1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes
4. No.

I'm not sure of your point?

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes
4. No

I think the point Lucifer is trying to make that they miss their cyber boobies in thumbnails. And how because we took that away, society as we know it will remove all rights from women, causing global collapse and it's all directly related to what Renderosity  has done.

Of course, what he fails to realize is that the new thumbnail rule is actually a step towards equality and treating women as people, and that it might help some men wake up and realize there is more to us than a chest, and they might just start realizing we have much more to contribute than they ever dreamed. So society gets better, all because of Renderosity.

Quote -
Of course, what he fails to realize is that the new thumbnail rule is actually a step towards equality and treating women as people, and that it might help some men wake up and realize there is more to us than a chest, and they might just start realizing we have much more to contribute than they ever dreamed.

yeah...theres also the washing...the ironing..the cooking... :D

Quote - I have a few questions, you'll see what I'm getting at....

1. How many people here are women?

• peeks  Girl

1. How many have children?
   -  Meowmy to 2 kitties :)

2. How many breast fed or feed ?

• Ewwww!

1. How many had to do so in the toilets of restaurants for fear of upsetting other customers?

• Can't say I've ever seen anyone breast feeding in a public toilet.  But at the same time when I'm sitting in a restaurant eating I don't want to see a woman whip out her boob either. If she can do it discretely, fine. Otherwise leave the kid at home and use a breast pump and bottles.

Quote - Of course, what he fails to realize is that the new thumbnail rule is actually a step towards equality and treating women as people, and that it might help some men wake up and realize there is more to us than a chest, and they might just start realizing we have much more to contribute than they ever dreamed. So society gets better, all because of Renderosity.

If it's a step tyoward equality then why the double standard? Men are allowed to show nipples but women are not. How is that accomplishing the goal they stated of consistency? It only makes other worse inconsistencies.  It's not about how women are treated by showing their chest anymore than it is by showing a man's hips. Each can contribute just as much or as little no matter what they show.

Maybe with all the nudity distracting people the essential point is being lost. Allowing some that have a problem with the thumbnails to force that onto everyone else is a mistake. Why wouldn't they just force them to set the nudity filter in their profile instead? That way the problem is eliminated without affecting the rest that don't have a problem with it

There are already systems in place and alternatives to solve this. Using an avatar instead of a thumbnail to represent the artists in the newsletter is one.

 I'm not sure who they're trying to promote the artists to, but it is dishonest to have the thumbnails give a false impression of the art. Wouldn't they be more upset to be decieved than to see nudity in the thumbnails? If it were so offensive then why would they consent to anything that was promoted when they found out it was here, those aren't the client they would want to go after anyway right?

It's more likely that the drive toward consistency hasn't reached it's goal, it might not be planned yet but it certainly seems to be intended  with the policies headed in that direction.

I can follow these new rules easily enough but... 

if someone is at work or has their child playing nearby and is worried about inappropriate content or nudity, why on earth would they not turn on the filter and still want the option of clicking to view the full image regardless of what the advisory tag says or thumbnail shows?

turn on the filter and u dont get the thumb or the image. which would be more appropriate than.. gee I will have a quick peek and hopefully i dont get caught out.

Quote -
If it's a step tyoward equality then why the double standard? Men are allowed to show nipples but women are not. How is that accomplishing the goal they stated of consistency? It only makes other worse inconsistencies.  It's not about how women are treated by showing their chest anymore than it is by showing a man's hips. Each can contribute just as much or as little no matter what they show.

This very male way of thinking sickens me. A man's chest is not considered a sexual part of the body. You will notice in the new rules, that male sexual parts cannot be shown, nor can female. Hey, that means it's NOT a double standard. If you want to try to twist to support your own meaningless argument, go ahead. The issue isn't open for discussion. If you don't like the new system, don't post images. I don't recall them asking for a committee. It's already done. Deal with it.

I bet you that (at least some) gay males will find a male breast sexy. And I do, too, although I'm female. OTOH I don't see anything sexy AT ALL in a female breast. it's just that. Boobies leaves me cold.

What I'm interested in, and I can't find anything written about this is:

What about our existing thumbnails? Are we required to change them into something that does not include nudity? And if so, is it then enough to put a black bar over the bodyparts in question?

It's not that I have all that many thumbnails that feature nudity, I've always found that slightly vulgar myself. Even my pics on rotica and RaunchyMinds often have family-friendly thumbnails although the picture is not (but then people who browse the galleries on RM and Rotica probably knows what to expect L)

No, older thumbnails are not required to be changed, as stated in the article. There's just too damn many of them for us to effectively or realistically require that!

By the way... I find the sexiest part of a man is his earlobes. I've just got a thing about big lobes. Phwoar! But they can still be shown on thumbnails. So I'm okay! :lol:

no cats here, and although I don't see any need for the new rule, it doesn't affect me personally. I suppose one could make a blanket statement that the worst pix in any 3D gallery are always poser renders featuring giant-nude-boob thumbnails, but that would be unfair to the users here, and unfair to the many artists who actually do excellent nude images.

This new rule didn´t affect me since I still don´t do nude works, I think that made a nude implies a loooooooot of work to don´t make it look like a porn.

But, in my personal opinion, there is nothing wrong with nude body (Specially female...hehe), and many of the greatest art works in the Art´s History are nudes (MichelAngelo´s David, Boticcelli´s Venus, Goya´s Maja desnuda (don´t kow the title in english)), but I can understand that parents don´t want his kids be exposed to (in their opinion) unnapropiated material. And, lets face it, not everybody made nudes with artistic intentions...

In the other hand, if its supposed to be an option to filter or not the nude/violent thumbs, why don´t just use it? I don´t think that all the responsability has to fall into the site.

But one thing, erotism and sensuality are not the same as porn...One is a sweet kiss in the lips, the other one is a kick in the nuts (Can I say nuts?)...

Speaking of earlobe... Have you seen this one? ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7RRLA2m6Yg

hmm...you may want to verify this, but I seem to remember a study saying dangling lobes showed an increased risk of heart attack...correlation, not causation..

Everybody has their favorites. I seem to remember hearing Japanese have a thing for long necks..some African countries go for overweight women, it goes on and on..;)

Hahaha! No I hadn't seen that before, thanks!

The restrictions seem to be aimed at blatant violence, but this is one that might fall into a grey area.  I just want to throw it out there to see where the lines are drawn.  I think it is artful and good for the picture it represents.  I would think it a shame if something liek this was unaccepatable, but in the end, I need to know so I don't get "slapped upside the head".

(I've tagged this for violence and nudity just incase, as I did with the original picture.)

Hi ThrommArcadia,

The violence guidelines for thumbs state that they shouldn't show an act of violence. Blood itself is okay, also minor bloody wounds and bruises.

In your image I don't actually know what that is on her torso, a bloody handprint? It doesn't appear to be a wound and there's no act of violence taking place, so I would say it's fine. (And her nipples aren't visible so no probs with the nudity.)

Thanks Karen.  I was never too worried about the nudity thing as I have avoided it in my thumbs in the past anyway (I believe in the art of teasing... is that so bad? )  but when I was re-reading the new rules i suddenly got really paranoid about the bloody weapons.

Anyway, thanks, I think this is a good guidline for me to go by on both accounts.

Oh well, since i am a proponent of NVIATWS art.... this will put a damper on my doodles
I guess y'all just have to work harder on more 'creative' thumb nails.

JV

Question!!!! What are the paremeters in a fight scene?

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/news.php?viewStory=13472

*That's for the thumbnails. Don't forget the guidelines for the actual images remain unchanged.

something I mentioned to linkdink today: at first I questioned their decision on the nudie thumbs, having assumed that folks can block nudity in their gallery prefs. I block violence, but I don't block nudity, as I used to do alotta hard-core porno cartoons, hence I'm interested to see what folks here can do. (I also did b-t-k stuff, much to my embarrassment) :lol: what I learnt from one of the admins is that folks can surf the galleries here without being members, but the only way they can block nudity is to become members, meaning they can't avoid seeing the nudie thumbnails. this means some of 'em who came here to see something else might be shocked, and others who don't mind seeing nudie pix can't easily fix it so their boss won't see all that stuff over their shoulder, when they're at work. since there may be valid work-related reasons for non-members to check out the gallery, I hafta reluctantly accept their rule.

Hello all.  Here's my input into this issue: 
I think we have to consider outsiders who may visit Renderosity who may not have that acute appreciation for the human form when they are not prepared for it.  For example, I work in a company of more than 15,000 employees, which has strict rules about what can be displayed on a corporate computer.  In my company, you are actually in violation of employee rights if others see you viewing nudity because it is considered a form of sexual harassment.  It's right up there with making sexual remarks and unwelcome advances towards other employees.  Our company actually presents movies along with trained human resource personnel to all its employees about what is sexual harassment and what should be reported.  We go through this training every year.  Why?  Because it only takes one person to get so ticked off that they run to a lawyer and cry lawsuit for the sake of harassment.  So this is a counter measure.

Because of this, I am always concerned about anyone at my job that knows I have images at Renderosity.  Myself, I don't produce nude images, but I'm worried that people I know who visit the site will be shocked by some of the images if they were not expecting it, especially if they are people I know at my job.  I always have to tell those I know that if they visit this site to be mindful of who is around them and where they are because of the nudity.

Another crowd I am concerned for are those that may be viewing the Renderosity gallery while at home where their children or spouse may be around.  Some of the material I've seen here is simply not Disney material.  Granted there are many fascinating and admirable images.  Unfortunately, I've seen some that I would not want my 12 year to see me even pass over on the computer, it is just not appropriate when trying to set an example of places you don't want them to go to. 
I must admit, I am rather uneasy at times when I go through the Renderosity marketplace if others are around me.  I basically have to try and shop when no one is around.  Sounds silly?  Put yourself in the shoes of an outsider viewing someone passing over icons of nude models, some of which are in rather suggestive positions.  If they don’t know what site you are at or what your reason is for being there then you probably look like a pervert.  I say this because my wife had a few wrong impressions of my going over the gallery.  And I’m talking just by what is shown on the surface pages with icons.  For example, in just the last week, I submitted some images.  I typically go to the gallery right after a submission just to see my icon there and others around it.  On one of the days last week when I did that low and behold on one of the surrounding gallery pages was some guy sitting on a rock totally exposing his family jewels to anyone who could see the page icons.  I did not want to see that and was thankful no one I knew was with me at the time the page surfaced.
Maybe we should consider the level of standards other “well regarded” digital art galleries uphold.  I stress the term “well regarded” because its too easy for anyone to throw up a site and say they are about digital art and put some pretty distasteful images up.  Those kinds of sites we should distance ourselves from in the extreme.
And so in closing, I would like to say I think it is not only a good idea to appropriately mark what is behind the icon for the reasons mentioned above but also for the future growth and reputation of Renderosity.  I'd like for others to know Renderosity as a fantastic digital art place that others can visit without concerns such as those described above.

Quote - what I learnt from one of the admins is that folks can surf the galleries here without being members, but the only way they can block nudity is to become members, meaning they can't avoid seeing the nudie thumbnails. this means some of 'em who came here to see something else might be shocked, and others who don't mind seeing nudie pix can't easily fix it so their boss won't see all that stuff over their shoulder, when they're at work. since there may be valid work-related reasons for non-members to check out the gallery, I hafta reluctantly accept their rule.

I can't believe nobody actually tests this.  Log out of the site and try it.
- If you are not registered, you cannot surf the gallery (prompted to log in)

• If you happen to know the name of a particular artist, you can Member Search while unregistered, but when you open their gallery, nudity is filtered by default and the thumbnails are all "Content Advisory".

The reasoning of "unregistered users might see titties" is specious and silly (not picking on you MissNancy, just pointing out fact).

Quote - I think we have to consider outsiders who may visit Renderosity who may not have that acute appreciation for the human form when they are not prepared for it.  For example, I work in a company of more than 15,000 employees, which has strict rules about what can be displayed on a corporate computer.  In my company, you are actually in violation of employee rights if others see you viewing nudity because it is considered a form of sexual harassment. 

I hate to break it to you, but whether anyone sees you or not, you're almost certainly in grievous violation of your company's policy anyway just for viewing the stuff all by your lonesome on company time.  That isn't a great justification for the new policy either.

You ought to take advantage of the nudity filter.  It's unreasonable to force hundreds of artists to conform to the needs of a pretty small number of complainers when a perfectly workable feature already exists to protect those sensitive types e.g. your kids and co-workers.

 Yep, when you click on the link to the galleries you are taken to a page with this:
**You need to login before you can access this portion of the site. Please enter a valid username and password at the prompt below. The password is case-sensitive.
**and the login boxes

If i search for a particular user's gallery, then it is displayed with the generic content advisory thumbs HOWEVER i am still able to click on those and actually access the full image itself it doesnt block me

...And when I am logged in with the nudity and violence filters switched on....
I get the content advisory thumbs BUT.......... i can STILL click on the thumb and view the whole image anyhow

Quote -
I can't believe nobody actually tests this.  Log out of the site and try it.
- If you are not registered, you cannot surf the gallery (prompted to log in)

• If you happen to know the name of a particular artist, you can Member Search while unregistered, but when you open their gallery, nudity is filtered by default and the thumbnails are all "Content Advisory".
  The reasoning of "unregistered users might see titties" is specious and silly (not picking on you MissNancy, just pointing out fact).

The registration process is only an inconvenience, not a deterrent, to web surfers that is overcome within a few minutes.  In the case of a PC that is shared by more than one user, it is possible that the Renderosity web cookies have been laid down onto the PC so that other users of that same PC can visit the site without themselves being registered users.  This can easily happen when one of the shared users sees a web history link in the browser from another user and clicks it, which may direct them to the Renderosity site.

Now that I’ve explained that I would like to clarify something here.  I’m not saying that nudity should be banned from Renderosity.  Some of the most impressive images I’ve sen here contain nudity.  I’m just saying that it should not be on the icons that people initially see.  I actually do not even like the term “Nudity” in place of the icon.  I think just the term “Advisory” along with a small caption of what the image contains is enough.

Quote -
I hate to break it to you, but whether anyone sees you or not, you're almost certainly in grievous violation of your company's policy anyway just for viewing the stuff all by your lonesome on company time.  That isn't a great justification for the new policy either.

You ought to take advantage of the nudity filter.  It's unreasonable to force hundreds of artists to conform to the needs of a pretty small number of complainers when a perfectly workable feature already exists to protect those sensitive types e.g. your kids and co-workers.

First let me say for those that are unaware that in a large company with an Information Technology department that there is most likely no such thing as looking at anything on a computer by your lonesome.  Large companies like the one I work in have I.T. Security groups with specialized software that allows them to see what end users see.  Typically, it only takes a phone call or some form of contact to these groups to monitor an employee based on a complaint. 

Once this notice comes in, the accused person’s PC is remotely monitored for sites they are visiting; even pictures of what they are viewing are captured.  This material is collected so it is brought to the table in a later meeting with the employee's supervisor as part of supporting evidence of any discipline that may take place.

Myself and others in the I.T. organization aware of this police activity obviously do not browse sites like Renderosity during work hours because of this.  However, the vast majority of end users who think they are by their lonesome do not know of this or do not believe it and do so anyway. 

Now, I’m not saying that Renderosity is a forbidden zone for large companies.  I do believe that employees can have a legitimate reason for visiting the site such as the CAD groups or graphics departments in search of content for business presentation or design projects.  The whole issue of concern is for those persons who may just be in the wrong place at the wrong time and see someone browsing a page that contains icons that are offensive to them.  That is why I agree with that the icons should not be so revealing and rather be labeled appropriately.

I have a violence question. Dragons never existed, or at least not proven. If Vicky slays a dragon, is it violence????? It's not a "living" creature.

An interesting question drifterlee.  I'm sure there are various opinions as there are various levels of violence.  Which is more violent, a picture of someone plunging a sword into the chest of a living thing or a picture of a dead thing next to someone who slayed them?  I would think the first case to be more violent.  However, if in the second case the deceased victom was depicted in a gross decapitated manner such that their condition was gruesome, like a chopped off head with oozing blood all over the place and veins dripping it out (eww), then I would consider that to be overly detailed violence for some.  Perhaps if we could see what the entertainment industry defines as rated PG, PG13, and R then we would have something to measure by.

Well, I never slay dragons so the question was academic.

In the case of a fantasy pic like that, the dragon would be a living creature within the context of the image, yes? So we would treat it the same way as an animal - we wouldn't want to see decapitation on the thumbnail.

LOL! I never do it anyway, I just wondered!!!

Just to get this straight, I can show a half severed breast with lots of blood as long as there is no nipple or aureola, and as long as the knife that did it was not shown, Bloody guts hanging out of a stomach are OK cause they are not sexual and won't upset the kiddies. Thumbnails like this are OK?

Quote - Does this new rule only apply to humanoid shaped figures or does it apply just as equally to the animals? It might sound like a silly question but we are (underneath the clothes) merely animals ourselves, just slightly less intelligent than the rest.

Well, it does partially apply to catgirls.

Quote -

1. How many breast fed or feed ?

• Ewwww!

1. How many had to do so in the toilets of restaurants for fear of upsetting other customers?

• Can't say I've ever seen anyone breast feeding in a public toilet.  But at the same time when I'm sitting in a restaurant eating I don't want to see a woman whip out her boob either. If she can do it discretely, fine. Otherwise leave the kid at home and use a breast pump and bottles.

First of all, this is not meant as a personal attack because I know many more people that think this way other than Acadia. But come on! This is part of what's wrong with the US in the first place. Breast feeding is natural for heaven's sake! Eww? 

And God forbid a woman actually feed their baby in a restaurant where everyone else is, get this, eating also! It's sad that we treat something natural and wholesome (yes wholesome, there's incredible bonding of mother/child with breast feeding) as Ewww. sigh

Steve1950:
Just to get this straight, I can show a half severed breast with lots of blood as long as there is no nipple or aureola, and as long as the knife that did it was not shown, Bloody guts hanging out of a stomach are OK cause they are not sexual and won't upset the kiddies. Thumbnails like this are OK?

No - we said minor bloody wounds. Not half-severed appendages or disembowellings.

Chailynne:
Acadia doesn't have any children. The "EWWW!" response was about the idea of breast-feeding her cat, I believe. I certainly wouldn't recommend it, given the way they dig their claws into the momma-cats ;o)

I just want to say thank you for the new policy.

I tried to peruse the gallery and, not being afraid of nudity, got hit in the face with the "monster tits of doom" that I try to avoid more times in one session than in my entire time here.  So I will most likely stop looking at all but a couple of people's work.

I have no complaints with those that do like that genre, but I was able to make an informed desicion not to look when they were honestly represented on the thumbnail pages for what they were.  Now I am unable to do so.

I must side with the "there were/are filters in place for a reason" crowd. I had reserved forming an opinion on this new policy until I could see what it's implementation was going to do.  Well, my opinion is that it is crap.  If I am going to click on images that I would have preffered to NOT see, I being one to just close the tab it's in and move along, I see this ending up generating even more complaints from the puritants, as now they can blame Renderosity for their viewing of even more material that they "would never, never ever" instead of accepting responsibility for thier tastes.

My gallery was pulled in reaction to DaVinci, not the thumbnail policy, before anyone tries to make it anything else.

Again, thank you to the ones that put this policy in place, I have alot more free time not that cruising the galleries is out of my routine.

Okay, I'll give her that Karen. Though I do read these boards a lot, I don't care to remember details like who has kids and who has cats. ;)

But my response to the 4th one still stands. Women shouldn't have to hide breast feeding.

Quote -
No - we said minor bloody wounds. Not half-severed appendages or disembowellings.

So what is a minor bloody wound? Who decides that ? If we have a definition in advance it saves a lot of problems.

It's not possible to give a specific definition, Steve, since the human mind can sadly conceive an almost infinite variety of injuries to inflict.

Take heart, Renderosity. These complainers whined when as children their toys were put aside; sniveled “I hate you” when mummy put the cookies away; can’t understand why there are rules for the protection of others; think their sexually-graphic digital scribbling is art; don’t understand that a website, like a club, may set whatever rules it likes; and don’t know what real censorship is because they don't know the definition of it and have never known it. These are small people, whiners who never grew up. You have a useful website. I'm glad you are talking control of it.

Quote -  and don’t know what real censorship is because they don't know the definition of it and have never known it.

:m_laugh: :laugh: :lol:

Thank you, I needed that laugh.

Hello **Orchid_Noir

**Sorry to hear you felt you had to pull your gallery.  You may want to take a peek over at 

http://www.cgsociety.org

I recently paid a membership for that digital art site and have not noticed them to have the same problems with image content as there is at Renderosity.  Actually, the whole site there appears to simply be different that you may find appealing.  Maybe its because you have to pay to be a member, who knows.  

I don't know yet how abundant their marketplace is.  I have found Renderosity to be a great place for shopping those odds and ends I need to complete some of my scenes.

Quote - Put yourself in the shoes of an outsider viewing someone passing over icons of nude models, some of which are in rather suggestive positions.  If they don’t know what site you are at or what your reason is for being there then you probably look like a pervert.

I have a similar problem, imagine if someone passing by see that I am looking in some site at  images of churches!, what they will think about me?, that I am a brainwashed religious fanatic!, how I shall explain it????
Nudity is more secure, at least they will think that I am one more normal "pervert"......

I've posted this question before but either I didn't get an answer or it's me being dense.

If I tick the "No Nudity" option , I wouldn't want to see a nude picture or a thumbnail. Period.

If I dont tick the "No Nudity" option, why would I be offended by a nude thumbnail?

The answer must be that the majority of people out there only like nudes in hi resolution, not thumbnail size. I can't figure that one out.

The current policy creates a situation where the thumbnail shows a nice face - click on it and you get the monster tits. Waste of bandwidth. If you are looking for monster tits, you have to open every picture. Again, waste of bandwidth.

I myself have had a slight disagreement over what constitutes nudity but that I would have thought should revolve around whether or not the nudity flag should be placed. Now here, I have no problem accepting the decision of the moderators but the thumbnail shouldn't really need to be changed.

In another thread, I Posted this very same thing, but really, it is abundantly clear, although many would not like to see it for what it is.

There is two types of art in the catagory in question.   Nude art meant to gain a sexual response or gratification, and nude art created to inspire reverance and respect of the human experienced form.   Argue that as you will, as no doubt someone will, but unfortunately, since Renderosity is not in a position to define nor catagorize and speculate the enormous defining lines of seperation, the denominating factor equal to both, becomes screened.

Nudity.

Again, in another post, on another thread, I had to ask the same question.  Though someone asks if they tick a box to see no nudity, they see no nudity, so if we do not want nudity we should use it.

What is so difficult to understand that I (or someone else)  may indeed wish to view nudity, but NOT have enormous cropped images of areola's in our face,  (as well as penile extravaganzas dealing with the other gender)?  I was satisfied with the way the gallery was.......... I am satisfied with the change, as, truthfully, it is not that big of a deal to me to make me want to take my ball and go home.   I have better things to think about and fight for righteously and zealously in my life than to boob or not to boob in a thumbnail.

Pre-packaged ideas of what people on both sides of the fence (and those straddling it) abound, such as who is the minority, the majority, religious backgrounds......... and right wing agendas.  Yet, I hardly see a website wishing to "clean up " its image as bringing insurmountable oppression to the masses.

There is indeed, such a thing as going "down market".   It is a pity, and a real shame, when that begins to happen.   There is such a thing as desensitization, and of overexposure.

I also find it quite laughable, that there are some having issues cropping an image, for it to show NO nudity, had no problem cropping a beautiful square of nipple........ somehow, now it is a chore.

Woven throughout this issue, are the defining elements of taste, class and decorum.  These things are not singularly related to religeon or race.  Quite the contrary.    It is a maturity to understand the audience that might view your artwork, and who you are subjecting it to.   Artistic freedom though wonderful, does not give anyone the right to "not care" who is viewing it.

Though it is understandable to me, that those doing nudes who preferred to use the "whole" image, and not mask its content to an unwary viewer may be upset, those that cropped bits of anatomy for maximum effect....... I do not understand THEM.

None of these arguments are going to further art, bring innovative ideas, or enhance anyone's abilities.   I am sorry if members have left because they disagree with the issue, but they have made their stand, and their choice, and I wish them well.   However, those of us that are complacent or satisfied with the issue, are hardly the enemy, we just feel differently.

Quote - Steve1950:
Just to get this straight, I can show a half severed breast with lots of blood as long as there is no nipple or aureola, and as long as the knife that did it was not shown, Bloody guts hanging out of a stomach are OK cause they are not sexual and won't upset the kiddies. Thumbnails like this are OK?

No - we said minor bloody wounds. Not half-severed appendages or disembowellings.

Chailynne:
Acadia doesn't have any children. The "EWWW!" response was about the idea of breast-feeding her cat, I believe. I certainly wouldn't recommend it, given the way they dig their claws into the momma-cats ;o)

Yep!  I don't have kids but I have 2 kitty cats and my "EWWW" was in said in relation to the idea of "breast feeding them",  LOL

i thought nudity was already forbidden in thumbnails... i mean it certainly was in the marketplace, so why not in the galleries?

this isn't much of a change IMO, just a clarification.  I still think too many people think there is some kind of connection between being offended by artwork and suffering an untimely death lol... in other words people need to seriously lighten up.

but if we use Renderosity we ultimately have to play by their rules, so not really a suprise there.

I can die now!!!  I just had my first nudity in a thumbnail warning!!!  SIGH  Didn't really notice it when cropping the pic but after the warning came I zoomed in 300% and saw a wee bit of nipple action going on!!!  I guess I should probably use that generic content advisory thumb some folks are using!  C'est la vie!

G