Hi Karen To make sure I don't get attacked here I must start with this: I have been involved in the viewing and creation of erotica since I was in fourth grade and I am pretty long in the tooth so that is quite a long time. I don't like child abuse or pornogoraphy depicting children nor do I condone the prolific slave trade of women and children in Asia and Africa and Eastern Europe. I think however that I seem to be able to discern between Erotic Art and ignorant and blatent senseless Porno. I love women and I love children and just can't see harming them in any way. But I have always been in awe of the look and feel of human flesh in all its fantasitc gentle permutations. It is this the reason I have always pursued the human figure in my work and almost exclusively NUDE. I know nothing has been removed from my gallery yet. That wasn't my point. What I was refering to was the "walking on egg shells" "political Correectness to Suffocation" philosophy adopted by management especially visible in the marketplace and from all I have heard from even well known and reputable members of the "art" and merchent community. This a philosophy by the way seems to prevail in our government as well as industry. For example (and I site it here merely to make my case and not because I encourage it or discourage it one way or another), the nudity of children or anything referencing that, even if tastefully done or depicted as Fae Folk, has become anathema here and elsewhere and leads to creative and social suicide stigmatizing the artist and the facility the work is shown on. You can review many, many cases of such persecution and ruining of many creative lives and names in this offensive moralistic witch hunt only (in many cases) to have it all reversed in the high courts. Another example (and one I am constantly pissing about of late as mentioned in a previous note here) is merchants who can't show details of textures especially, again, in reference to textures of children are made to disguise their product in an obtuse manner and thusly affecting their revenue potential. You could argue that if you can't show children nude then why bother creating to sell such textures. Said textures, plentiful several years ago, are fewer and farhter between. So I guess if I am to render children in my renders I will have to texture them as wood grain from the neck down!? I did mention DAZ in my post who seem to have taken this philosophy to the maximum level. In discussing the issue with many in the management areas of some of these sites (DAZ for instance) it is made quickly apparent that what I stated: for the retentive purtported indignation of the very few the rest have to pay the censorship price and in some cases even management, though in agreement with our sentiments and concerns of said censorship, are placed in the very difficult position of deciding who will be alienated: the few with retentive undies or the many who just don't care. But in a society governed by the power of commerce : Money Talks And BullShit walks. That becomes the catch all here and that is what pisses many of "the rest of us" off. But I fear that Renderosity as well as other sites are following suit despite many of the court dictums that it is not necessary to do so. A 3d character depicted in most tasteful manners is not a human (child or adult) and therefore no injury can be purported for instance so why the big hubub? If the viewers don't like seeing this type of depiction it is their responsibility to filter their browsers (which is no different to placing the responsibility on parents to control their childrens' online forrays) and it is managements responsibility to make that clear when we all register for access to any site dutifully releasing the site admin and contributing memebers unconcerned with said depictions, of an recriminations. This would empower admin to say to the few offended: This is our site it is our decison and if you don't like it simply unsubscribe and go elsewhere. In doing so they protect the creative flow of artistic input, merchant contribution and revenue and more intelligently manage the rights of those who both have no desire to see it as well as the others who do. Seems site administrators don't want to be bothered prefering the "HEAVY ARMOR" approach: Blanket Censorship. What is funny is that this seems to be extremely endemic in the States proving that even in our supposed modern open society we are in fact not as modern and not as open. It is made clearer still that in fact, we are still tightly governed by the few empowered by a self righteous pseudo-Puritan ethic. I know there are limits to what can be shown at any site and I am quite familiar with the limits made here (as elsewhere) and I have tried to strictly honor them as I am sure have many others if for no other reason other than the fact I am a guest here and am therefore governed by the "House Rules". Love it or Leave it prevails here and elsewhere. But apparently some folks don't think the same or are not getting their work as open-mindedly and even handedly reviewed (or maybe are in fact breaking some of these rules). Whatever the case many have complained many merchants have left or are offering fewer product options here because of this in whole or in part. The concern is that all this censorship will get worse and it seems that it is...everywhere...even at sites like Renderotica who offer the obvious venue for said type imagery.