looked at."

Quote - [youre not? perhaps youve been at rotica a little too long.

someone that fantasizes about gruesomely dismembering women, literally gets off on such imagery, is a sick person. encouraging them to share such images in a community puts them one step closer to thinking that such things are acceptable, and one step closer to them acting on them. same goes for child porn.

Actually, you haven't been there enough to understand anything about Rotica. If you had been, you wouldn't assume that every image there was made or is viewed with the intention of "getting off".

uhoh..we'll have to keep billy423 from the b.e.a..;)
Yup..take the wrong link, and you find out how out there some folks can get..even the stories (the abbreviations at the end are strange enough)

once the novelty wears off, you tend to start ignoring things. Good thing Poser men have detacheable pn*..wasn't that a King Missle song? who knew? (or is it attacheable.."I can rent it out when I don't need it, and..;)"

whats the...b.e.a. pakled?

billy

Quote - whats the...b.e.a. pakled?

billy

Yeah, Pakled, what does it mean.  I've had to learn NVIATWAS, I've had to learn NOTLD, and I alread knew about the NKVD and the KGB, and the OSS, and the CIA, and the DOI, the DOA, and the DIA, and Shin Bet, and the Mossad, and the .... Oh Heck!

David P. Hoadley

Quote - "

whats the...b.e.a. pakled?

billy"

Thanks pakled for the link on the site, definately 'far out' stuff.  And now having seen it, I still find IT hard to believe.  Surely those are photo manips!
David P. Hoadley

BEA with pics that must be photomanips? It seems like the bea whatever it is is something that would breach the TOS here, so Pakled... Be smart and PM me the link ;o)

Hehe I was inspired to make a joke:
 And please note it's not Pakled, it's A pakled.

Why did the contrary pakled look at porn on the internet?
.

.

.

.

He looked for things that could make him come...

Quote - BEA with pics that must be photomanips? It seems like the bea whatever it is is something that would breach the TOS here, so Pakled... Be smart and PM me the link ;o)

If you DO browse the site, you'll feel a definate WEIGHT removed from your chest.  The ladies could all be pin-up girls for 'Dairy Queen.'
DPH

Ah.. in that case I think I've seen the site. Scary! Makes me remember why I prefer to look at males ;)