naked children are obscene? ......naked children are just children,  whats obscene is the fact some get a kind of gratification from seeing them....images of naked children shared with others for said gratification are obscene.....thing is that isn't really what this thread is about.

as far as i can tell it'sabout,

is a naked faery image obscene? is it possible to age an anime image? is there a strict guidline that any mod can follow and in doing so come up with the same outcome? if this is the case why do mods have to pass images to each other for verification as to their allowability.  i think for many who took part in this thread what it boils down to is this......is a naked faery the same as a naked child.....the mods seem to think so most of those posting seem to dissagree. and can the rules of what a child is be established so that people can put work in the galleries without fear of being chastised. people don't it seems want to have mod vet a piece before it goes in the gallery. to have to do so would negate the actual rules and make them worthless. from the images i've seen in the galleries i'd say most if not all know what the difference between child porn and a nude faery is.

a question?    did anyone who saw 3dzones work think it in anyway obscene. did the person who said naked kids are obscene see anything obscene about it......now thats the real reason of this thread. i didn't would be good to see what others thought.

billy

 

me?...obscene? hahahahahahahaha
ANYONE who's know me on the net,has seen my proddys(cept for ONE blasted penis and a toy box, I'll never live down...sheesh!) or my art or my website..KNOWS I am far from obscene...lol

and the thing about this is..I have HAD images that I questioned about putting on this site,not that I felt they were obscene,just that they involved nudity of children,but in the images I felt it was called for,one being the milbaby as a faerie sleeping in a tree,and I did my damnedest to make sure that the leaves on the tree covered all of it's little bottom parts,sent it to a mod,and it was denied acceptance too.yet,it was ok for every other site I submitted it to.
IMO young innocent nudity is a beautiful,natural thing..but hey,I also think I'm an artist...lol

Quote -  I'm 32... What if I were to make an image map for Aiko, based on photos of myself.  Then sign a model release form.  No one could say Aiko was under 18 since her skin texture was clearly created from a 32 year old model.

by this logic we could apply your skin texture to mil baby and claim it is an adult.

the skin does not make the image of an adult.

Quote - naked children are obscene? ......naked children are just children,  whats obscene is the fact some get a kind of gratification from seeing them....images of naked children shared with others for said gratification are obscene.....

It is far easier to regulate the presence of naked children than to try to regulate the intent of the artist.

Quote - > Quote - The bad thing with 3D art is.........you can't just get a model release form for the model, because they're just a bunch of code. 

No, but maybe you could for her skin.  I look very young for my age.  I'm 32 and get carded to buy flipping lottery tickets.  (For which you only have to be 18 in Ohio.)  What if I were to make an image map for Aiko, based on photos of myself.  Then sign a model release form.  No one could say Aiko was under 18 since her skin texture was clearly created from a 32 year old model.

Luna Faye

I'm going to repeat myself once again.  If the MORPH of the model makes the model appear underaged, and the model is nude, it will be removed.  It does not matter how old the person is that the skin texture is derived from.

As for PayPal restrictions, that only applies to the marketplace.  Not the galleries.  If I'm wrong, someone from the MarketPlace will correct me.

As for me, I'm done with this thread.  I'm physically ill, and I don't have the energy to argue with you guys on something we're not going to change.  Our old system was abused, so we had to get stricter.  Such is life.

MS

[

Quote -  

naked children are obscene? ......naked children are just children,  whats obscene is the fact some get a kind of gratification from seeing them....images of naked children shared with others for said gratification are obscene.....

It is far easier to regulate the presence of naked children than to try to regulate the intent of the artist.
i agree but chalk is chalk and cheese is cheese. if it's easy you want then just close down the galleries.. 

billy

Quote -

Quote - It is far easier to regulate the presence of naked children than to try to regulate the intent of the artist.

i agree but chalk is chalk and cheese is cheese.

  the powder in the Kraft Mac and cheese box could be mistaken for either (or neither).

Quote -  if it's easy you want then just close down the galleries.

obviously they want galleries but need to put some limits on them.

we dont have to go to the extreem to "solve" a problem.

---

Art, like morality, consists of drawing the line somewhere. [GK Chesterton]

 

Isn't there a scale...Tanner scale or something that the feds use to judge the age in pictures? It seems most people have a problem with the arbitrary way this is being judged by the mods so who not adopt an official method of judging the age? If you publish it along with the TOS it might help artist to avoid getting images pulled in the first place.

i agree but chalk is chalk and cheese is cheese. 

the powder in the Kraft Mac and cheese box could be mistaken for either (or neither).

 

semantics tyger.

 

Quote -  if it's easy you want then just close down the galleries.

obviously they want galleries but need to put some limits on them.

we dont have to go to the extreem to "solve" a problem.

you said what everyone or most in this thread think....they're going to extremes.

---

Art, like morality, consists of drawing the line somewhere. [GK Chesterton]

chesterton was also quoted as saying.......i say that a  man has to be certain of  his morality for the simple reason that he has to suffer for it......i'll add as so to do others.

as this thread proves sometimes a line drawn is more a show of power and ineptitude than good common sense. if we draw lines or create bounderies not only do they have to be rightous, they also have to have a semblence of being drawn or in the right place or fairly.

billy

 

bakefuldoll.

basically this is whats up for discussion as well as should it just be human children.

on a personal level i happily accept naked human kids shouldn't be allowed. for many the trouble lies in the diffirentiation between human, anime, toon, faery, pixie and what ever else is deemed by rendo to be a child. in photographic media the line is much more simple to define...has anyone got photos of young faeries........would the feds tanner scale allow or disallow faeries for instance. would the tanner scale work just for human kids.........how can it be for faeries when to many, faeries are ageless.

 

the tanner scale arguement

PEDIATRICS Vol. 102 No. 6  December 1998, pp. 1494
Misuse of Tanner Puberty Stages to Estimate Chronological Age

To the Editor;
One of us has been involved as an expert in several US federal cases of possession of alleged child pornography, in which seized materials (videos, photographs, computer downloads) were used as evidence against individuals identified in "sting" operations, wherein government agents take over pornographic businesses.  In these cases the staging of sexual maturation (Tanner stage) has been used not to stage maturation, but to estimate probable chronological age.  This is a wholly illegitimate use of Tanner staging: no equations exist estimating age from stage, and even if they did, the degree of unreliability in the staging the independent variable would introduce large errors into the estimation of age, the dependent variable.  Furthermore, the unreliability of the stage rating is increased to an unknown degree by improperly performed staging, that is, not at a clinical examination but through nonstadardized and, thus, unsuitable photographs.
Therefore, we wish to caution pediatricians and other physicians to refrain from providing "expert" testimony as to chronological age based on Tanner staging, which was designed for estimating development or physiologic age for medical, educational, and sports purposes, in other words, identifying early and late maturers.  The method is appropriate for this, provided chronologic age is known.  It is not designed for estimating chronologic age and, therefore, not properly used for this purpose.

Arlan L. Rosenbloom, MD
Department of Pediatrics
University of Florida College of Medicine
Gainsville, FL 32610-0296

billy

Does this look like a child? If so then the mods need to check the MP since this figure is naked there. In fact - the MP has lots more naked child looking Aikos. Odd that the same rules dont apply in the MP and I can view nudity there without  logging in.

A young woman to be sure. A furry pubic patch would help though.

Quote - Does this look like a child? If so then the mods need to check the MP since this figure is naked there. In fact - the MP has lots more naked child looking Aikos. Odd that the same rules dont apply in the MP and I can view nudity there without  logging in.

She's got that child-woman thing going on that was posted in another thread above.

Her face is young but her body is quite developed. As for pubic hair... it's there. It's just well "manicured/trimmed" like many young women do these days.

Yeah - but I'm willing to bet if an artist posted a pic of her nude it would be deleted. I don't think the gallery and MP are treated equally.

Gallery and Marketplace are run separately.

3Dzone, i feel for you. I'm not gonna rant about this cuz it falls on deaf ears but i have been there, just had 4 nude aiko pics pulled myself recently which are now posted at www.tiquanleap.com.

Posted this one in disgust: 
http://excalibur.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php?image_id=1285476
I think you will like it.

Quote -

i agree but chalk is chalk and cheese is cheese.  the powder in the Kraft Mac and cheese box could be mistaken for either (or neither).

 semantics tyger.

 Humor billy :-)

nakedness is only deemed obscene if the person viewing it is prone to obscene thoughts that is my own take on this. not only were they born with clothes on, they also shower with it on. i'm sorry, but if we act like this as an adult, children of the next generation may never see art for it's substance.

i'm sticking to the subject here regarding nude aikos...sure it branches out to other issues that may be assosciated with it but i'm merely talking about this one subject at hand, nothing else. i too have naked aikos, i have naked V3s too but it's how it's done that plays a big role over this whole dilema. nudes can be done tastefully anything else should be posted in other sites that are designed for it. i haven't seen the aiko render in question but i have seen one made by a great friend of mine which is pulled as well...no she wasn't naked but i think the fact that this aiko was holding a teddy bear was the main reason why it was pulled. teddy bear equals a kid i suppose...it still makes us wonder to this day how a clothed aiko sitting on the floor at the corner of a room, holding a teddy bear violated the ToS but oh well, it's their rules.

As many have stated, there is and will be no objective rule on this. Much as I hate to agree with Xenophonz (being an unrepentant liberal), he's right - they're doing the best they can do under the circumstances. Much as I hate to agree with the PTB (being a rebel), I can understand their position. Why? They're afraid plain and simple. For our non-American brethern and sistern, or anyone whos been holed up in a cave with Osama for the past decade, we have a little thing going on over here called the "Culture Wars." Good vs. evil, you're with us or against us, that kind of thing. Exploiting hot button issues is a favored tactic of both sides. It's easier to gin up support against say "partial birth" abortion than abortion in general, etc. In this case, it's easier to attack "child porn" than porn in general. Even Ma and Pa Kettle may sneak down to the general store and rent 'Debbie Does Dallas XIV,' but not many people are gonna support nekkid chilluns. All it takes is one complaint or one ambitious DA somewhere to put you in a world of hurt. Last I heard, you can even be prosecuted for images of clothed children if there are things like a "lewd and lascivious" display of the genital area. It's a minefield with people throwing hand grenades. Yes, it would be nice if Renderosity stood up for art, had more nuanced guidelines or whatever, but they're human and they're trying to make a buck, not be martyrs on the cross of free speech. Frankly, even if they were a strictly non-profit operation, I could see their treading carefully. That's just the reality of how things are today. I applaud anyone who has the courage to buck the trend, but let's face it, the number of people willing to risk their "lives, fortunes and sacred honor" just ain't what it used to be - if it ever was - and most of them are walking the walk in Iraq.

THANK YOU lmckenzie

It all works like this-

The people who run renderosity love art - but their TOS are not their own - its a TOS dictated by the banks who process the credit cards.

The banks are pressured to help eliminate pornography by Alberto Gonzales - who takes his orders from George.

George is doing a favor for the Evangelicals who helped get him his latest job.

The Evangelicals think they are doing the will of God on Earth - but they are not and that's the problem.

God really doesn't care what people do to each other - He only wishes they'd stop destroying his planet and so now He has given us climate change which will in the end kill more people than the terrorists can ever dream of.

So the answer to naked Aikos is go buy a Toyota Prius.

Quote - in Rendo's and the mods who removed my images defense,they did NOT say it was child porn,just underaged nudity ,meaning that they viewed the character to be under 18.

I just wanted to point that out,since this thread has lingered to the child porn issue  :0)

:) Oh golly I feel silly. So this is really just a matter of following the rules. Like, if there was a rule about not showing hotdog buns in your gallery, and you went and did it (you rebel, you), then you would chastized and chastened. Or a rule against pictures of, say, oak trees, and the admins decided that your attempt to create a sycamore had veered FAAAAR too close to looking like an oak tree for their taste.

A clarification: When I said, "Naked children are obscene," I meant "They [the Puritans creating the rules] consider naked children obscene." Myself, I consider Dick Cheney obscene, and the war in Iraq, and the non-compete awards going to Halliburton, and the refusal to address global warming, and ignoring Avian Flu until Rumsfeld secured stock in a company that made a government-supported "vaccine," and having an official in charge of women's health issues charged by his own wife with multiple counts of anal rape, and... well, not naked children, who are generally cute and a pleasure to watch -- like squirrels or kittens playing, not Carmen Electra miming fellatio.

But this is, as Xen is always eager to point out, the best of times in the best of all possible worlds, and there are other places to post pictures of that real world the body-hating Talibans infecting the planet would like to heap and burn, with a few bad women on the pyre for propellant.

Well it does state in the TOS the following and i believe the mods have the rights to remove any image the find are going against any of these guidelines.

• Child Image Guidelines:

• No Child Nudity: Images of children or characters resembling children (including teens, pre adolescent, child like fairies and other imaginary figures) under 18 years of age, depicting nudity are no longer permitted.

• No child nudity of any kind which includes exposed chest on females, buttocks or genitals.

• No images in which characters under the age of 18 give the appearance of having no clothes.

• 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.

• No depictions of young humanoid characters/children giving the appearance of being under the age of 18 displayed in erotic, seductive, provocative poses or context.

• Babies in diapers will be allowed. Toddlers fall under the child nudity section.

• Since age is difficult to identify with 3D images, this will be at the discretion of the Renderosity team.

• Gender that is questionable on an image with an exposed chest will be removed from the gallery at the discretion of the Renderosity team.

If anyone post an image of a child that is showing any nudity of any kind then they should at least expect said image to be removed.

 

 

No depictions of young humanoid characters/children giving the appearance of being under the age of 18 displayed in erotic, seductive, provocative poses or context.

that's the point of this whole thread,under 18 seems to be very subjective round here,IMO my character was an adult not a child,and it was Aiko3 which this problem occurs most often with.

I have no problem with following rules,I do not intentionally break or try to break them,and that is why I closed my gallery here,
because it seems that one image passes and one fails..no matter if you are using the same character or not,a simple hairstyle or tilt of the chin can land you in a TOS violation,so it's just not worth bothering to upload.

-3DZ

Quote - Well it does state in the TOS the following and i believe the mods have the rights to remove any image the find are going against any of these guidelines.

• Child Image Guidelines:
• No Child Nudity: Images of children or characters resembling children (including teens, pre adolescent, child like fairies and other imaginary figures) under 18 years of age, depicting nudity are no longer permitted.
• No child nudity of any kind which includes exposed chest on females, buttocks or genitals.
• No images in which characters under the age of 18 give the appearance of having no clothes.
• 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.
• No depictions of young humanoid characters/children giving the appearance of being under the age of 18 displayed in erotic, seductive, provocative poses or context.
• Babies in diapers will be allowed. Toddlers fall under the child nudity section.
• Since age is difficult to identify with 3D images, this will be at the discretion of the Renderosity team.
• Gender that is questionable on an image with an exposed chest will be removed from the gallery at the discretion of the Renderosity team.

If anyone post an image of a child that is showing any nudity of any kind then they should at least expect said image to be removed.

 

 

so what your saying is never voice an opinion against the rules?

i'm pretty sure some of the rules in the tos were put there because of what members said or thought, surely it's possible some could be changed through the same means...unlikely from what i've seen but possible

billy

Quote - Well it does state in the TOS the following and i believe the mods have the rights to remove any image the find are going against any of these guidelines.

• Child Image Guidelines:
• No Child Nudity: Images of children or characters resembling children (including teens, pre adolescent, child like fairies and other imaginary figures) under 18 years of age, depicting nudity are no longer permitted.
• No child nudity of any kind which includes exposed chest on females, buttocks or genitals.
• No images in which characters under the age of 18 give the appearance of having no clothes.
• 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.
• No depictions of young humanoid characters/children giving the appearance of being under the age of 18 displayed in erotic, seductive, provocative poses or context.
• Babies in diapers will be allowed. Toddlers fall under the child nudity section.
• Since age is difficult to identify with 3D images, this will be at the discretion of the Renderosity team.
• Gender that is questionable on an image with an exposed chest will be removed from the gallery at the discretion of the Renderosity team.

If anyone post an image of a child that is showing any nudity of any kind then they should at least expect said image to be removed.

The rules don't upset me. RR has the right to make whatever TOS they want. Its that the rules are only for the artists posting here - not for the market place.  Why can child nudity be shown in the MP? Things are not equal - and it smacks of hypocrisy. Makes ya think maybe the ones pulling in the money are more important than the people who buy and use the products since said products cannot be used as shown.

I should begin by mentioning that this post is totally OT to the issue of whether or not certain Aiko images look too young -- this is just to address some ancillary matters which were brought up in the course of the discussion..........

---

Several people have made the statement that nude photos of underage persons are automatically legally classified as porn.......and that's not true.  From a purely legal standpoint, the issue isn't anywhere near as cut & dried as many people think that it is.

There exists a small cadre of well-known photographers who specialize in "tasteful" or "artistic" nude photos of children and adolescents.  I won't name the photographers.  But I will mention that their published coffee-table-style books are openly sold at places like Borders and Barnes & Noble.  And on Amazon.  Needless to say, it's one of those dreaded hot-button topics which infuriates people. 

But in any case, it's not factually true to flat-out state that ALL nude photos of underage persons are legally defined as porn.  Some of them are considered to be legal.  At least in the US.

A few years ago, the FBI went after one of the famous photographers, BTW.  The FBI lost the case.  The photographer now lives in France.  Along with the ayatollahs, the secularist anti-semites, the burgeoning neo-Nazis, and the famous movie directors fleeing US justice who have all found safe haven in that country.  And of course, socialists.  Great place to move to -- if you care for the company.

Also -- there are 100's of "legal" child-modeling websites, where credit-card subscribers can download tons of images of kids carvorting around in their bathing suits and in their underwear.  Some of the sites even go so far as to have the kids in the nude -- holding their hands and arms over critical places.  These sites are often set up by the parents of said children.  Or else they are run by professional photographers who specialize in such material.  The photographers offer money for new models, of course -- along with promises that your beautiful little girl will be on the fast-track for a great modeling career.  And perhaps she'll be spotted by one of the big-name Hollywood producers, directors, or agents who regularly peruse those same sites, searching for new talent.  There's even a website run out of Florida which features for-sale DVD's of "naturist beauty pagents" involving girls pre-teen & below.......Bill O'Reilly has attacked the website several times on his show.  But under Florida state law, the DVD's & videos are 100% legal.  It's been challenged in court -- and the website owner won the legal battle.

"Art" can be used as every bit as much of an excuse as any other.......reason.

And no......this most definitely isn't the "best of all worlds".  It's just the one that we live in.

To be honest with you all, i would like to see the image that started this thread off. I have an open mind on many things concerning the art world and i would like to them put my opinion forward on the matter. Yes i can point out the Child Image Guidelines but in the same instance i can point out a morph that could also be shown to be against those guidelines if used in an image yet it is a bot morph made for Aiko only.

So 3DZ if you can be so kind and let me know the image or where it is posted now i'll take a look at it and make my honest  opinion.

Mssage for the Staff of Rendorosity.

If you are going to remove an image because it goes against your guideline/TOS, then why not remove all those images that depict a female touching her genitals, even an image of a female with a hand on a breast is going against your set TOS which i'm sure you will see a few of but they don't get removed.

 

"Renderosity - Where art roams free!"

LOL!  ok.

Attached Link: The Heidi Effect

What's "legal," not surprisingly, usually depends on how much money you have. When some DA went after Barnes & Noble for selling aforementioned coffee table books (David Hamilton, Jock Sturges etc.), B&N's lawyers, (supported by the American Library Association and others who filer amicus briefs IIRC) won. Ditto the case against the film 'The Tin Drum.' Joe Blow posting cute pics of his 2 yr. old daughter in the bathtub probably better start getting used to not bending over to pick up the soap in the shower where he may be headed. There was a series of articles just a week or so ago about the child "model" sites and I think Alberto is looking into them as a new target. Some of them are clearly nothing more than softcore erotica and the parents have to know it but they're too greedy to care. The legality of the nudist videos reflects the (IMO rational) view that simply being naked doesn't necessarily equate to sinful or even obscene. If someone is filming the kiddies with a "crotch cam" then that's pretty obvious but ultimately, a lot of it seems to boil down to trying to figure out how the images are going to effect a particular viewer, whether they're going to excite "lewd" feelings. Where does that lead when in reality, someone, somewhere is turned on by everything from car crashes to people dressed up as animals? There's an interesting essay about the sexual symbolism of the Heidi films (link) - rather longwinded and psycho-babbleish, but the part about Heidi milking a goat is an amazing revelation. "In the second scene Heidi is learning to milk a goat. The body and legs of the goat frame Heidi, while the goat's udder hangs down from the upper left corner of the frame. Without an establishing shot of the goat, it is difficult for viewers to know just what they are looking at. Grandfather shows Heidi how to pull on the goat's teat, standing for a brief moment directly behind the teat. In the sequence, Temple handles the semi-flaccid teat without being able to extract any milk. Just when she directs it toward her face, milk squirts out in a sudden rush. The director obviously found the scene so successful that he repeated it toward the end of the film with another sympathetic male actor. For children, this is a comic sequence, of course, but, as Dwan stated, "...they don't catch that significance." So there you are; you've probably been perving out for years and never even knew it. Post your Aiko, fully clothed, milking a goat and you'll have the last laugh - er unless the mods read this find out what it *really* means :-)

I am pretty offended by stuff that does appear in the galleries and forums... violence/sexual violence etc. but for the sake of argument I am curious about the whole 18 year old issue. In North America  much of the territory permits sexual acts of adults on children 14 years of age, most areas permit sexual acts by adults on children 16 years of age, and only a few jurisdictions restrict adults to engaging in sex with children 17 years and older. I thought it was funny that the pederast political party in Holand was seeking an age of forteen for sexual concent when they could go to the USA and sexually exploit 14 year old children in most of the Bible Belt. I do not understand why in the US and Canada making a digital cartoon  image of a topless 17 year old humaniod strictly from imagination may well be illegal even if it has wings and pointy ears yet in some jurisdictions it is perfectly legal for an adult to sodimize a forteen year old so long as they don't photograph them getting dressed afterward?  I have noticed that in the last year eight prominent anti-gay Republicans have been arested in  homosexual activty in parks, lavitories and on-line. So is the US policy don't show it... do it? Except if you are gay of course...  Bowers v. Hardwick informed us that while it is not in the compelling state interest to regulate heterosexual sodemy it is in the State's compelling interest to criminally prosecute homsexuals for the same act. Strange mysteries???***

---

P.S. I think that in the US you would find many more twelve year old girls with heavy pubic hair than ninteen year old girls with a single pubic hair. So for safety I thing huge implants and a brazilian are in order for making your Aiko's "legal" maybe some crowsfeet on the eyes and corns or bunions on the feet 

What also scares me is that you get a "Warning" for posting "underage" characters when using a figure that is ok to post nude in the MarketPlace.

And it's the WARNING that really gets me. It means that you can't use Aiko here AT ALL, because SOMEONE , SOMEWHERE might find her underage. And they you get a warning.

And remember, warnings are forever. It's not like they'll fade in a year. Or 3 years. Or 5 years. It's a spot on your record FOREVER. And since Rosity has the "Three strikes and you're out" policy as well, it's not just a laughing matter.

Say a merchant, who does Aiko stuff, and who CAN post his or her characters nude in the MARKETPLACE of all places, decideds to use their own character for a picture in the gallery. And get a warning?! Heaven forbid that merchant uses their character more than once, because after a few pictures of it here, they may not be a member anymore (but, funnily enough, as far as I remember from a few older cases, they can still be MERCHANTS here, they just can't access the site anymore to check up on their stuff...)

This opens a potential minefield, guys. You have to have a rule: Either Aiko is ok or she's not. You simply can't go with a case-by-case decicion there because exactely Aiko is so ...well easy to misinterpretate. (and Hir as well I guess - he's actually an even harder case... Aiko can always be given a pair of ginourmous boobies and voilá she's "of age" - but unless you plaster a big grey beard on Hiro, how DO you decide if he's old enough?!

And remember, warnings are forever. It's not like they'll fade in a year. Or 3 years. Or 5 years. It's a spot on your record FOREVER. And since Rosity has the "Three strikes and you're out" policy as well, it's not just a laughing matter.

Actually any member can write to admin@renderosity.com to ask to have warnings reviewed. If you received one or two warnings a long while ago with no problems in between, it's possible for admin to "reset" your warnings. Note: this isn't a given... each case will be reviewed individually.

That's a new one, Karen. It has been stated on earlier occasions that warnings WERE final and not debateable.

If I post a picture of Aiko or Hiro, without ANY intention of showing underage characters, and it is then nevertheless deemed "kids" - then what am I to do?

And that's the point here, really: Intent.

Oh I know a lot of people find it a kick to skirt the border edges. We have the same problem from time to time at Raunchyminds when people want to see exactely when something is snuff - but again we try to judge from the intent. Dead people alone doesn't make a picture snuff, nor does Aiko/Hiro alone make a picture of KIDS!

And I AM scared that it's a case-by-case decision of some (I guess the actual number will vary depending on how many admins are online in a given timeframe) of the admins here. I'm sure the admins have different views of when something is underage, and then it's a question of good or bad luck if you get the "good cop" or the "bad cop" to judge your image.

The pictures posted in this thread. First, the one 3DZone posted with the three faces. IMO the last one is DEFINATELY underage, the two others are obviously faeries and thus "mythological creatures".

The large pic that was posted looks underage to me, I think it's the big eyes. She's very cute but her face says child to me. BUT again, if it was a full body shot and she had obvious boobs and/or pubes, it would be more tricky.

And just to ask again:

How do you determine HIRO'S age? You can't "boob" him up and showing him with a huge erection isnt exactely allowed here either G

---

And a little trivia regarding AOC: Age of Consent isn't necessarily the same age as age of consent. Sounds weird? Well there's a SEXUAL age of consent and a "Now you're old enough to sign things" AOC. And that is not always the same.

The sexual AOC here in Denmark is 15. You can have sex when you're 15. HOWEVER you must be 16 if you want a drink before and a smoke after, as you're not allowed to buy either until you're 16. And if you want to appear in a porn magazine you will need to be 18. Same goes if you want to have sex with your teacher - you can have sex with pretty much anyone else from the age of 15, but not teachers. The postman or your best friend's father (ewww.) but not your teacher.

For years, the sexual AOC here was 18 as well if you were a homosexual. As far as I know, this is now also 15.

Ernyoka1: If you are expecting consistency and continuity here, forget it. The rules are what the admins decide they are today, and they apply even if we haven't been told. And they apply retroactively. And they will be as restrictive and Puritanical as the rule makers can get away with, because the sexual content of R'osity is just a fast way to make money. Hey, if the perverts want to pay for this stuff, what the heck?

R'osity is not about art, it's a shopping mall run by folks who'll take your money, but that doesn't mean they have to respect you. I lived in a microcosm of this world for nearly two decades; I recognize the smell.

And the "warning" stuff is utter BS. They'll warn you if they feel like it, and they'll erase the warning if they feel like it. And if you are a successful merchant you can market jailbait without fear of punishment. It's like the Boston laws agains spitting on the sidewalk; they were great for keeping hippies and malcontents in line with selective arrests. I didn't get my warning for a naked child in a Gerome composite; I got it because I'm an irritating SOB. Recently I was threatened for "abusing" the Content Advisory checkboxes. Can't want to get warned for that!

M

Quote - ...but for the sake of argument I am curious about the whole 18 year old issue. In North America  much of the territory permits sexual acts of adults on children 14 years of age, most areas permit sexual acts by adults on children 16 years of age, and only a few jurisdictions restrict adults to engaging in sex with children 17 years and older.

In places where sexual acts of adults on "children" under 18 are permitted the "children" under 18 are not considered children (by law at least).

Hi Mick,

Please stop abusing the content advisory tags in your posts.

Thanks.

---

Lisbeth - we've always allowed reviews for warnings, it's not new. Since before I came on as staff, I know that. I remember Shoshanna posting about it... it was when we had all that kerfuffle about the OT postings getting out of hand.

With Aiko and Hiro - well, you remember a few months ago when the MP decided to classify all Aiko characters as children? And the resultant uproar... So the admins reviewed the decision and ruled that we would call 'em individually. With that in mind, I can't realistically see us putting a blanket "nude aiko ban" in the galleries.

Quote - I was threatened for "abusing" the Content Advisory checkboxes. M

Well, I'm not a site staff, but I'll venture a guess as to the reason for that...

The content/advisory tags are there for a specific purpose; to advise about content you may or may not wish to view/read for whatever purpose.  If every thread is tagged with an advisory, then the whole point and purpose behind the advisory tags has been rendered useless.

So if you were asked to not use them unless they were really called for in your post, I don't think it was because they were singling you out to be mean.  I've seen others asked to not use the tags without need.

So chin up :)

Quote - With Aiko and Hiro - well, you remember a few months ago when the MP decided to classify all Aiko characters as children? And the resultant uproar... So the admins reviewed the decision and ruled that we would call 'em individually. With that in mind, I can't realistically see us putting a blanket "nude aiko ban" in the galleries.

Yes, but the problem seems to be lack of consistency.

There are some very cute but  very young-looking nude Aikos in the MP,  yet other Aikos in the gallery that look older are being removed and the artist warned.

That's the problem. It just doesn't make sense.

It was  stated that  the policy in the MP came about because of PayPal threatening to remove their payment method from this site (I doubt they would have done that because it's bad business practice to cut off their customers. It costs them money in their pocket) unless the nudity policy was changed in the MP.

So now based on that, it would seem that the policy in the MP should be more strict than that of the gallery  because earlier in this thread it was stated that the policy for the MP is  NOT the same as for the gallery and the policy from the MP does NOT extend to the gallery.

It seems to me that the problem is a matter of "too many cooks".  Right now it seems that every site staff person has their hand in this pot and because of that the decisions are have been mixed.

I think what you need to form an official committee who will be the sole ones acting as judges on images both in the MP and in the gallery.  It could be 3 people (odd number so that there are no ties), with 1 person as a backup if one of the other 3 are not available.  All decisions regarding figure age would be determined by those 3 individuals and no one else.  If one of them is sick or on vacation or unable to be present, then the 4th person, the backup would be consulted.

If a very young looking nude Aiko is allowed in the MP, and the stricter policy of nudity in the MP has no bearing on the Gallery, then there is no reason for the Aikos that appear older than those in the gallery to be pulled.

Nice idea Acadia :) as long as they are not mods or admin! Vested interest  and subject to (site political) pressure.

Here ya go CrazyDawg

http://theartdoor.com/modules.php?name=Gallery&file=details&image_id=8211

 

 

Edited by a mod to remove session ID

Quote -
If a very young looking nude Aiko is allowed in the MP, and the stricter policy of nudity in the MP has no bearing on the Gallery, then there is no reason for the Aikos that appear older than those in the gallery to be pulled.

Gah,  I'm running on empty and the above should read:

If a very young looking nude Aiko is allowed in the MP, and the stricter policy of nudity in the MP has no bearing on the Gallery, then there is no reason for the Aikos in the gallery that appear older than those in the MP  to be pulled.

geoegress --

You might want to remove that link.  It contains information that's.....uh......insecure.

Already fixed it, Xeno ;)

Thanks, Morrigan!

NP.  I don't think geogress wanted us all signing in as him ;)

No, I doubt that he'd want that, either.

Words are interpretive and forever bound in rhetoric.  Look at lawyers and judges.  They make their living at pretending words are solid & unmovable concrete ideas & concepts.  And we believe them for a second, so we can sleep better, until the next trial begins.  Then all is re-interpreted & redefined again.   Each time we are that much closer to a police state the very thing we fought against in WWII.

Bottom line is:

It was a dumb rule to begin with.  Art is about freedom of expression and this rule is against art. 

 

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out--
    because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out--
    because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out--
    because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
    because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me and my renderosity gallery-- :-)
    and there was no one left to speak out for me

Quote - Nice idea Acadia :) as long as they are not mods or admin! Vested interest  and subject to (site political) pressure.

Here ya go CrazyDawg

http://theartdoor.com/modules.php?name=Gallery&file=details&image_id=8211

Well if that is the image that started this thread off then i will comment with an open mind.

From an artistic point the image is well done and in all aspects i can't really see anything wrong with it myself. Damn wish my art was done that well.

Now from a mods point it is going against the guidelines/Tos. "No Child Nudity: Images of children or characters resembling children (including teens, pre adolescent, child like fairies and other imaginary figures) under 18 years of age, depicting nudity are no longer permitted."  So in that case yes it should be removed.

Now here is a question i would like a Karen or another Mod answer for me. "If 3DZ had place some small jewel like nipple cups on the figure then would it have been going against the guidelines you have set out or not.?

It seems to me a few are starting to blow this out of context and need to keep it on the subject at hand. "what do they consider as child nudity".

 

 

Edited by a mod to remove session ID

thank you for your compliment on my image :0)
but I STILL say she is not a child  :o)~

Quote - Now here is a question i would like a Karen or another Mod answer for me. "If 3DZ had place some small jewel like nipple cups on the figure then would it have been going against the guidelines you have set out or not.?

yes, it would still be going against the guidelines...and I quote:

"No child nudity of any kind which includes exposed chest on females, buttocks or genitals."

That means, for female characters that Appear to Not Be Adult, the entire chest must be covered, as well as the genital and buttocks.  We do allow for bathing suits and leotards in that regard, and know that it is common sense that the entire buttock will not be covered in a bathing suit.  However, we hope that our members exercise the same common sense and don't start rendering Maddie in one of Vickie's thongs.