i think an opinon was being voiced more than someone trying to cause disruption. did you post in the cat thread by any chance lol. i virtually had my balls cut off cos i said 300 pics of cat should be ina cat forum. at least in this instant it was done humourously.  i also said some other stuff but that got pulled. anyway point is...we all disrupt threads one way or another don't we. we all voice an opinion that goes agaisnt the grain. i think it's more human nature than childishness. personally i don't see it as progress...more a cop out or an attempt at appeasement. what in essence has changed? people won't get warnings...they still get told if in doubt get the image vetted first. if thats progress then i don't hold out much hope for the global warming summits lol. a painted horse is still a painted horse if you paint it with another colour.

billy

Billy: HERE:

Quote - Hi all,

Further to suggestions, I'm happy to tell you the team have decided that we will no longer automatically issue warnings for removals but will discuss on a case by case basis depending on whether there is reasonable doubt over the model's apparent age.

Reasonable doubt. In my eyes that's intent. Do you INTEND to make Aiko look like an 8year old or an 18 year old? The surroundings may decide that. Put her in a sandbox or in a school/kindergarten - or put her in a bar or on a motorbike...

Some things are associated with adults, some are not.

Also put her with Mike3 and she'll automatically look younger because of the difference in size. Put her with Hiro and it's much harder to tell.

Quote - Well the solution to all of this debate is very simple.... just change the TOS and enforce the no nudity at all allowed rule.

No more debate about ages in the images and so on.

 

Bottom line is:

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

The rule isn't against art at all. Even art has it's limits. We all know what can happen when it comes to provocative images of kids. I'm glad R'dosity enforces this new rule and I don't mind if they even press it a bit further.

yes, of course art has it's limits. but this discussion isn't about provocative images of kids. why on earth does this kiddy come porn come provacative image of kids get played. its about deciding what is and isnt a kid image in a way everyone can understand and in a way thats consistant. as dor pressing it further lets make a rule that people can only post images of a lump of wood...clothed of course at least up to the first knot.. does everything that offends you need to be stopped.  it looks that way by your stance on nudity in general.  lets just say they bring in the no nudity rule that you want....what do you think would happen? who do you think would actually make the clothes people buy....sounds like a put on doesn't it....but the people who buy the clothes often do the nudes. i expect a lot of the merchants would go to other stores to sell their stuff along with many who enjoy  doing the tit shots. i suspect a large portion of people at rendo are in fact nudy reneders, at least that what the galleries say. ......i think if they brought that rule in the director might actuall lose more than his store lol.

billy

ps. do you also suggest getting rid of every model...they do come nude you know.

Quote - i had a post from this thread pulled by morrigan because she/he deemed it a personal attack...

1st point - She
2nd point - You yourself stated it was a personal attack, therefore it was removed.  Had you not stated it was a personal attack, I'd have left it.  Because, as you know, personal attacks are yet another violation of the TOS.

MS

Quote - Billy: HERE:

Quote - Hi all,

Further to suggestions, I'm happy to tell you the team have decided that we will no longer automatically issue warnings for removals but will discuss on a case by case basis depending on whether there is reasonable doubt over the model's apparent age.

Reasonable doubt. In my eyes that's intent. Do you INTEND to make Aiko look like an 8year old or an 18 year old? The surroundings may decide that. Put her in a sandbox or in a school/kindergarten - or put her in a bar or on a motorbike...

Some things are associated with adults, some are not.

Also put her with Mike3 and she'll automatically look younger because of the difference in size. Put her with Hiro and it's much harder to tell.

come on eriyoki

anyone who cant tell the difference between an 8 and 18 yr old needs psyciatric therapy. that isn't what this is about. it's not about making morphs so it looks like an naked 8 yr old in a sandbox and people who do thats stuff should be banned not simply warned. its abot borderline stuff where fairies have tits and wings and arent posed provocatively so as to make appeal to pedos. one of the mods actually stated.....a few started crossing the line so we decied to change the rules. which means even those that didn't cross the line get pulled. it isn't about child porn or the representation of it in any way shape or form. shit. i could go through the galleries and pull a thousand pics using the mods criteria. if you pull a pic of a fairy that doesn't in all honesty resemble a child persay. then you should pull all pics with people in them who are dressed to titilate if they look under 18. have a look in the gallery at all the lollipop sucking teenagers with nothing but lacy undies on. look at all the school girl anime stuff that have skirts up to their arse and a wanton come hither look on their face ...fuck this is getting so obtuse it's unbelievable hehe.

sorry i have to end this post now before i wet myself with laughter.....i just found the wanton come hither look so amusing i can't stop giggling to myself.

billy

Quote - > Quote - i had a post from this thread pulled by morrigan because she/he deemed it a personal attack...

1st point - She
2nd point - You yourself stated it was a personal attack, therefore it was removed.  Had you not stated it was a personal attack, I'd have left it.  Because, as you know, personal attacks are yet another violation of the TOS.

MS

i guess i have to understand if you can't help but take everything literally.  the fact the post was plastered with lol and lmao was obviously of little consequence.. ps i just saw someone make an attack on someone else and though they didn't mention a name i'm pretty sure it could be classed as a personal attack. sorry morrigan but i have the feeling i'm being told who's boss around here. nothing you can say or do will change that feeling. the post was inoffensive and in the same joking manner to the post in which it was replying.

billy

pps...i've just read an im from morrigan but net etiquette forbids me from pating it here i hope she gives me permission to do so so i can respond in public.

at this moment, I'm going to politely request that you don't, for the simple reason that I won't have time to respond to it.  Not that you need to know, but I'm on my way to the doctors for testing, and then will be headed to work.

MS

i hope it's nothing serious and without permission it's something i wouldnt do.

billy

Quote - BTW - it's the official position of the ACLU that child porn should be made legal.  Their fig leaf is to say that the the production of it should be illegal.  That's like saying that it's legal to eat horse meat -- but that it's illegal to kill the horse.

Or like allowing people to sell firecrackers but not to fire them off? Or to sell radar detectors but not use them? Or not to sell bongs because you KNOW what they're for? Or to sell cars that can go 150 MPH? The distinction you find so risible is one the law makes all over the map.

And I'm a member of the ACLU (missed you at the last meeting), but I'm not aware of an "official position" on child porn. Certainly if there were one it would be a bit better thought out and detailed than "child porn should be legal." Probably more on the order of "Pornography which requires in its production the actual use of children should be prosecuted for child abuse. Simulated child porn is free expression covered by freedom of speech." No doubt you pulled the "official position" from that traditional neocon orifice of factiod storage? Next time, please rinse before presenting.

The ACLU protects people's rights, even people who don't believe in the rights of others. It's one of the burdens of civilized society, not being allowed to drown dissent in the bathtub or hang it like burning fruit from the oak trees.

M

Quote - crazy dawg...first off why try and post an image you personlly think is underage? then why state that with skill you can use a morph that makes an image look underage which obviously isn't....if she's underage then i need locking up. the figure has all the proportions of a woman.

billy

billy, thats my point. even though the morph makes V3 look young in the face but still have the body of a woman doesn't mean it is infact a child like morph. I may be saying this wrong but i'l try getting the message correct here.

Example: here in Australia we have many young/underage females that have infact got the figure of a female aged 18+ but still have the young look in the face.

Now if i was to use that morph and make her naked from the waist up would and then post the image would  that image be against the rule that started all this off or would it be allowed. The point i am trying to get across here is that there are morphs on the market now that make V3/Steph look young but still have the body of a woman. Yet i bet if we posted a nude image where we used one of those morphs we would have it removed straight away.

Question is, where do they draw the line on the underage issue in an image. is it because the figure looks young but can have the body of a woman or is it because the figure looks child like in all aspects. Remembering in real life even some women still have that child like figure/look. 

[quoteI have no problems about the act of removing pictures that are deemed against the TOS, but I didn't like the fact that a removal also caused an automatic warning.

Exactly.

I do have a problem with being told that I'm being censored because of some nebulous "law" that no one will identify. And with being told that I'm being censored because of some draconian rule that Paypal applies to R'osity but not, apparently,  to other merchants like Amazon. And with being told that "Rules is rules" when I point out that the incidental naked child in the picture is not in any way an object of sexual regard. And with being told that it didn't matter that I posted the image three years ago, because I should comb through my galleries for sins of anachronism every time the rules change. And with the fact that I got my "warning" because I pissed off a pet merchant; the picture was just an excuse. If it hadn't been available, I'd have been nailed for one of the Koshini Modelling pics.

I vote the only way that matters here. No sale.

what is the ACLU

billy

American Civil Liberties Union

Sorry 3DZ you can say she is not a child but I followed the link to your gallery on your site and to my eyes she is a childlike character, I think I heard the term jailbait in my head, meaning that I took the character to be underage. 

Also, as 3DZ has pointed out by example if you don't like the rules then vote with your feet and move your galleries elsewhere, more sympathetic poser site or your own site or whatever suits your purpose. 

Whilst we continue to piss and whine and moan it is all full of sound and fury and signifies exactly nothing (apologies to WS for bastardizing his words).  You can rant and rave about the rules governing this topic all you want but I can't seem them changing with the restrictions of credit card companies on what you can and cannot use your merchant account with them for selling unless you want to pay way over the standard 2.5% handling charge.  Look at what recently happened at Renderotica and whilst we may not agree with some of the rules they impose if you are running a business, as Renderosity are, then you have to take heed of what your transaction companies tell you.  If they held out and said yes we will allow child nudity, or apparent child nudity in this case, then they have two options - pay more for their handling charges which reduces the percentage cut merchants get which will lead to merchants leaving in droves because it will be the worst deal in poserdom or have no CC company and possibly no paypal and therefore only be able to take cheque payments.

Since I first got involved with graphical works I have railed against puritanical mindsets that see Old Masters as pornography because they show nudity - not provocative nudity but just good old-fashioned birthday suits.  I can shout, scream and stamp my feet as much as I want but that isn;t going to change the mindset or the rules so I become the bigger person and only frequent those sites whose rules I can live with and where I feel comfortable.  I suggest that unless you really can't live without the drama then simply move your galleries and change your surfing habits in the same way I have.

I am not a prude, before anyone thinks to tell me that I am and that I am advocating censorship, one quick shuffle my gallery thumbnails will show you that it is the last thing I am.  I am a big girl though nd I take responsibility for my actions and work within the governances of any place that I frequent to the utmost of my ability.

As to the "is Aiko a child or an adult" debate i think that any anime styled character morph will automatically get a childlike definition applied to it because of the larger, rounder eyes.  I have Aiko characters that have what probably equate to C-Cup breats and a nice little Brazilian but I still think the morph makes them childlike and therefore I would not post them nude.  Also, in all my storybooks when I was a girl in the 70's my fairies wore nice floaty chiffon type frocks and weren't in the altogether and I've always wondered why they are depicted nude so often - is it perhaps a lack of suitable floaty and dreamy clothing?

all very well said valerian. but as stated by a mod, the rule was changed because of a few people crossing the line and not because of paypal. in her own words so we changed the line to encompass everything...or words to that effect. i agree with you that people who want to post images that break the tos should go else where but does that mean people shouldn't try and get some clarification on what criteria is used instead of a ....you can let us vet it before you post it....i don't think the rule is in question  just the ambiguity of it. and the way it seems to be done as more a personel preference than an out and out rule. what i find reprehensible is that someone starts a thread by complaing about the rule under discussion and says little but my fairy isn't underage. now while he's watching the the muppet movie on tv i'm trying to defend a point of view on which really doesnt bother me as i don't post nuddy images of any kind lol. i would have thought if someones gonna cry about a rule they would have a presentable arguemnet as to why they think it's wrong. at the end of the day he broke according to the mods, a rule. he has no come back really and he really was whining about it. i'm argueing the toss cos of the fundimentals of the rule and the absurd way it's implemented. i basically made a statement or two and stupidly i feel the need to defend or at least stand by them with as decent a point of view as i can put forward...that and the fact i like a good debate.

ps. thanks manhunter.

billy

And with being told that I'm being censored because of some draconian rule that Paypal applies to R'osity but not, apparently,  to other merchants like Amazon.

I keep hearing this... nobody on staff has ever said this.

And Mick, I'm going to ask you again to stop using the content advisory tags incorrectly. Incorrect use makes the tags effectively pointless. Tag are supposed to be used as a courtesy to other members who may not wish to view tagged content.

Thank you.

3dzone - this isnt directed at you since ive never even seen your gallery or the image in question - but the monthly fairy debate has reared its head again so im going to say my bit. its been about 3 years since ive said anything on the topic.

ive never understood why the poser crop of faeries always have to be prepubescent, and either stark naked or clad in thongs or something so skimpy that it looks like something a stripper would wear.

it sure makes it easy for people to jump to the conclusion that its a form of child porn, since all you have to do is slap a pair of wings on the character and say 'its not a child, its a fairy' to get away with it. i watched a lot of tv and read a lot of books when i was growing up, and i never read about/saw any faeries wearing the average type of clothing theyre sold with in the marketplace, thats for sure. 90% of the fae that are up for sale in the rosity marketplace or elsewhere are all wearing something more at home in a porn film than a fantasy novel.

and if you need to render them naked, what keeps you from just using something like a more mature fairy for the render? im not saying make nursing-home faeries, but you could base them on an 18 year old body and be perfectly fine... as opposed to the 6 year old bodies theyre all based on.
if you insist on rendering childlike faeries then why not create some garb from either flowers/leaves or something that covers them up more than a wicked weasel swimsuit? nothing wrong with them, of course - rio has a couple - but if i saw someone order one for their 6 year old id report them to the police and childrens aid immediately as a pedophile. as would most people. would you find it acceptable if the child had long ears glued to their head and butterfly wings strapped to their back?

Good morning. Ya'll sure have been busy. I got to my gallery fine. However, there's only 3 pics there. If you really want to see what I do, visit my web site and check the "Demo" and Experimutation" pages (link in my sig). I do animations and video. Some of them can also be found here in the Animation Outlet.

Okay, going to show my supreme ignorance here but what on earth is a wicked weasel swimsuit???

btw - i realise much of this thread is concerning aiko.
on that, i strongly disagree. theres nothing childlike about aiko, in fact she looks a lot more mature than most anime. her face is absolutely irrelevant - i have yet to see a child with C cup breasts or hips like that.
the people that complain about aiko should look at some of the other styles of anime, which really do look like children. aiko is a manga genre character that definitely looks mature with a more realistic adult body.

this might sound extreme to some, but IMO underage figures like the preschooler should be released with underwear actually permanently modeled into the mesh. that way they cannot be rendered naked even if someone wanted to. of course, knowing the market, within a week someone would release a 'no underwear morph'... still, its a thought.

Quote - Okay, going to show my supreme ignorance here but what on earth is a wicked weasel swimsuit???

google is your friend :)

yes... i know a lot of six yr olds with tits as big as the ones in the image why does it have to be about six and 8 yr olds. this thread isn't about 6 or 8 yr olds for gods sake. in truth it isn't even about fairies though it was a fairy that started it lmao. no pun intended 3dzone.....it's about the implimentation of an ambiguos rule. or with the ambiguity whith which said rule is applied. i have yet to see in any gallery here an naked or semi naked 8 yr old with it;s ears pinned to the side of its fuckin head. the image to me was borderline but even that image isn't what this thread is really about. why does everyone want to make it about porn. i've yet to see any and i mean any child porn at rendo. if i did i'd be the first one to shout for it's removal. why does everything have to be a fuckin drama. would who find it suitable? wtf are you on about. how can you compare a 6 yr old in a swimsuit who has pinned back fuckin ears with the rule and the implimention of it thats being discussed here.

billy

Quote - Okay, going to show my supreme ignorance here but what on earth is a wicked weasel swimsuit???

it's a swimsuit for wicked weasels if the description is anything to go by lmao

billy

might want to switch to decaf there billy...

Quote - btw - i realise much of this thread is concerning aiko.
on that, i strongly disagree. theres nothing childlike about aiko, in fact she looks a lot more mature than most anime. her face is absolutely irrelevant - i have yet to see a child with C cup breasts or hips like that.
the people that complain about aiko should look at some of the other styles of anime, which really do look like children. aiko is a manga genre character that definitely looks mature with a more realistic adult body.

this might sound extreme to some, but IMO underage figures like the preschooler should be released with underwear actually permanently modeled into the mesh. that way they cannot be rendered naked even if someone wanted to. of course, knowing the market, within a week someone would release a 'no underwear morph'... still, its a thought.

and thats whats being discussed. why some images go and some which are far more provacative stay. why when they do go they go by personal preference and not according to any kind of guidlines. guidelines that cut out the need for someone to have to vet their images with the mods first. thats why i sorta got carried away in my other post. sorry for that lol

billy

Quote - might want to switch to decaf there billy...

you could be right lmao

billy

Quote - Hi all,

Further to suggestions, I'm happy to tell you the team have decided that we will no longer automatically issue warnings for removals but will discuss on a case by case basis depending on whether there is reasonable doubt over the model's apparent age.

Karen

That sounds much more reasonable!  Thank you :)

Actually Billy, I get Gabe's point so it didn't get lost in translation from Americanese to real english ;o)  Just because you pop a pair of wings and some pointy ears on a borderline image does not make it acceptable within the nudity guidelines  because it is still basically human in shape so saying "but it is not a child it is a faery" is not an acceptable get out clause.  Maybe I just got his point because I agree with him on the clothing issue and for once I got mine in first so I don;t look like a brownnoser for once ;o)

Child is a bad pointer to use, in the UK you are realistically a child for sexual reasons until the age of 16 and not a true adult until the age of 18.  Therefore a child is under 16 and you do see 14 year old girls with figures akin to aiko's, they are still underage and still classed as a child legally speaking.  I see Aiko's form as fitting into that range and therefore it is very morph dependent for me as to how she looks and that is the head morphs and not the body morph. 

But........but............but..........google means leaving the site shock, horror

ehh, no worries.

i dont know. this argument has raged for years and the situation is going to get a whole lot worse before it gets any better. thank some people for constantly pushing and probing the rosity guidelines for renderosity's resulting heavy-handedness on the matter. i still stand behind my post on the pornstar faeries though.

all i know is that when i morph my next legal teen character it will be based on the V3 mesh as opposed to the aiko or preteen one since apparently the base mesh heavily determines if its child porn or not, regardless of what age character youve morphed it into. which is rediculous, IMO - the final product should be evaluated, not the mesh or texture it happens to be based on and bears no resemblance to. if i wanted to, i could morph a preschooler out of the poser dog... does that mean its not childporn, but a render of a naked hairless dog? :rolleyes:

it's fuckin surreal really. i'm argueing the toss about the tos re borderline images that could be classed as being under 18 either naked or in skimpy stuck in the crack of the gearbox clothing and at the top of the screen is some young borderline bimbo whos age could range from 15 to 19 wearing a bikini that has a thong which probably just about covers her camels hoof. how come images like this are allowed ina banner of a site that says if it's borderline its out...sorry but the smell of hypocricey sp...seems to have  a tad of bile and bullshit mied in with greed and double standards.

billy

Quote - ehh, no worries.

i dont know. this argument has raged for years and the situation is going to get a whole lot worse before it gets any better. thank some people for constantly pushing and probing the rosity guidelines for renderosity's resulting heavy-handedness on the matter. i still stand behind my post on the pornstar faeries though.

all i know is that when i morph my next legal teen character it will be based on the V3 mesh as opposed to the aiko or preteen one since apparently the base mesh heavily determines if its child porn or not, regardless of what age character youve morphed it into. which is rediculous, IMO - the final product should be evaluated, not the mesh or texture it happens to be based on and bears no resemblance to. if i wanted to, i could morph a preschooler out of the poser dog... does that mean its not childporn, but a render of a naked hairless dog? :rolleyes:

i actually said it could be done out of jabba the hut lol. what im saying is the mods should have a guidline that they use realistically as an individual mod. i'm also saying that when a mod states the rules of child nudity were changed to cover even those images they think are okay because a few people crossed the line that it isn't a rule as such . they just changed the goal posts cos of over work. if someone cant say this is a pic of a child in the nude or semi nude for girls then how can a conclave of mods say its so. we all know what a kiddy pic looks like. if they're put up ban the fuckers who post em but to say we changed the line cos a few people steeped over it is purile

and on that not i'm off to bed.

billy

to save you a google search valerian, here

Quote - Also, in all my storybooks when I was a girl in the 70's my fairies wore nice floaty chiffon type frocks and weren't in the altogether and I've always wondered why they are depicted nude so often - is it perhaps a lack of suitable floaty and dreamy clothing?

I asked the same question about 100 posts back and I am still waiting for a legitmate response.

Thanks Gabe, my soon to be 14 year old son nearly broke his neck getting to the monitor to see the "ladies" don't you love hormones rolls eyes

Yup, definitely not kid friendly wear although you can get similair items in our hig street stores that cater predominantly to a 13 - 18 age range and it does make me start ranting in the middle of the street when you see it.  The same people who are all set to hound out any paedophiles that may be in the area buy these revealing and meant to titillate clothes for their 14 year old daughters and then wonder why they are seen as sexual objects.  It's no wonder the UK has one of the highest rates of teenagepregnancy in Europe, if not the world, we have our messages so confused now and try to be liberal and restricting with the same hand and it just doesn;t work.

Whoops, sorry slewed off topic.

Quote - 3dzone - this isnt directed at you since ive never even seen your gallery or the image in question - but the monthly fairy debate has reared its head again so im going to say my bit. its been about 3 years since ive said anything on the topic.

ive never understood why the poser crop of faeries always have to be prepubescent, and either stark naked or clad in thongs or something so skimpy that it looks like something a stripper would wear.

it sure makes it easy for people to jump to the conclusion that its a form of child porn, since all you have to do is slap a pair of wings on the character and say 'its not a child, its a fairy' to get away with it. i watched a lot of tv and read a lot of books when i was growing up, and i never read about/saw any faeries wearing the average type of clothing theyre sold with in the marketplace, thats for sure. 90% of the fae that are up for sale in the rosity marketplace or elsewhere are all wearing something more at home in a porn film than a fantasy novel.

and if you need to render them naked, what keeps you from just using something like a more mature fairy for the render? im not saying make nursing-home faeries, but you could base them on an 18 year old body and be perfectly fine... as opposed to the 6 year old bodies theyre all based on.
if you insist on rendering childlike faeries then why not create some garb from either flowers/leaves or something that covers them up more than a wicked weasel swimsuit? nothing wrong with them, of course - rio has a couple - but if i saw someone order one for their 6 year old id report them to the police and childrens aid immediately as a pedophile. as would most people. would you find it acceptable if the child had long ears glued to their head and butterfly wings strapped to their back?

Good to see others are now starting to ask the same question I did. 

Guess your parents bought the same storybooks huh Fazzel.  It's something that has always bothered me ever since I started working with Poser a lot and became involved with "the communities", all the skimpy, revealing outfits that these mythical creatures wear and the number that mut have died from pneumonia by now is reprehensible :o)

Quote - Guess your parents bought the same storybooks huh Fazzel.  It's something that has always bothered me ever since I started working with Poser a lot and became involved with "the communities", all the skimpy, revealing outfits that these mythical creatures wear and the number that mut have died from pneumonia by now is reprehensible :o)

I grew up on Disney's Tinkerbell.

Hey, don't get me wrong, I'm no prude, that link to the Wicked Weasel site gave
me some greats ideas for a swimsuit I'm working on for a Vicki character.

It just seems odd there are so many naked fairies.  Are fairies supposed to
be intelligent beings or animals?  If they are animals I guess it would make
sense for them to run around naked, but if they are human type beings it
would make more sense if they were clothed.  I don't recall seeing any
naked fairies in any of the Lord of the Ring movies, unless I ducked out
for a box of popcorn when one was on screen.

I'm going out on a mythological limb here...

Not that I'm taking either side, but adding perspective.

The particular fae we have in question, the fairy, is more commonly known as a pixie or will o' wisp.

Which is quite different from the actual fae, referred to as Sidhe,  in movies and other fantasy fair.

The pixie/brownie/wisp is an embodiment of nature, pure and simple.  As such, civilized conveniences such as clothing are a contradiction to their nature.  If covered by anything, it would be by something made from leaves and twig.  Take the popular Lady Cottington's fairy fashion book for example.

However, just the same, it is just as likely and probably for this kind of fae to be nude.  Simply because that, is as natural as you can be. 

Which brings us the argument of whether or not nudity in itself is obsene/pornographic.   And then it starts all over again.  So.  Ya. 

Just  a handful of my thoughts on the global issue.

Attached Link: Child Nudity Guidlines

Actually this is in the new child nudity guidelines:

No use of: transparent clothes, blurring of nude areas, or the use of “blots” or “Censored” wording or props to cover areas that are otherwise not clothed...

I do believe flowers, leaves and the like are not considered clothing either as they are in essense, props

Please read the guidlines when unsure on *ANYTHING...*saves us having to ruin your day by removing your image, and the image can be easily vetted by submitting privately to an Admin or Mod for pre view if you are unsure...

Quote - > Quote - BTW - it's the official position of the ACLU that child porn should be made legal.  Their fig leaf is to say that the the production of it should be illegal.  That's like saying that it's legal to eat horse meat -- but that it's illegal to kill the horse.

Or like allowing people to sell firecrackers but not to fire them off? Or to sell radar detectors but not use them? Or not to sell bongs because you KNOW what they're for? Or to sell cars that can go 150 MPH? The distinction you find so risible is one the law makes all over the map.

And I'm a member of the ACLU (missed you at the last meeting), but I'm not aware of an "official position" on child porn. Certainly if there were one it would be a bit better thought out and detailed than "child porn should be legal." Probably more on the order of "Pornography which requires in its production the actual use of children should be prosecuted for child abuse. Simulated child porn is free expression covered by freedom of speech." No doubt you pulled the "official position" from that traditional neocon orifice of factiod storage? Next time, please rinse before presenting.

The ACLU protects people's rights, even people who don't believe in the rights of others. It's one of the burdens of civilized society, not being allowed to drown dissent in the bathtub or hang it like burning fruit from the oak trees.

M

Oh, really?  It isn't the policy of the ACLU?  I won't bother posting a ton of links here -- but for anyone who needs proof -- please feel free to do a google on the ACLU and child porn.  Then click on any of the couple of thousand or so links that will pop up -- some of them leading to official ACLU documentation (or for local chapters of the ACLU).  It's not difficult to verify what their position on the issue happens to be.

Amazon USA:
Amazon.com accepts American Express, Diners Club, Discover, JCB, MasterCard, Eurocard, Visa, Visa Check Cards, Amazon.com gift certificates, payment directly from your bank account, and checks, money orders, or cashier's checks denominated in U.S. dollars and drawn on a U.S. bank. Additionally, we accept Borders Gift Cards and Waldenbooks Gift Cards as payment for qualifying orders.

Amazon UK:
We accept Visa, Delta, Visa Electron, MasterCard, Eurocard, American Express, Switch, Maestro, Solo, cheques or postal orders (denominated in Pounds Sterling) and Amazon.co.uk gift certificates as payment.

So where does the idea that Amazon accept PayPal come from? I sure can't see it!

Quote - and as for you xenophonze...you'll be smiling on the other side of your face with your witty ...I can assure you that the company president's job is safe....come to think of it so will i lmao. and yeah i know the members aren't shareholders but as i say if people voice a loud enough opinion.....which obviosly they don't cos i'm the only burke posting  ...then sometimes rules change.

hee.....hee.....hee....hee......:lol:

Seriously -- I will say this much: the idea (read: threat) of "boycotts" has been floated many times in the past -- for one person's unhappy reason or another.  It's never gone anywhere.

By and large -- and as a general rule -- boycotts don't work.  This can be exemplified by sanctions raised against one misbehaving nation or another.  The bad guys usually manage to quickly find ways around the presumptive restrictions.

About the only times that I've ever seen a truly effective boycott have always had to do with local issues -- involving small groups of people on both sides.  With larger groups involved: it's normally a well-nigh useless tactic.  But participating in a boycott -- or suggesting participating in one -- can serve to convince certain people that they are actually accomplishing something.

..and the war continues..;) I throw this thought in every now and again when this thread turns up.

In Victorian times, they painted unclothed ladies, they just 'removed' the nipples (or didn't paint them in, if'n you know what I mean). I remember a White Rock Girl advertisement in that general time period.

How hard would it be to make a 'nipple-be-gone' morph or texture? As for the other bits, well, there must be some solution on that as well..

Quote - quote
if you insist on rendering childlike faeries then why not create some garb from either flowers/leaves or something that covers them up more than a wicked weasel swimsuit

Actually this is in the new child nudity guidelines:

No use of: transparent clothes, blurring of nude areas, or the use of “blots” or “Censored” wording or props to cover areas that are otherwise not clothed...

I do believe flowers, leaves and the like are not considered clothing either as they are in essense, props

i dont think it would be a problem. i dont just mean putting one leaf over the genitals... but a skirt made out of leaves would cover just as much as a skirt made out of cotton or polyester. im sure in the end it would be a moderator decision but i seriously doubt anyone would pull it on the grounds that leaves are not an acceptable 'fabric'. theyre completely opaque.

Quote -  Oh, really?  It isn't the policy of the ACLU?  I won't bother posting a ton of links here -- but for anyone who needs proof -- please feel free to do a google on the ACLU and child porn.  Then click on any of the couple of thousand or so links that will pop up -- some of them leading to official ACLU documentation (or for local chapters of the ACLU).  It's not difficult to verify what their position on the issue happens to be.

I'm only coming up with two kinds of links:

first a bit of aclu bashing, many base on a quote from a book that says what you are saying. no actual evidence or quotation of the aclu, just some accusations in a book.

second a bunch of references to court cases where child porn laws have been knocked down because they were to broad, unenforceable, or unconstitutional.

what am i missing?

Don't lose sight of the fact that the issue here is not whether the subject in the image looks 8 years old. The question is actually "do they look a day under 18?" That's the way the TOS is written.

Quote - what am i missing?

You are missing quite a bit.

OK -- this really shouldn't be necessary, but here's a helpful link -- there are others, if needed:

http://www.aclu-de.org/tentoughquestions.htm

3. Why does the ACLU support pornography? Why are you in favor of child porn?

The ACLU does not support pornography or child porn. However, we do oppose virtually all forms of censorship. Possessing certain books or films, even pornographic ones, should not make one a criminal. Once society starts censoring “bad or offensive” ideas, it becomes very difficult to draw the line. As the saying goes, “one man’s art is another man’s pornography.” As for child pornography, the ACLU supports the right of the government to prosecute the makers of child pornography for exploiting minors.

This is one of those Clinton-esque, misleading "non-denial denials".

Please note that the case is exactly as I stated earlier.  "The ACLU supports the right of the government to prosecute the makers of child pornography for exploiting minors."  And thus: the fig leaf.  Also -- note that NOWHERE in the above statement do they indicate that child porn itself should be illegal.  Just its manufacture.

Their position is entirely obvious: except for any who wish to obfuscate in the interest of hiding the clear intent behind the lawyer-ized wording.

BTW - I should add that I have personally seen ACLU representatives openly acknowledge this point during televised debates.  But I can't provide documentation for those shows.

Taking the position that "all censorship is bad" -- if one wishes to remain truly 100% consistent in one's own staked-out philosophic territory -- requires that child porn be made legal.  Because to say otherwise is to tacitly admit that some forms of censorship are good........which then allows that the other side just might have a point.

Horrors.

What's sad is that 'bad' or 'good' are subjective terms and very situation dependant. Things like lying and deceipt and censorship can save lives. Sometimes those things may even improve 'quality of life.' No dear. That dress doesn't make you look fat. Yes dear. I love your new short haircut.

lawyerized wording clarifies exact positions. it is only when the opposition makes  assumptions based on these words and then finds that their assumptions are not true that they cry "deception"

which side you are on determines if you blame the assumption or the lawyerized words.