(if this thread is in the wrong sub-forum, please move it!) Recently, two pictures in my gallery were removed by the moderators. Some felt that the character depicted (Utopia, I call her) appeared to be too young, and when the mods discussed the issue there was disagreement, but the decision was to remove the pictures. I fully support/respect their decision, and do not wish to discuss the moderation per se. Rather, I would like to bring up the topic of how to deal with the issues raised by the concept of "apparent age" and 3D-CGI in general - from a perspective of the current scientific findings on facial beauty. ------------ When we morph faces in the digital world, we can create facial features that are outside the spectrum of normal human variation, and faces that might be possible, but very statistically improbable. German scientists have made a comprehensive study using compound (morphed) faces and photos of real human faces to figure out what are the common denominators of beautiful faces and how “beauty” relates to such things as “averageness” and “babyfacedness” (the latter being an aspect of “apparent age”). If you wich to read about the studies they have performed, and read more in detail about what they have found, you can go to: [url]http://www.beautycheck.de/[/url] These are some findings: 1) Making a composite face from several real faces gives the compound face a beauty rating higher than the average rating of the faces it was compunded from. This gives some support to the “beauty is averageness” hypothesis. 2) Comparisons between compound faces made from real photos with high and low beauty ratings respectively (a coumpound “sexyface” and a compound “uglyface”) enabled the scientists to say something about which facial features are considered “beautiful”. Here is a list for female beauty: Characteristic features of the female "sexy face" in comparison to the "unsexy face": Suntanned skin , Narrower facial shape, Less fat, Fuller lips, Slightly bigger distance of eyes, Darker, narrower eye brows, More, longer and darker lashes, Higher cheek bones, Narrower nose, No eye rings, Thinner lids. To see the actual compound faces, go to: [url=http://www.uni-regensburg.de/Fakultaeten/phil_Fak_II/Psychologie/Psy_II/beautycheck/english/prototypen/prototypen.htm]Female faces[/url] Such features cannot be said to be “average”, so this suggests that there is more to facial beauty than “averageness”. 3) Comparing composite images where characteristics of women and children had been blended to different proportions, “it could be shown that babyface attributes - such as large, round eyes, a large domed forehead and small, short nose and chin lead to a rise in attractiveness values.” The website further states that: “Only very few (9.5%) of the test subjects found the original adult faces most attractive. Most of the test subjects (90.5%) preferred faces with 10%-50% the proportions of the babyface scheme. This means: Even the most attractive female faces can become more attractive when their proportions are altered towards more babyfaceness.” This was true for both female and male test subjects, it can be noted. The preference seemed to center on a face that looked to be about 14 years old. 4) They sum it all up with this interesting statement: “Our study shows clearly that the most attractive faces do not exist in reality, they are morphs, i.e. computer-created compound images you would never find in everyday live. These virtual faces showed characteristics that are unreachable for average human beings.” ------------ When I create a character for Victoria 4.1 by DAZ, I sometimes blend different face-morphs, and sometimes just tune the dials by trial and error until I’ve created something that looks appealing to my eye. When doing so, if we are to believe the beauty-scientists, I am probably going to end up with a face that could rarely be found in real life – or perhaps a face that could not exist in reality, because it is a blend of grown-up and childlike features. When shooting for absolute stunning digital beauty, “Utopia”, or perfection, I am actually likely to create a face that looks to be about 14 years old or so, with some more mature features than usually found in 14 year olds, and also some pretty childlike features. That is simply how the human concept of beauty works! In my “artwork” (or rather: T&A-work), since I am aware of this effect, I usually try to “compensate” for this surreal and “youthful” facial beauty by making sure that my models have a fully adult “hip-to-waist ratio”. 14 year olds do not generally have very narrow waists, well rounded hips and full thighs – that is something you see more often in women 20+. I am not trying to make my vicky-morphs look underage – I am trying to make them look as beautiful as I possibly can, yet make sure that they appear to be 18+ years old despite their beautiful faces. So where should the line be drawn? How young can a 3D-CGI character seem to be, before we ought to react and do something about it? Kate Moss’s picture on the cover of Vogue in March of 1993 was taken when she was 18 or 19 (she was born January 1974), yet she doesn’t look a day over 14. She’s simply has a lot of “babyfacedness” – childlike facial features – which are an important part of our conception of facial beauty. Shouldn’t we be permitted to try and replicate her looks on a vicky-morph and post such images? She’s 18(+), after all… How about women like Christina Ricci, Winona Ryder, Angelina Jolie, Nicole Kidman, Pamela Anderson, (or even Asian Kitty - a porn star with a very petite build and youthful face, favourite of the “pigtails, lollipops and teddybears” kind of porno…)? If you were to morph their faces (say at age 24) into a composite, the image wouldn’t look a day over 14 either, since they all are “babyfaced”, but it would be a blend of adult and childlike features. I would suggest this: 1) For the face, draw the line at an “apparent age” of 13-14 years, if the face is beautiful. If, on the other hand, the face has many features of the “uglyface” in the german study, the line should be drawn at an apparent age of 18. That is a way to take into consideration how our brains construct the concept of beauty. 2) For the body, take waist-to-hip ratio into consideration, but only that. I know many women 25+ who have considerably less than a 30AA-cup (65A-cup by european nomenclature). I also know many women who shave their pubes. Those two cannot therefore come into consideration. Hips should be at least slightly rounded, and there should be a hint of a waistline. We ought to be allowed to make morphs of bodies like Asian Kitty’s, or at least something coming close to her petite build. 3) That 1+2 above needn’t mean that posting a very beautiful-looking face (babyfaced and looking 14 or so, like Kate Moss) on a very petite frame should be allowed. If 1, then not 2. If 2, then not 1. Get it? Any input?

The archetypal "Sexyface" composited from adult and childlike facial parameters.

Asian Kitty at age 20+

My "Utopia" morph. Face Only.

This face was composited from 22 adult faces. They were contestants in the final round of "Miss Germany 2002". How old does the composite face look?

There are lots of examples of actresses with childlike faces. They can play nude roles in their pictures because they aren't underage women

But they would be removed by the mods if they were digital characters

It's easy. Forget all your concepts about nudity and childlike faces. Try to think as a mod 

:tongue1: :woot: :lol:

Like I wrote, I don't wish to discuss the moderation of Renderosity. Rather, I want to discuss the issue that making truly beautiful faces seems to be out of the question, it the face needs to look 18+ at all cost.

How do you properly determine the "age" of a digital character?  You can't.  I can't, no one can really.  There  is no objective standard by which such a thing can be judged,

I think Justice Potter Stewart of the Supreme Court hit the nail on the head, in a concurring opinion he wrote in the case of Jacobellis v Ohio in 1964.  The case involved obscenity, and the justice wrote:

"I shall not attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced with that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so.  But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture invovled in this case is not that."

So really, like obscenity the "age" a digital character is entirely a perceptual thing, not something that can be mathematically determined by how round the hips are or how narrow the face is, etc...

But for a board like Renderosity I can certainly understand why the moderators would wish to err on the side of extreme caution.  Renderosity is a business, after all, and the content stored here might not only negatively impact their business but could quite possibly at some point raise legal questions as well.

The law is quite unclear on these matters, and while I'm sure the are more intrepid souls out there who love to fight city hall I for one wouldn't want to risk putting my business in jeapordy and face possible criminal sanctions testing some rather murky legal waters as to how old a digital character is or isn't and when it should be considered child pornography.

So while I understand the point you wish to make considering your Utopia character, I think maybe your best bet from here on out would be to render her with all her naughty bits well covered if you want to post those renderings here at Renderosity.  

But hey, I guess I'm kinda old school when it comes to stuff like this, I think it's a woman or digital female character that is clothed and posed suggestively but properly is much sexier than the vast majority of nudes I've ever seen.  It's that hint of anticipation and wonder, that mystique that really does it.  

Oh, and just for the record, I don't care how old Kate Moss is, I'd much prefer she just keep her clothes on in public.  The thought of seeing her nude is a frightening thing, keeps flashing me back to those pictures I once saw of holocaust victims.  Emaciation is not sexy, IMHO.

Just my two cents worth,
Stepdad

Personally, I feel that "erring on the side of extreme caution" amounts to falling in line behind the moral majority and that it crosses that border into "moralism" and "moral panic". My three principles above, when used in conjunction as described in #3, would be cautious enough IMHO.

Quote - Personally, I feel that "erring on the side of extreme caution" amounts to falling in line behind the moral majority and that it crosses that border into "moralism" and "moral panic". My three principles above, when used in conjunction as described in #3, would be cautious enough IMHO.

 

Then by all means feel free to setup your own website and post your Utopia character as naked as a jaybird, that is naturally your perogative.

But if I were the guy that owned Renderosity or one of the folks that work here I wouldn't like to be the one going in front of a judge facing as much as 20 years in prison on child pornography charges just because somebody saw one of those images here on Renderosity, complained to the authorities and the local prosecutor decided to do something about it.

I wouldn't want to be the one hiring a lawyer and paying him $500-$1000 an hour or more to explain to the Judge and jury that the character in question had X amount of hip morph and Y amount of morph applied to this geometry or that geometry so obviously my client should go free and not be thrown into prison for 20 years.  I definately wouldn't want to be the one actually going to jail for your artistic freedom.  If that makes me a member of the "moral majority" I guess I'll have to ask them to send me a membership card and a decoder ring.

That apparently is the one thing you might not have considered in all of this, if some senator, congressmen, prosecutor or parents group decides that your Utopia character posed in the nude is child pornography your not the one they are coming after with their torches and their pitchforks.  It's the guys that own and operate Renderosity that they'll be gunning for, for hosting the images.

And while it isn't likely that such a thing would occur, it is more than possible.  So perhaps you might want to consider that before becoming so indignant about them rejecting your image as being too questionable.  If three or four moderators looked at it and it was enough to give one or two fhem pause, then don't you think that should be more than enough reason to remove it?

It has nothing to do with the "moral majority" or anyone being on a moralistic crusade of some sort.  Renderosity is kind enough to host your images free of charge, and in return they reserve the right to refuse to host anything they find questionable.  That's perfectly reasonable.  At least one or more moderators found your image questionable.  This is also quite reasonable, especially considering it's there neck on the line and not yours if someone's knickers get in a twist.

So really you have several options available to you.  You could setup your own website and host your own images, allowing you to judge their age by any standard you wish.    You could also  do as I suggested previously and use a bit of creativity in posing your Utopia character with her clothes on and post them here.  Both of these are reasonable courses of action.

However to expect the good folks here at Renderosity to put themselves at such risk hosting these images simply isn't reasonable, no matter how many mathematical formulas you can link in from some scientist in Germany.

Again, just my 2 cents worth, but then your the one that posted this and asked for opinions, so please try not shooting at the messenger :)

Stepdad

Ummm. To quote the witch in 'Robin Hood, Prince of Thieves': "Something vexes thee?" :) It might be some subtlety of language that I don't fully master, since English is not my native language, but I can't see how you can construe my answer as "shooting at the messenger". I did not answer you with any vehemence, did I? If I said something terribly offensive without realizing it, I apologise! To meet some of your points: 1) I have not complained for a second that my images were removed. I understand. I respect the decision. I will not complain. In my reply to the moderator who removed my images, I wrote: "I fully respect your decision, and will refrain from posting more pictures of my Utopia character on Renderosity", and in my first post above "I fully support/respect their decision, and do not wish to discuss the moderation per se". Please, Stepdad, try to see that I wish to discuss the problem of "apparent age" from the perspective of the science of facial beauty - and particularly that "exceptional beauty" automatically seems to mean that we perceive a face as young. 2) I have a blog, my own website, where I post my images. I also post them to various imageboards. If there are risks involved, I am prepared to take them myself. That's one more reason why I don't object to the moderation of my images. I'm quite fine with it! Let's look at the bigger picture. Let's not look at Renderosity, but at what would constitute "good laws" in any society. I'm from Sweden, and I shudder at the very mention of the nigh on medieval legal system of the U.S. ;) I suppose it would be interesting to bring up such issues as the possibility of "crimes without victims", but my main point was that there is a problem in that "peak CGI facial beauty" automatically means that the model will look 14 years old... How ought we deal with that. And by "we" I don't mean just people here at 'rosity. Can we disagree without becoming enemies? ;) That usually means a better discussion...

It has been shown that a face with more child-like features is considered "more attractive" than those that have less 'child" features.

http://translate.google.com/translate?prev=/language_tools&u=http://www.beautycheck.de/

Given that you can see that many vendors and freebie providers subscribe to that line of thinking and as a consequence there are blurred areas where age is concerned.

So far as images in the gallery go, unless they are actual photographs of real human beings, there is no way to "prove" the age of the subject in the image.  Because of that, the moderators have to use what is available to them, visual means, in order to determine age. And that is not always easy to do because it's highly subjective. What I might consider a child could look to be an adult to someone else, and vice versa.

The determining factor for age is most often decided based on the face.  A character could have size 99 ZZZZ sized boobs, but if the face looks under 18 years of age (IE: has a lot of child features), that character is considered a child and the image is removed. Those decisions aren't made arbitrarily. The image is discussed and the staff give their opinion as to age and the decision made based on the majority.

So far as Kate Moss. Yes, she is of age and can strip and pose if she wants, even in this gallery if Renderosity could prove that she is who she says she is and that her consent form is legit.

However if she were just a 3D character and was  purely fictional, there would be no "age" and again, the determination would have to be made based on purely visual means. And because Kate has a great deal of child like features, which is what makes her appealing to look at, the image would more than likely be considered "child" and removed from the gallery.

There's really no point in discussing the theory.  

Plain fact is that we're living in a phase of extreme puritanism, 
caused by a collaboration of four separate factors over the
last thirty years:

1. left-wing feminists;
2. right -wing Christians;
3. the cowardly desire to give way to Mohammedan tastes;
4. the media's constant need of new ways to scare the 
   crap out of soccer moms.

In a phase like this, you simply can't expect a small company 
like Rendo to sacrifice itself on the altar of Heroic Freedom.
They must operate within the existing limits.  And all of us who
derive some pleasure or income from the continued operation
of Rendo must understand those limits.

Again, while I see your point Acadia, I'm not interested in discussing the moderation of this website. I'm OK with it. I'm interested in what you feel and think about the ethical, artistic and legal issues raised with regards to 3D-CGI, facial beauty, "apparent age" and "babyfacedness". "The determining factor for age is most often decided based on the face", you write. Do you mean only here on 'rosity? If we take a wider perspective, I would like to ask two questions: 1) Do we work that way, as humans? Is that how our perception of apparent age works? 2) How ought good laws be written on that topic, regardless of society? Ought good laws be based on arbitrary judgement, as that "I know it when I see it"-judge put it?

Quote - Ummm. To quote the witch in 'Robin Hood, Prince of Thieves': "Something vexes thee?" :) It might be some subtlety of language that I don't fully master, since English is not my native language, but I can't see how you can construe my answer as "shooting at the messenger". I did not answer you with any vehemence, did I? If I said something terribly offensive without realizing it, I apologise!

No worries, nothing vexes me.  I forget that sometimes it's difficult in any language to convey the tone of a response in written form. No, nothing you said offended.  Even if it had I don't take discussions on message boards to heart, got to many other real problems to deal with :)  I guess you inferred that I was upset from my response, and for that I do apologize, I was not upset nor offended.  I'm afraid my tone wasn't evident from the way the response was written.

Quote - To meet some of your points: 1) I have not complained for a second that my images were removed. I understand. I respect the decision. I will not complain. In my reply to the moderator who removed my images, I wrote: "I fully respect your decision, and will refrain from posting more pictures of my Utopia character on Renderosity", and in my first post above "I fully support/respect their decision, and do not wish to discuss the moderation per se". Please, Stepdad, try to see that I wish to discuss the problem of "apparent age" from the perspective of the science of facial beauty - and particularly that "exceptional beauty" automatically seems to mean that we perceive a face as young.

 
Until somebody finally creates and passes a law stating that digital characters have no age for the purposes of child pornography statutes or there is a test case or two defining what is and isn't acceptable I'm afraid the only reasonable course of action that can be taken is what Renderosity is currently doing.  Sadly it's much more about perception than it is about reality, there really aren't any hard fast guidelines to go by.

Quote -

1. I have a blog, my own website, where I post my images. I also post them to various imageboards. If there are risks involved, I am prepared to take them myself. That's one more reason why I don't object to the moderation of my images. I'm quite fine with it! Let's look at the bigger picture. Let's not look at Renderosity, but at what would constitute "good laws" in any society. I'm from Sweden, and I shudder at the very mention of the nigh on medieval legal system of the U.S. ;) I suppose it would be interesting to bring up such issues as the possibility of "crimes without victims", but my main point was that there is a problem in that "peak CGI facial beauty" automatically means that the model will look 14 years old... How ought we deal with that. And by "we" I don't mean just people here at 'rosity. Can we disagree without becoming enemies? ;) That usually means a better discussion...

 

Good laws?  Lol.. good luck, in any country.  I have yet to see a good law on the subject of pornography, obscenity or anything else get passed anywhere.  You basically have 3 options, ban it all, permit everything or try for some middle ground.  But everybody's middle ground is different and it's nearly impossible to define by any objective standard. Without an objective standard there isn't any way to properly judge what is and isn't legal, it's all a crap shoot.  What is offensive to me might not offend you at all, and vice versa.  You just never know.  

Beauty too is all in the eye of the beholder, one good example, a lot of people think Julia Roberts is a beautiful woman.  I don't, in fact I think she is rather homely.   No offense to Miss Roberts or any of her multitude of fans of course, but frankly I have never understood the attraction at all.  But there are tons of people that disagree with me and by tickets to her movies and fawn all over her talking about how beautiful she is, and all the while everytime she laughs I just get a mental image of a Shetland Pony I used to own some years back.   So really again there is no objective standard on beauty.

And as far as becoming enemies is concerned I'm afraid I'm entirely too busy to aquire any new enemies at the moment.  Also if you have an interest in becoming my arch-nemesis you'll need to fill out all the required applications and talk to the HR department about it, but if I were you I'd consider carefully before applying.  Not that I'm much to worry about overall, my only super power is the ability to irritate my children to no end.  But the arch-nemesis job doesn't pay much, the hours suck and worst of all they don't offer any health benefits whatsoever :)

Stepdad

Quote - There's really no point in discussing the theory. Plain fact is that we're living in a phase of extreme puritanism [snip] In a phase like this, you simply can't expect a small company like Rendo to sacrifice itself on the altar of Heroic Freedom. They must operate within the existing limits. And all of us who derive some pleasure or income from the continued operation of Rendo must understand those limits.

I understand those limits. I will respect them. But have you heard of a professor called Timor Kuran? He has a theory about how "phases of extreme puritanism" and other large shifts in what people in general appear to think come about, how they are sustained, and how they lose momentum. "The hidden complexities of social evolution" he calls it. We all place different value on expression, on social status, on conformity. Expressing how you really feel about something gives you certain benefits and leads to certain social repercussions. The benefits of expressing your true feelings - like the fact that you like to ogle naked girls in lewd poses, for instance - is mostly that it makes you feel good to stand up and express yourself and to speak truly. And then there might be the odd external positive effect, like someone sending you a couple of such pictures to your PM box or something like that... The social hit is self-evident. We all know how "coming out" (in some respect) can affect your social life, if you come out on the side currently perceived as "dirty" or "in the wrong". This means that many won't express themselves truly. They surrender themselves with private truths and public lies. It might be something as innocuous a 46 year old Texan housewife who privately enjoys using a vibrator for masturbation. When the topic comes up, she will frown and call such things "unnecessary" and "perverted". In fact, forty Texan housewives might all agree, if asked in public, that such things are positively disgusting, despite the fact that they all privately agree that a little time alone with their vibrators is a nice way of relaxing on a thursday evening. Such social constructions and shackles surround us everywhere. They sometimes fall like dominoes, when someone dares speak out. Probably, that is what happened around 1989 in eastern Europe... But I'm not asking Renderosity to be a figurehead for 3D-CGI porn that looks suspiciously like underage material, like some modern Larry Flynt. I merely want to bring the topic of "apparent age", facial beauty and 3D up to discussion, and see if it leads to an interesting discussion. Where better to do it than here, where people are confronted with the issue on a daily basis? //Wikman

Assuming this thread is will still be here by the time I finish replying and was not deleted due to discussion of "child porn", I will attempt to answer this.

Quote - I'm interested in what you feel and think about the ethical, artistic and legal issues raised with regards to 3D-CGI, facial beauty, "apparent age" and "babyfacedness".

There has to be a line drawn somewhere to protect children. With graphic media the way it is, it's very easy to manipulate photos to look like 3D generated images, and it's very easy (at least for some) to work 3D images to look absolutely real. See this particular site for many examples of the later.

http://forums.cgsociety.org/

Like I said earliery, there is no way to prove the age of the figure in the image, so the decision has to be made based on visual input only.

Quote - "The determining factor for age is most often decided based on the face", you write. Do you mean only here on 'rosity?

Quote - If we take a wider perspective, I would like to ask two questions: 1) Do we work that way, as humans? Is that how our perception of apparent age works?

I'll answer those two questions together.

Here and in general.  When you see someone on the street you don't have their photo ID in front of them. All you have is their face and body and based on that you subjectively determine their age based on how old you think they look.

Case in point. Some people when they go to a bar are asked for ID, while others aren't.  For those that are asked it's  because they visually "look" younger than the legal age required to be in the  bar.  For me I never had that problem. I started going to bars when I was 15 because I loved music and I loved to dance. I never once got asked for ID. Whereas my cousin who is a year older than me was constantly asked because he had a "baby face" and looked much younger.

Quote - 2) How ought good laws be written on that topic, regardless of society? Ought good laws be based on arbitrary judgement, as that "I know it when I see it"-judge put it?

Earlier this year Anton posted a link to a news story about a State in the US that passed a law about just that. Apparently the child porn law in that particular state was amended to not include computer generated images.   I tried to find the link to the story, but I can't find it. However I did do a google search and found some articles:

House bans "morphed" child pornography

Child pornography is an explosively sensitive issue

US court quashes child porn lawUS Supreme Court upholds decision that finds ...... unconstitutional

Detecting Computer Generated Porn

Computer Generate Child Porn ... Gap in US Law

The 1996 Act upheald by a Federal Judge - August 1997
Here is a quote from the above article

Quote -The US Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 which bans computer-generated sexual images of children and porn featuring adults who are depicted as minors was upheld by a federal judge on the 12th of August 1997. Rejecting arguments by sex film distributors and the American Civil Liberties Union, U.S. District Judge Samuel Conti said the new law protects children from sexual exploitation without violating freedom of speech.  

"Even if no children are involved in the production of sexually explicit materials, the devastating ... effect that such materials have on society and the well-being of children merits the regulation of such images," Conti wrote in the first court ruling on the law’s validity.

He dismissed the ACLU’s fears that the law could criminalize a film of "Romeo and Juliet" or a doctor’s sex education manual. Only pictures that are marketed as child pornography are covered by the law, Conti said.

There is a case in Canada that has been going on for years!  It's setting a dangerous precident for other situations elsewhere in Canada. Some guy who was arrested for having child porn on his computer has been appealing and even winning in some cases, his right to own and make child porn for his own viewing.  There is a similar case in Eastern Canada where some guy is openly admitting to photographing and posing with naked children and the police can't arrest him and charge him with anything because he isn't "distributing" what he makes.  In my eyes it's still child exploitation and should be against the law. Now granted this involves "real" children, but as the above article I linked to states, that even if it involves only computer generated images and no actual real children, the message is the same thing... a child being exploited.

http://www.efc.ca/pages/media/national-post.16jan99.html

Hopefully that answers your questions :)

 

Quote -

Then by all means feel free to setup your own website and post your Utopia character as naked as a jaybird, that is naturally your perogative.

Stepdad

Agreed 100%
the internet is a big  place... knock your self out
why go through all this  pointless"research"
about "beauty standards".

Quote - And as far as becoming enemies is concerned I'm afraid I'm entirely too busy to aquire any new enemies at the moment.  Also if you have an interest in becoming my arch-nemesis you'll need to fill out all the required applications and talk to the HR department about it, but if I were you I'd consider carefully before applying.  Not that I'm much to worry about overall, my only super power is the ability to irritate my children to no end.  But the arch-nemesis job doesn't pay much, the hours suck and worst of all they don't offer any health benefits whatsoever :)

Stepdad

LOL :) Excellent! Let's be friends, instead. Sorry for interpreting you the way I did... I often have the problem, particularly when writing in English, that I can't convey emotion as precisely as I wish. I suppose I had better learn to use emoticons more often! Or I should learn English better, I suppose. That there is no objective standard for beauty, I agree. But there is considerably stronger consensus than most people think. Have a look at the statistical measures in the German researh I quoted above. People agree about who is beautiful and who is ugly - at least we mostly do! I happen to agree with you about Ms Roberts and the horse-thing giggle. Her eyes can be radiant, though! I also consider Sandra Bullock quite homely, for the same reason. I'll get back to you on the legal issues. Right now, I have to pay the bills :)

And please don't discuss CP in this thread... Do you wish for it to be shut down?

Just wonders what size 99 ZZZZ sized boobs look like, sounds terable.

Quote - And please don't discuss CP

The topic of your thread is "babyfacedness" and how it relates to the age of 3D images, and which was sparked by you having had an image removed which the moderators considered "child nudity". IMHO gratuitious child nudity for the sake of being nude and photographed / painted / digitally created, is child porn. So I believe that my earlier reply is completely relevant to this topic.

Quote - Just wonders what size 99 ZZZZ sized boobs look like, sounds terable.

Browse the gallery and look for the size zero naked female with gravity defying boobs the size of watermelons :)

I would think that these images are probably close! I checked nudity because there is areola showing in one of the images.

http://www.makemeheal.com/news/weird-fun-strange-tragic-plastic-surgery-during-may/148

http://www.breast-implants-info.com/breast-implants-news/the-worlds-largest-breast-implants.html

I'm guilty of recently making an argument about a 3D character here which was nude & 'appeared' to be underage. I personally didn't have a problem with it (it was artistic & clearly not real) but I made the issue because I thought someone might have been getting preferential treatment, but I was clearly wrong & feel stupid for it.
There's no doubt that alot of people find youthfullness more appealing when thinking of beauty. Me personally,  yes I agree in some ways, but I really find beauty has no age. A favourite woman of mine is Marg Helgenberger, she's nearly 50, would people say she's not beautiful because she doesn't have that youthful look? 

Quote - favourite woman of mine is Marg Helgenberger, she's nearly 50, would people say she's not beautiful because she doesn't have that youthful look? 

She may be nearly 50, but she has child like features as well. Large doe eyes, larger forehead, pouty lips.  All of those combined give her child like qualities that people find appealing to look at.

All of which explains why I don't post in the galleries here.

I create (mainly) images which could be found in virtually any top-shelf magazine (were they good enough, which they aren't) and usually have a humourous content or a "point" to them.

Some of them are cartoon-like, except without the black lines.

But having read the TOS, and knowing that 'Rosity is a US company, I post in forums based elsewhere (and always have done).

There's no point in me getting into discussions about what is or is not acceptable.It's about as useful and productive as getting into discussions about religion or politics: I have my own set of values and beliefs - they are based on my own opinions. You (or they) have their own set of values/beliefs, based on your/their opinions. That's life.

I do know what I like to see (and to my own mind it's not offensive, mild even); I also know that what I don't find offensive others do, and there's no way I'll convince them otherwise.

So I don't post my pics here, thus avoiding any conflicts.

Cheers,
Diolma

Where DO you post them, Diolma?

I was the advisor for one of the more famous Japanese (name withheld) CG modelers once upon a time. Well, he was haveing a hard time makeing a human model that he could sell here. One of his comments that stuck with me was that western woman just looked to damn old. And every time he tried he just couldn't make a beautiful round eyed (american) woman.

After centuries upon centuries of selective breeding (selective social clasification) Most asian woman have retained much later into life that "babyfacedness" your talking about.

Remember, virtually ALL mods and administrators here are woman. Judging other woman by there own subjective standards.

(chuckles) It's kinda like watching the ladies on the day time talk show "The View". 
Woman saying what THEY think men THINK.
Same principle here, with maby a little bit of jeliousy.

Quote - Remember, virtually ALL mods and administrators here are woman. Judging other woman by there own subjective standards.

(chuckles) It's kinda like watching the ladies on the day time talk show "The View". 
Woman saying what THEY think men THINK.
Same principle here, with maby a little bit of jeliousy.

 

You couldn't be more wrong there, matey.  To either point.

Poser mods (enforcers) and site admins (rule makers)

come on sam- jeese

Poser mods are a 3:2 Female:Male split.  Couldn't say about the whole of the Admins, though.

Even so, just for the mods side, it's hardly "virtually all".

In any case, a decision on whether or not to pull an image is based on a majority of Coords, Mods, Admins and is not directed by the wishes of any single individual, regardless of their sex and/or standing as Coord, Moderator or Admin.  It ain't something done lightly because we understand the whole area of age with regard to CGI people is subjective.  That said, Rosity has to err on the side of caution.

That's all I have to say about it.

Stepdad LOL :) Excellent! Let's be friends, instead. Sorry for interpreting you the way I did... I often have the problem, particularly when writing in English, that I can't convey emotion as precisely as I wish. I suppose I had better learn to use emoticons more often! Or I should learn English better, I suppose. That there is no objective standard for beauty, I agree. But there is considerably stronger consensus than most people think. Have a look at the statistical measures in the German researh I quoted above. People agree about who is beautiful and who is ugly - at least we mostly do! I happen to agree with you about Ms Roberts and the horse-thing giggle. Her eyes can be radiant, though! I also consider Sandra Bullock quite homely, for the same reason. I'll get back to you on the legal issues. Right now, I have to pay the bills :) 

Lol.. no worries on the interpretation thing, I often have the same problem but sadly no excuse for it, English is my native language.  

Stepdad

Quote - I'm guilty of recently making an argument about a 3D character here which was nude & 'appeared' to be underage. I personally didn't have a problem with it (it was artistic & clearly not real) but I made the issue because I thought someone might have been getting preferential treatment, but I was clearly wrong & feel stupid for it.
There's no doubt that alot of people find youthfullness more appealing when thinking of beauty. Me personally,  yes I agree in some ways, but I really find beauty has no age. A favourite woman of mine is Marg Helgenberger, she's nearly 50, would people say she's not beautiful because she doesn't have that youthful look? 

 

Agreed.. I think the worlds most beautiful women stay beautiful no matter how old they get, even without plastic surgery.

Stepdad

Quote - Like I wrote, I don't wish to discuss the moderation of Renderosity. Rather, I want to discuss the issue that making truly beautiful faces seems to be out of the question, it the face needs to look 18+ at all cost.

 

Does a face HAVE to look under 18 and have suggestion of nakedness to be beautiful?
(Don't think so)

It's really simple, this place has rules, people whom exhibit here need to stay within those rules. 

I'm pretty darn sure if your figure was fully dressed, and had her face looking under 18, there would be absolutely no problem.

Look at it this way... I may think an errect penis is a thing of beauty, but exhibiting those in rendo's gallery would be against the rules too.

"Where DO you post them, Diolma?"

Answered you in PM, wikman (just in case you miss the flashing message):-)
Couldn't post links in the forums - it's against the TOS...

:-))

Cheers,
Diolma

I partially blame the media.. Tv, magazines, movies, etc.. 

I've always like the quote from Fifth Element.. 
"I speak two languages, english and bad english.."  :-)

There are several inter-related elements entangled here, several of which have strong emotional, moral, and legal content.  That makes it extremely hard to talk about any one element in isolation.  As much as you try to speak about a statistical study on facial attractiveness as reported by test subjects in Germany, one of your listeners is going to see it as an argument for or against some form of censorship, forum moderation, artistic nudity, pornography, or real-world sexual activity.

Morally, we recognize that if art is to be meaningful it must be kept free of censorship whenever possible.  To limit what can be said or shown is to limit what can be thought, and it is on that cutting edge of thought that art validates itself as more than just entertainment.

But there is also practicality.  I'm in theater; we're all about practical.  As much as, say, Renderosity might wish to avoid censorship, a certain amount of self-censorship is necessary and smart in order to keep themselves out of trouble and keep the site open for as many works as possible.

Morally, we recognize that brain development and social development lags behind sexual development, and that children will be physically capable of activities long before they are emotionally or socially ready for them.  This is not just sex, of course.  With help in reaching the pedals a five-year old could drive a car.  No-one in their right mind would give them a license, however!

Our genetic history makes it so what appears to be fecund will cause a hormonal reaction.  This instinct lies outside of our socialization and intellect, but how we act upon this instinct is fully controlable by socialization and intellect.  But we would be foolish to pretend the original reaction is not there.

Thus a problem in the real world, where just like instincts to use fists to settle arguments, or to eat handfuls of processed sugar, the sexual instincts must be channeled into channels appropriate to the society's goals and the well-being of all the individuals involved.

Complicating the issue of "pornography" even further is that the viewer brings their own baggage to a scene.  For a foot-fetisist, a full-page advertisement for a bunion treatment may be pure-quill porn.  There are very few people that would disagree that a portrayal of naked people in intimate contact is not meant to be taken sexually.  But, scarily, quite a bit of what is traded as pornographic material online may have originated as, and to outsiders to that particular fetish likely appears, quite innocent pictures.

And then we have the virtual world.  Where we are creating shapes that have not existed before.  One could argue that way back as far as primitive fertility figures artists have been able to create breasts too monstrous for a real woman to carry.   Certainly, the traditions of anime have built upon the original Disney inspiration, and the cult of cute already endemic in the culture, to create legions of depicted creatures with elements not present in any physical body.

As the German study emphasizes, we are able with technology to provide for our senses something more saturated than the natural world ever produced.  Purer colors, more processed sugars, purer sound colors, and faces (and body shapes) that have more of  a kick than what the real world has provided so far.  (And, like the processed sugars, such things also pall quickly, leaving us a desire for more complex and nuanced tastes.) 

Easy answers?  Simple solutions?  No.  In fact, on the narrow subject of age play alone there are raging battles going on in several corners of the internet.

All we can do as individual artists is to recognise the existence of all the issues involved.  And that means being prudent.  Although your intents in creating a certain image may have been wholely innocent, it benefits you to look at your own work with the most narrowed of suspicious eyes.  Could there be a narrow-minded parochial judge, or cop, or teacher, or employer, who would see in that image something you didn't mean to put there?

Look.  Look for trouble.  And then make your own descision on that image (or product, or essay...), balancing your need for artistic honesty against the need for self-preservation.

hopefully they won't need to lock this thread. threads with this topic (users' opinions of what "underage girls" look like) usually end up getting locked here.

LOL. I've had only one image rejected by the mods for abovesaid reasons.
I dealt with it very diplomatically, though my initial reaction was something like this.

Bernard's Letter

Quote - A character could have size 99 ZZZZ sized boobs, but if the face looks under 18 years of age (IE: has a lot of child features), that character is considered a child and the image is removed. Those decisions aren't made arbitrarily.

This is a bit like saying the Red Queen thinks before she acts. Yeah. No doubt. One of the safest rules of thumb, I've found, is that the same people who get sweaty over porn want porn illegal because that's what gets them sweaty -- not the porn. We've taken to calling it Larry Craig Syndrome.

You are right in your initial analysis, and that fact all by itself demonstrates the idiocy of the rules. A 40-year-old man can have the facial characteristics of a 12-year-old girl, but nowhere on the planet does there exist a 12-year-old girl with 99ZZ boy toys. If the body is mature, the face is adult, however puffy and pouty and pseudo-adolescent. Manipulative adult women are working overtime to look like little girls who want a taste, and in this absurd milieu we are trying to protect ourselves from meshes that might make some men think of little girls. The face thing is ridiculous, like deciding the mesh is a child if it has long toes.

Quote - > Quote - Like I wrote, I don't wish to discuss the moderation of Renderosity. Rather, I want to discuss the issue that making truly beautiful faces seems to be out of the question, it the face needs to look 18+ at all cost.

 

Does a face HAVE to look under 18 and have suggestion of nakedness to be beautiful?
(Don't think so)

The great irony of all this is visible on Faux, which alternately decries pernicious nipples and lowers the bar on taste daily with soft core porn, even in the "News" shows. The people who don't want US looking at naked little girls want them all for themselves. They think because looking at Alice's little naked crotch gives them a Jones, those of us who don't share their perversion need to be protected. After all, we're all fallen and desperate to screw our mommies and murder out daddies and pork babies. Just like them....

The thing that confuses me about US law that no one has explained to me is why in the USA an adult may have sex with a child of sixteen legally, in some place there I think even with a child of 14 years but they may not draw a nude depiction of an imaginary 18 year old "woman" even in a non-sexual conduct? Or is it that eighteen okay but seventeen is bad? So a sexual act may be legal in terms of age but not a non-sexual image from imagination. The law is you may do it... you may not draw it? Do I understand this correctly? In Canada the image can be illegal even if there is no nudity if the figure is "seventeen" but the pose is "erotic" I understand... is that true? I do not wish to do such images but I think the low age of concent is utterly shocking... for a person 40 to go with a person twenty-five I think is perverted so I do not understand this approach of limiting artistic vision but not actual conduct!!! How could consent between a grown person and a child of sixteen be possible?

In most of those States (mine isn't one of them) there is a limit of ages between the consenting parties-i.e. 17-21, 14-18 (I think the 14 is wrong either way), etc......but laws or no laws if the parents consent and noone complains, nothing gets done........never personally understood it myself.

I have just checked age of consent the best I can for the web and most US states say sex between an adult and a child of 16 years old is "unfettered" while some states have consent at 13 years old with  the older person less then three or four years older then the child. However, in the media abroad it is depicted that Mormons are not prevented from "marrying" 14 year old children to adult men although the Irish Traveler practice of "marrying" 11 year old girls to adult men is not accepted.

Case remains, if sex between an adult and a sixteen year old is legal why is the depiction of an imaginary seveteen year old nude but not engaged in sex proscribed? Is eighteen years old nude acceptable for an image or is it 19 or what?

What are the actual US Laws pertaining to Poser Renders?

Is there a distinction made in  US laws on images between nude images and sexual images?

Quote - Does a face HAVE to look under 18 and have suggestion of nakedness to be beautiful?
(Don't think so)

A face which has a "suggestion of nakedness".......?  As in a naked face?  IIRC: naked faces are well within the boundaries of the TOS.  And not merely as a 'suggestion' of such.

Quote - hopefully they won't need to lock this thread. threads with this topic (users' opinions of what "underage girls" look like) usually end up getting locked here.

 

Because such threads usually tend to degenerate (no pun intended, of course) into pointless verbal riots -- with lotsa hurled (no pun intended, again) invective and spewed (NPI) personal opinions thrown through philosophical windows like bricks -- or like flaming Molotov cocktails.

This one hasn't gone the way of the dodo yet -- but it's still early.  Enough venom from some will eventually give us yet another empirical demonstration of the "you tend to get what you give" principle in practical operation.  Which, of course: always seems to greatly surprise the throwers of the Apple of Discord when it gets thrown back at them -- and hits them solidly in the head.  That's gotta hurt.  :ohmy:.  But they must like it.  Either that: or else it's just habit forming.

Sometimes Im amazed at internet forum interpretations.  I read the OP, and completely understood it.    It's a pretty interesting topic actually and as far as I can see it has nothing at all to do with whether or not said image was allowed at rendo, or CP.
It's about what makes beauty and how to aspire to that within the realm of acceptable age appearance.

Im about to be 32 years old.  I still have to carry my ID everywhere because I will always get carded for anything that requires me to be over 18.  My 14 year old daughter is darn near my twin.  The OP was correct, my hips/waist ration is the only thing that truly distinguishes me from her.  And even that is not an extremely clear line, I can say most definately I could not post a digital nude ME here.  (not that I would want to : p)

I can see why they err on the side of caution.  Some/most people (some exibited even in this thread) seem to take an extremely puritanical stand point on the topic.  I too now post my images mainly elsewhere.   I simply don't have the desire to limit my art based on what someone else sees in it.  I know what it is - I also know that Im a good decent person simply in the pursuit of expression.

Here's a suggestion though, if you want extremely childlike features which will be acceptable here - just give the large eyes an EXTREME almost alien like slant and it will get through =D

Quote - I have just checked age of consent the best I can for the web and most US states say sex between an adult and a child of 16 years old is "unfettered" while some states have consent at 13 years old with  the older person less then three or four years older then the child. However, in the media abroad it is depicted that Mormons are not prevented from "marrying" 14 year old children to adult men although the Irish Traveler practice of "marrying" 11 year old girls to adult men is not accepted.

Case remains, if sex between an adult and a sixteen year old is legal why is the depiction of an imaginary seveteen year old nude but not engaged in sex proscribed? Is eighteen years old nude acceptable for an image or is it 19 or what?

What are the actual US Laws pertaining to Poser Renders?

Is there a distinction made in  US laws on images between nude images and sexual images?

 

You're going to need a lawyer to answer the questions you have.

However, you need to be aware that Renderosity has the right to set their own standards of what's acceptable, as long as they are more restrictive then the laws.

General discussions about US laws on the topic really don't belong in Renderosity's forums.

shrug  The OP was perhaps the most reasonable of such posts that I've ever seen.  The OP managed to broach the subject without clumsy attempts to throw personal, poison-tipped barbs (in reality silly little verbal spit-balls -- and about as compelling) -- which is a strong point in the OP's favor.  But that much being said: the OP is asking for subjective opinions on a subjective topic.  Which always leads to a lot of subjectivisim.

BTW - just in case the forum interpretation has been misinterpreted: My initial post wasn't referring back to the OP. 

Quote -
A face which has a "suggestion of nakedness".......?  As in a naked face?  IIRC: naked faces are well within the boundaries of the TOS.  And not merely as a 'suggestion' of such.

 

I mean, show a large head on bare and very small boned shoulders, and have a black choker around the neck. To many those are sexual connotations, even if the large part of a picture is a faceshot.

Quote - > Quote -

A face which has a "suggestion of nakedness".......?  As in a naked face?  IIRC: naked faces are well within the boundaries of the TOS.  And not merely as a 'suggestion' of such.

 

I mean, show a large head on bare and very small boned shoulders, and have a black choker around the neck. To many those are sexual connotations, even if the large part of a picture is a faceshot.

 

I know, and I understood -- it was just a poor attempt at humor on my part.  Please forgive me.