To be honest, if anything renderosity does thwarts or keeps anyone from making another gratuitous nude daz figure shot (dialed up boobs, unrealistically long tallywhacker), Hey, I'm all for it.

Poser is frowned upon for lots of reasons, this being one of them.  This is a 3d art site, I never saw any advertisement of it as porn, soft porn, or cheap thrills.   After a while, an observer becomes TIRED, yes dead TIRED, of "bodacious brunette #17".    Basically, you've seen one, you've seen them all.  I'm well aware what private human anatomy looks like on both sides of the coin, so do most people, we don't need physiologically impossible references to jog our memories.

Its amazing, but did you notice the gratuitous nudes, or nudes without purpose are generally overstuffed in the POSER catagory?    Its a pretty rare day I see vue, maya or the 2d art galleries filled with nudes.  Why would that be?  Oh wait...... Poser figures come nude, outfits cost money, and with a relative knowledge of the program you can make a resonable facsimilie of a nude female and render it with a plain background and no other trappings in what...... less than an hour?

Lets face it folks, Poser is the primary tool for the "I failed art class, but want to make my own RPG avatar of Lolita the nude overbulbous breasted swordslinging warrior!".  If you don't believe me, take a look around at other art sites, do a search for the medium of poser.  We're not alone.  Check out the overinflated Furrette renders with mammaries so large she could feed an entire nation of pack cubs.    Vickie, and even heaven forbid Mike, with such anatomical impossibilities jammed in your face, its no wonder people hear the word "poser" and go UGH!.

Sadly, people who make real art with poser, even new users trying their best to learn all get lumped into the "poser's for pervs" catagory.

Art, in and of itself, is meant to be viewed.  There's been arguments about this, "I'm making it for myself!"..... if that is so, why post it where other's see it?   That is a whole other argument best saved for another day.  So ....... when making, or posting an image, one has to ask oneself...... "Is my creation something I foist on viewers, or is it something I want them to enjoy?".  The "rights" of artists, well.......   I suppose it all depends on the purpose of your work.   Is it to throw a point at someone, or are you creating something you want others to enjoy?

If your answer is that you made it because YOU like it, well thats perfectly fine, but your moral standing, your vision, and your creation just might not sit right with everone and might meet restrictions.   Thats not so difficult to understand.

As for the bikini not being acceptable, we are not talking rocket science here.   It is a false representation of the actual image.  In effect, false advertising.   Even though it says nudity because it is flagged, well, I'm seeing a bikini or bra on...... perhaps the nudity is that there is some areola coldness?  I don't really know until I open it.

Though showing no nudity at all could also be construed as false advertising, when cropped the viewer knows there are hidden parts of the image not seen and at least can take a guess.

This could be hashed out nine ways to sunday.  There will always be those that oppose it, find something wrong with it, and those who could care less, or outright accept it.  Personally, I find there are better things to think about then wether or not renderosity accepts nude thumbnails.....