Greetings,

I saw an item on Daily Rotten: Weird News about photographic
murals on display in Abercrombie & Fitch stores. 

It seems that there were ...

"citizen complaints" ... and that

"store management had not heeded warnings to remove the images"

"Police ... carted away two large promotional photographs" ...

and "cited the manager on obscenity charges"

You can read the Virginia-Pilot online article
"Virginia Beach police seize photos from Abercrombie store"

Ahhhh welllll ... the things some people worry about ...

Comments ... please. 

--
Martin
 

p.s. IIRC this is my first nudity advisory on renderosity
... my, my the world is a strange place indeed. 
 

Prudes...

I wouldnt mind seeing the other image - the one in the field looks fine to me, but maybe in conjunction with the naked woman shot it would create a bad "look" and not be suitable for minors.  Dont really know, but my gut reaction is what i said above: prudes...

I see that inshaala identified the problem as,

Prudes...

Yes, that's true. 

BTW, did you visit the Abercrombie & Fitch site?  [hint: click, 'Photo Gallery']

BTW, that initial image on the web site is the photo mural on display at the
entrance to each Abercrombie & Fitch store.  ... and all of the other images
in the A&F web site are murals on display in the stores

--
Martin

Jeez, I know over here in the Netherlands we're pretty openminded, but I just can not see how anyone could find those photographs offensive. I wonder what those people would think touring my country and seeing a random billboard :D hint: google sloggi billboard
or look at this: http://www.nicospilt.com/dia5730.JPG  (don't look if you're offended by nipples) it's a camera ad for minolta

Technical question for 3DGuy,

Was the sloggi billboard shot done with 5 models or 9 models? 

Just technical curiousity ... yeah, sure ...

--
Martin

Depends on which one you're referring to. There's a buttload of em (pun intended)

edit: I think I know which one you're referring to. Looks like 5 to me

This image had a lot of left-right symmetry ... and quite naturally, I wondered ...

--
Martin

dont you know by now that the human body doesn't exist below the neck and above the feet???

I see that zollster offered a cogent explanation with,

human body doesn't exist below the neck and above the feet

That's a Good! One! ... thanks. 

Did you know that the Science Fiction author Robert A Heinlein once said, 

"Some people disparage the female form divine, sex is too good for them;
they should have been oysters."

Food for thought ...

--
Martin

Quote -

BTW, did you visit the Abercrombie & Fitch site?  [hint: click, 'Photo Gallery']

I saw this article a while back on another forum and visited the site back then and didnt find the "nipple coverage" shot in question.  Whether it has been removed due to this incident or that it was never there is something we might never know.  Maybe the newspaper didnt want to publish it as it was actually too raunchy, but the cynical among us might suggest that maybe it was an embellishment to the story to make it sound more credible after the reporter decided that the image which was actually posted was inane and not worthy of comment by moral activists... oops, did i really say that? ;)

I see that inshaala was looking for ... but,

didnt find the "nipple coverage" shot in question

Since I don't have exactly the "blue uniform" mentality, I can't be entirely sure ...
but I think it's the third image in the Abercrombie & Fitch Photo Gallery. 

The online article, "Virginia Beach police seize photos from Abercrombie store" 
includes this statement,

"The other image is of a woman who is topless and whose "breast is
displayed with her hand covering just the nipple portion," Bernstein said.
"You could still pretty much see the rest of the breast."

I guess that it's safe to say that we shouldn't expect to see a nipple in this
case ... but it was considered offensive ... perhaps because it could have
been there. 

As regards 'topless' ... we shouldn't jump to conclusions ... for all we know,
she might have been bottomless, as well. 

--
Martin

p.s. Bernstein is a 'police spokesman' ... and is directly quoted in the article. 
... That means that the reporter wasn't just making it up. 
 

Now I can better understand why there are so many lurkers on this site, secretly spying for nudity tagged images...

Well, my take is that some found it offensive and for that I cannot call them prudes. Sure, to go to the lowest common demoninator is not right but neither is the company for doing just beyond the edge of what is considered normal acceptable for all ages in the country in which they do this advertising for the most part.  They look for sensational and they get it.

I just wish they would turn down the music a bit in their stores.  The images do not offend me but it is a direct push based on the even "prudish" standards of this country.   Agree or not, they are trying to push the limits within thier particular culture here.

I agree that the ads are risque (spelling?) but it's nothing Earth-shattering. I actually have no trouble coupling the fact that these are models in a photo shoot - not how the people in the photos actually walk around (because they'd be laughed at in real life). It's to get people talking about their stores - which we are - job well done.

We as a country went completely ballistic over seeing a woman's breast at the Superbowl - giant fines imposed on the network, new rules, etc. Everyone in the WORLD has a breast - male and female. If I see something I've never seen before I'll throw a rock at it.

Someone in the last few years made the comment that we (Americans) are a Puritan-based society who just can't get over the fact that we're not pure.

We try and hide as much as possible, often very vocally terrified of seeing any body parts - and the only power behind the punch of the words I can hear is religion-based - which makes the guy RIGHT in my eyes, that we're a Puritan-based society and can't get past the fact that we're not pure.

We're animals - we disguise it as calling ourselves "humans" but we are animals nonetheless - with animal hormones and urges and desires.

Frankly, I'd rather see some ads of half-naked (or just plain naked) models than watch more up close footage of people being blown up in Iraq, or stabbings, or shootings.

Sorry if this rant ticks anyone off. And yeah, they need to turn the music down as well - their CEO even gloated (he thought this was a great thing) saying that their stores OFTEN get asked by neighbors to turn it down.
-Lew ;-)

Abercrombie & Fitch have a long standing reputation of producing "edgy" adverts.
This had happened before.

I used to live in Virginia Beach..The thing to know about that entire area is, that Pat  Robertson is very influential in many ways.

http://www.cbn.com/

http://www.patrobertson.com/

http://www.cc.org/

Pat has a habit of saying really dumb stuff

http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/funnyquotes/a/patrobertson.htm

That man (Pat) has a few screws loose and is full of archaic beliefs. Too bad so many will probably share his beliefs.

I see that 3DGuy realizes that,

[Robertson] has a few screws loose and is full of archaic beliefs.
Too bad so many will probably share his beliefs.

Right. 

Too bad that so many like short, simple, easy to understand, wrong answers. 

--
Martin

Well, they may be wrong, but at least they are short, simple and easy to understand.

Lol.

Otoh: It's always a matter of free choice. Be happy you don't live in one of those corrupt countries where the government's secret services spy on every citizen, but that you live in a free country that allows you to do what the government and public opinion know to be best for you.

Never mind: you always get the government you deserve.

For Americans, we love our violence out in the open and the sex in the bushes.
Hoo Ra!

My first movie was "The Wild Bunch", the only thing I remember is the poor guys with bullet holes in them complaining about how bad they feel.

My spin is that people should not be exposed to stuff they don't want to see or hear if possible.
Not sure how to enforce that but people should have some choice or control.

Would not want to see models exposing their butt cracks in a clothing store or seeing pictures of a naked women/men when I am buying pants. Does not seem right. If you are shopping with someone of the opposite sex, then it just makes shopping worse. "Is he checking out the naked people or is he paying attention to me?'.

I don't think that store is innocent, they knew that the uproar would bring in more foot traffic.
For a store not being talked about is worse that being talked about. I figure they make some noise for a while, generate some buzz and everyone is happy.

There is a clothing store called Fcuk, I bet their products are not that much better than other stores but the name makes the items special. Who has not felt the allure of wearing a hat, jacket or t shirt that says "Fcuk you"? I would not want to wear that stuff in the subway, could lead to a trip to the hospital.

On the other hand, there are always going to be folks that have nothing better to do but to control how you think and interfere. They fuss about books, games and other things. The Harry Potter books became so popular that somebody had to write a book saying that the books are not a threat to raising religious kids but could be a gateway book gasp to more religious books.

Unlike Einstein, lots of people like things too complicated or too simple.

Luckily the Brits , who, like all good parents, obey and imitate their children, are joining in:
I just read that the London Underground refuses posters for an exhibition of paintings of  Lucas Cranach the Elder (who lived some 500 years ago) at the Royal Academy because of a nude Venus.

O dear.

here's a link, but don't look if paintings offend you.

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/art/2008/02/censored_one_cheeky_venus.html

Thanks to Tanchelyn for suggesting we visit and take a look at,

"Censored: One cheeky Venus"

I read the article and followed the links to the counter argument images ...

I found the comments to be most illuminating ...

Alarming commented,

Cranach's clothed portraits of the young sexy wife sneaking her hand into her
ugly old husband's purse ( the postioning of the purse is everything ) are far
more risque. I wonder if the LU would allow posters with these images?

Why ... was she going for his money or his jewels? 

and davidabsalom observed

Yet putting an image of a severed head on buses is perfectly acceptable.
What an interesting world we live in.

sooterkin gave the rather witty observation that,

It could cause Muslims to have the impure thoughts they never
otherwise have. We should just stick to bra ads.

WoW ... so many ideas ...

--
Martin
 

I wonder what the MTA (Metropolitan Transit Authority) would do in the same situation?
The MTA runs the NYC subways like the LU. Wonder if the MTA would allow ads with severed heads on its trains or buses?

The MTA would probably not show such ads, these are the same guys who were thinking about banning photography inside train stations for security reasons.

I personally would not want to see nudity on my commute.
People are crazy enough on the subway without the extra stimuli.

Remember hearing about Playboy trying to sell issues in an Islamic country. Forgot which country it was. People were complaining about it even though the local magazines were way more explicit. Probably was more of a politics issue.

sooterkin gave the rather witty observation that,

It could cause Muslims to have the impure thoughts they never
otherwise have. We should just stick to bra ads.

And why should we care about people's impure thoughts now?
Why should Muslims be singled out anyway?
They are the only ones with "pure" minds?
**
sooterkin**'s observation seems to demean a whole ethnic group.

Unless you just show the bra all by itself you will be titillating someone.

What does this mean for us as Artists?

If Mr/Ms Moneybags walked up to you and said, I want you to make an artwork for me and you come up with the your best painting/Photo but it breaks taboos, would you censor it or go for it?

For me it would depend on 3 sets of factors.

1. Do I need the money?
2. How much I liked my original idea and how much work it would be to comply to the requirements?
3. What impressions I had of the company/person.

We will ignore the stuff with being successful vs "selling out" for artists.

I agree with SevenOfEleven who said,

I personally would not want to see nudity on my commute.
People are crazy enough on the subway without the extra stimuli.

Quite true. 

Once upon a time, my daily commute included using the NYC subway
station at Grand Central Terminal on my way to lower Manhatan. 

One morning, as thre subway train arrived there were about 8 of us
queued up to enter -- I was the next-to-last and the guy behind me
]was very ... no, too close ... and no-one behind him to justify that. 

At the next stop, 14th st. or Union square, I got out to let others exit
and, as I backed up, I stepped on that same guy's foot
-- yes, he was behind me and that close, again. 

As we reentered the subway car, he was yelling about my rudness. 

I answered by saying that he was too close ... just as he had been
on the platform at 42nd street. 

He retorted that, "The people had been pushing him"

... and I responded that there was nobody behind him
... and that he should leave me out of his fantasies. 

Gotta love NYC ...

--
Martin

p.s. Ya' gotta' think quick, too!

Was on the subway once and this guy walked up to me and looked me in the face.
He was too close, if I was more aggressive, I would have pushed him back but I have ridden the subways for a while and know thats the way to hell.
Creeped me out so much I took the next train that came in even if it was not going my way.
I talked to a woman and she said that the wacko had done the same thing to her.

Then there was the guy who went more nuts and shot up folks on the LIRR (Long Island Railroad). Before that he was causing trouble on the subway trains.

He retorted that, "The people had been pushing him"
<
Maybe he can see dead commuters LOL!

Used to take the train late at night 9pm and later Friday nights and oh Man, you should see what/who gets on those trains.

I see that SevenOfEleven understands the NYC subways,

Used to take the train late at night 9pm and later Friday nights and
oh Man, you should see what/who gets on those trains.

After about 1986, the department required anyone working after 8pm
to use a black cab (radio dispatched) to where their car was parked
-- no public transportation. 

Of course, some of those rides were scary, too. 

--
Martin

p.s. As regards working in NYC, I have read this,

"After you have lived on the upper slopes of Mt. Everest,
everything else is just a little hill."

The only problem with the car service rides was playing navigator.
Since I don't drive and only navigate by landmarks and a few street names it gets kinda dicey.

When I hear, "I am not too familiar with the Bronx", its fun time.

Lets not highjack this thread with our musings on commuting.
We should have some sort of thread on this somewhere else.

Lets get back on track.

MGD would you censor your art for Mr/Ms Moneybags or for other reasons?

Attached Link: http://francoisquinqua.blog.lemonde.fr/2006/09/26/2006_09_araki_charleroi/

There was a promotional panel that showed a picture. You can see it here ( warning contains nudity ) francoisquinqua.blog.lemonde.fr/2006/09/26/2006_09_araki_charleroi/
Sorry the article is in French. To be short, someone has thrown 2 Molotov cocktails to the panel. And as  you can see, it's more that a guy losing her pants here.

I'm more shocked by the fact that someone has thrown 2 bombs at the panel than by the picture itself.

We are lucky, we live in democratic countries and we are able to have that kind of discussion.
What is it acceptable in advertising/art ?
In some countries you can be sentenced to death for having some "immoral thoughts".

So, just take some minutes and think what is acceptable for you and ask your neighbours what they think to be acceptable. The key is the compromise. Of course, art is there to make you think and/or react.

The ad ( here in your country/state ) has fulfilled its contract. We speak about the company, shop and the clothes. One point for the ad.

But don't forget what the old wise man once said :

"My Freedom stops where other's  Freedom starts"

Seen the lacoste advert on TV here in the UK? (been running a long time) naked man gets up from couch and runs towards the door... in black and white... you see a lot more than the top half (well the "start" of really if you get pedantic about the photo in question) of his butt crack...

Maybe i'm a nudist at heart, but seeing someone's butt crack in an advert (male or female) gives me about the same amount of "titilation" or "impure thoughts" as seeing the crevice in a peach...

It's been said that a prude is someone who's never got over the shame of having been born between the thighs of a naked woman :)

Perhaps it's not about being prudish. Perhaps it's more about  how something natural and even beautiful is violated by publicity. As long as people

Quote - Seen the lacoste advert on TV here in the UK? (been running a long time) naked man gets up from couch and runs towards the door... in black and white... you see a lot more than the top half of his butt crack...

When I saw the same advert (while visiting family) in India, he had boxers on!

I still don't can't figure out the "nudity = sex" idiotic assumption.

Nothing is wrong with nudity, IMO.
Nothing is wrong with sex, either.
Both are natural.

Even prudes' parents have been nude (at least when they were born, to wash themselves, and between changing from one set of clothes to another) AND have had sex gasp, hence how they got to existence in the first place.

Unless they were the unknown lewd neighbor's offspring, who somehow got mixed up at the maternity...
... wait a minute... the prudes' parents would not be at the maternity to be the victims of this baby mix up in the first place if they didn't have sex. Moot point. ;)

I am so sick of people who choose to get offended by whatever.
Especially when they are of the "do what i say, not what i do" kind.

If we go the slanted logic route, wouldn't we be born clothed if nudity was not natural?
Sheesh... rolls eyes

Nudity is "offending", while violence is "okay"?
I don't beeping think so. :(

disclaimer: this post only reflects my personal opinion, and i am sorry to say i am not sorry if someone chooses "to get offended" by what i stated or the way i did it.

Having lived in Japan, Hong Kong, and traveling over a large part of Europe and a few other places, it constantly amazes me that America is so tight assed and prudish that nudity bothers ANYONE. Go to Europe and you'll see nudity on TV and in commercials and casual nudity in many places. They simply don't concern themselves with it. But America has this obsession with the concept that nudity is 'dirty' and will cause the complete downfall of modern civilization. I mean, man, get over it.

The store no doubt wanted to cause controversy. Abercrombie and Fitch takes great pride in causing controversy with their advertising. I recall a few years ago they had their whole catalog banned in many places because it featured semi nude and scantily clad teenage looking models. May not be in the best of taste to do it on purpose, but it got the name of the store out there and got people to pay attention.

Hiya

Im sick and tired of Daz3d and Renderosity. They really make me furious.
They delete my gallery posts 3 times a day. Eveytime they see 1 inch of naked skin..
DANG.. delete it as fast as they can. LOL.

In the end its the poor vendors paying for that kind of work i bet.

I really start to think.. is americans born in a full suit and completely without genitals?
Or do the simply hate their own body?

I simply dont understand why all this censorship is here.
Is it about making people feel bad about all that is pure and natural?

Do someone want to explain it to me?

We were born naked... and when our time is up, we have to leave this earth, we will leave it naked too...

Can anyone recommend other good gallery sites, of which i can be absolutely certain that the gallery server isn't placed in a location where US/american censorship rules apply?

I know of Renderotica and Raunchyminds. But they are pretty porn oriented.

I just need something in between. A place where the audience dont choke in their coffe if they see a naked breast or a naked buttock.

There must be a lot of europeans feeling like i do.?

Where do they move their galleries to?

Best Regards
LBJ Denmark (A country with freedom of speech and sight)

LBJ2
Im sick and tired of Daz3d and Renderosity. They really make me furious.
They delete my gallery posts 3 times a day. Eveytime they see 1 inch of naked skin..
DANG.. delete it as fast as they can. LOL.
<
These sites have rules for nudity and there are probably good reasons why.
Have to cover their butts from being attacked by the protectors of tiny tots everywhere.
Some of the protectors actually care but a lot are in for the glory and fame.

From the artist's point of view it does suck and you probably should find a site that allows you to post what you want without fussing with your pictures.

Again if you do not want to see nude people, why should put up with it?
Why should people be nude or half nude to sell non sex related items?

Is it really prudery or are people tired of companies using sex to sell items?
Is it such a great and wonderous thing to see someone use naked or half naked folks to sell assorted items?

Big whoop that some countries use nude people to sell stuff, its not "pushing the envelope", its getting the buck or Euro or Yen. At the end of the day you will want to skip past it to watch the real content.

What are the roots of the prudery?
Is it Satan (lol) or Religion?

How do we fix this problem?
Is it even fixable?

Aside:
When someone mentions "Free speech". I want to laugh a lot.
Do you want to say anything you wish or only the stuff that makes sense?
I bet that "Free speech" has limits in a civil society.

Quote -
These sites have rules for nudity and there are probably good reasons why.
Have to cover their butts from being attacked by the protectors of tiny tots everywhere.
Some of the protectors actually care but a lot are in for the glory and fame.

I do not understand what you are trying to tell here. Maybe caused by lack of lingual knowledge?
Protectors of tiny tots? What is that? Is it some slang?

Quote -
Again if you do not want to see nude people, why should put up with it?

Why not make a simple system where people click in their profile "I dont want to se ANY nudity at all"? And when artists upload a picture and a thumbnail, AND tag the upload nudity.
The upload SIMPLY dont show to those who has tagged their profile with the "I dont want to see ANY nudity at all" tag?

Why not make it simple? The excisting low-IQ censorship system makes fools of people.
Especially the thumbnail. They are so small that noone can see any details on them anyway.

Quote -
Why should people be nude or half nude to sell non sex related items?

Art is about expressing emotions, impressions or feelings.
It has nothing to do with selling things, money or sex.
Nude people and Sex isn't necessarily related. Except for those with a twisted mind.
Nudity has been used in beautiful artwork all over the world for centuries. > Quote -

Is it really prudery or are people tired of companies using sex to sell items?

Now THAT would be a place to start for american censorship wouldn't it? > Quote -

Is it such a great and wonderous thing to see someone use naked or half naked folks to sell assorted items?

What im talking about here is art. Not merchantship of the commercial world.
Because there are a half naked woman in a male-underwear commercial never made me buy the stuff. But truely enough many men have their brain below the belt. If you are a man, nude women are beautiful... if you are a woman.. nude men are beautiful
If you are gay(which can be legally married in Denmark) there can be some sort of mix of what you find beautiful.

Quote -
Big whoop that some countries use nude people to sell stuff, its not "pushing the envelope", its getting the buck or Euro or Yen. At the end of the day you will want to skip past it to watch the real content.

Well.. once again. im talking about expressing artistic impressions. Not the nudity in commercials. > Quote -

What are the roots of the prudery?
Is it Satan (lol) or Religion?
How do we fix this problem?
Is it even fixable?

It's been said that a prude is someone who's never got over the shame of having been born between thethighs of a naked woman :)

Well as for religion i can only speak from a danish point view.  Religion is secondary in Denmark. Freedom of speech comes above it all. Fixable.. yes the day people start to see and accept themselves as they really are.
And stop seeing themselves like they THINK their neighbours want them to be seen.

Quote -
Aside:
When someone mentions "Free speech". I want to laugh a lot.
Do you want to say anything you wish or only the stuff that makes sense?
I bet that "Free speech" has limits in a civil society.

Yeah we can laugh of it all haha. Laughter is healthy :)
Well in Denmark we are, by law protection, allowed to say what we think. And it has been that way for more than 150 years. I would call that freedom of speech. The danish prime-minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen is a foolish puppy running after Bush.
If i want to, i can write that in the news papers and say it on television, I can even make a render of both of them and publish it on my website without any studpid censorship interferes. And if i wanted to, it could be a nude render. No problem there.

In america i heard.. people are afraid of politicians.
In Europe its the other way around. Politicians are afraid of the people. Because they are free to say what they really think.

Best Regards
Lars Juliussen
Denmark

I see that LBJ2 was asking for clarification,

Quote - "
These sites have rules for nudity and there are probably good reasons why.
Have to cover their butts from being attacked by the protectors of tiny tots everywhere.
Some of the protectors actually care but a lot are in for the glory and fame.
"

I do not understand what you are trying to tell here. Maybe caused by lack of
lingual knowledge?
Protectors of tiny tots? What is that? Is it some slang?

Tots = children or 'babes in arms' or infants
Tiny Tots = even smaller, younger versions ...

I think that what SevenOfEleven meant is that some sites (such as renderosity) are
under pressure to conform to 'safety standards' that are supposed to protect children. 

--
Martin
 

Quote - I see that LBJ2 was asking for clarification,

Quote - "
These sites have rules for nudity and there are probably good reasons why.
Have to cover their butts from being attacked by the protectors of tiny tots everywhere.
Some of the protectors actually care but a lot are in for the glory and fame.
"

I do not understand what you are trying to tell here. Maybe caused by lack of
lingual knowledge?
Protectors of tiny tots? What is that? Is it some slang?

Tots = children or 'babes in arms' or infants
Tiny Tots = even smaller, younger versions ...

I think that what SevenOfEleven meant is that some sites (such as renderosity) are
under pressure to conform to 'safety standards' that are supposed to protect children. 

--
Martin
 

Hi Martin

And thanks for helping me out on this one.

But its my impression that renderosity is a website for adults isn't it?

Or am i all wrong?

Is this place flodded with children/kid users ?

I need to get some kind of definition on the tot thing..

How old is a Tot?

How old is a Tiny Tot?

Best Regards
Lars Juliussen
Denmark

I thought images with the nudity flag on weren't even show when not logged in? So how would a tiny tot even see them when they're browsing the web.. assuming a tiny tot is even capable of such a thing.

Ok...let's get this thread back on the subject at hand and stay away from bashing each other and other nations..

As I recall, rosity has filters for people who don't want to see nudity. It depends, of course on people using the nudity tag and not using nudity in thumbnails. Now as far as the content of that nudity, well, rosity and I have different ideas on what should and shouldn't be shown, but it's not my site, so I'm not really in a position to argue the point.

Too bad the politicians are not afraid of the folks here in the US.

I think its more than that, its like walking into a barber shop, telling the barber what you want, falling asleep and waking up with a new hairdo. More folks need to be there watching the President and Congress ready for them to slip up and give them a smack when they start leaving our reality. Our hands will be sore but a lot of the nonsense that we have now would be reduced.

We have info on WMDs in Iraq
SMACK
Um, lets fix the health care system instead.

Nobody wants to be a moderate (having common sense), everyone wants to be an extreme (Liberal/Conservative). American politicians are not afraid of American voters because they know that american voters have better things to do than monitor them.

Back to the thread.

kudos to LBJ2 for answering my questions.

My use of the term "Tiny Tot" was to cover young children.
Don't know the age range but 18 is probably the upper limit.
There are concerned parents who worry about their kids and what they see on the internet.
Can't fault them for their concerns. I don't like the folks who use these concerns as a springboard to fame.

Not sure that the Prudery will be fixable here in the US, maybe 20 or 10 years ago but not now.
The pendulum is swinging back the other way. In the 50's people were more optimistic about science but now its a different story. Too many busybodies and Folks that want control here.

LBJ2
Why not make a simple system where people click in their profile "I dont want to se ANY nudity at all"?

And when artists upload a picture and a thumbnail, AND tag the upload nudity.
The upload SIMPLY dont show to those who has tagged their profile with the "I dont want to see ANY nudity at all" tag?

Why not make it simple? The excisting low-IQ censorship system makes fools of people.
Especially the thumbnail. They are so small that noone can see any details on them anyway.

Quote - "
Why should people be nude or half nude to sell non sex related items?
"

That would be good but some folks are going to not follow the rules.
You can bank on it.

Quote -
My use of the term "Tiny Tot" was to cover young children.
Don't know the age range but 18 is probably the upper limit.
There are concerned parents who worry about their kids and what they see on the internet.
Can't fault them for their concerns. I don't like the folks who use these concerns as a springboard to fame.

Well if Renderosity is flodded with kids it's more than understandable that the rules are as they are. But even kids are potential customers. If they beg their parents, and kids do.
I guess the parents would buy what the kids want. So i can understand that it would be a shame to loose the huge amount of money parents spend on their kids.
Money is money after all :)

But with all the revealing clothes and sexy underwear in the vendors, it was my impression that Renderosity was not a place for children. Im actually surprised that people below 18 is allowed here at all.

Quote -
Not sure that the Prudery will be fixable here in the US, maybe 20 or 10 years ago but not now.
The pendulum is swinging back the other way. In the 50's people were more optimistic about science but now its a different story. Too many busybodies and Folks that want control here.

Control... strange that worldwide politicians havn't learned yet that people can't be controlled.
The more politicians try to control people the worse things get.
But unfortunately our terrible government lead by the fascist Anders Fogh Rasmussen throughout the last 7 years is control freaks too. Violence and crime has really gotten worse in the last 7 years i Denmark. The more rules and laws they make, the worse things get here.
Too bad.

Quote -

LBJ2
Why not make a simple system where people click in their profile "I dont want to se ANY nudity at all"? And when artists upload a picture and a thumbnail, AND tag the upload nudity.
The upload SIMPLY dont show to those who has tagged their profile with the "I dont want to see ANY nudity at all" tag?

Why not make it simple? The excisting low-IQ censorship system makes fools of people.
Especially the thumbnail. They are so small that noone can see any details on them anyway.

Quote - "
Why should people be nude or half nude to sell non sex related items?
"

That would be good but some folks are going to not follow the rules.
You can bank on it.

True people won't follow the rules. Modertors would be unemployed if the did :)

But it would protect the kids and the prudes much better, if art tagged with "nudity" did NOT show in their browser at all.

And if prudes feel harm by seeing nudity.
WHY even show them a icon saying CONTENT ADVISORY.. DONT LOOK HERE.. NUDITY IS RIGHT BEHIND THIS ICON.

Why?

If they have selected in their Renderosity interface, "Dont show me nudity".
Why not filter all Nudity and Violence, so they dont see it?

Then the only stuff that would show in their web browser would be..
Old cars, landscapes, flowers, child photos, and soft stuff like that.

Then everyone would be happy. And the moderators would have an easier life.

Unless of course prudes are more worried about their neighbor(that ole swine) is watching it :)

Best Regards
Lars Juliussen
Denmark

Ok..time to move on people...this thread is over..