Quote - There are -- technically prurient - images here, too.  So it's best to avoid any potential confusion as to what's intended in a given picture, when the subject is underage.

Just like at Rotica -- and for some (although not all) of the same underlying reasons.

BTW - People talk about classical art as if everyone living back then were all prudish.  Now that's truly funny.  :lol:  Medieval & 'classical' cherubs weren't always so innocently intended.  Read some medieval literature.  For whatever reasons, this current generation pridefully thinks that it invented......uh......'amorality'.  When the fact is that it's existed for as long as we can look back & have knowledge.  In fact, many ancient civilizations were far more outré than we pride ourselves on being now.

But, it's a fact that we're gradually getting there -- back to it.  Read some more ancient history to see what happens next.

 

first off, i never said anything about classical art being prudish.  second, i never mentioned cherubs (though Sean did, were you addressing him?).  third, in this context, it's not about the original intent, but the modern interpretation and impression.  the point being, many enjoy art today with nude minors in ways that are not prurient, work from that perspective, and have others view their work this way.   so i'm not sure what point you're trying to make with the lecture and the assumption of ignorance.

yes, there are prurient images here, but i disagree with your huge assumption that it's best to be safe and completely unambiguous to all viewers when it comes to art.   i could go into the myriad negative effects in this community and our society at large that i see, but i really don't see a point to that.  you have your opinion, and Rendo has it's policy, and nothing will change either.  might as well let it be.

and wait, if you're saying that you weren't saying JoePublic was talking about Renderotica, why did you bring it up in response to his now vanished post?  i mean, wouldn't that make Renderotica's policies entirely irrelevant to what he was talking about?  not to make a point, it just actually confused me.