Quote - Sorry, but to me a forum is not a "private propety".

I tend to go with Tom on this, and encourage you to open your own site - then YOU can run it any damn way you like.  Alternatively you could contact Thorne and offer to pay his bills.

They won't discuss internal business publicly, and I don't blame them.  Individual forumites with opinions aren't in the position of Corporate Executive Directors (although they often appear to think that they are); and small -- very small -- groups of forumites with collectively held opinions aren't the Board of Directors for any given website (although they often appear to think that they are).

Privately held websites can run themselves however they choose to.  Given those conditions: individual members have the option of deciding for themselves whether or not they wish to participate in the site.  But even if they do choose to participate --they still don't run things........much as some seem to think that they do......or that they should.  I might disagree with a given site's policies.  But I don't own the place.  Any more than I own the local shopping mall or restaurant.

Quote - Alternatively you could contact Thorne and offer to pay his bills.

Hear Hear! That will be $100.00 per month for the last 5 years please, paid out of my own pocket.

The ban on so-called "underaged" nudity was discussed at length for some time among all the admin and moderators and was not my decision alone. It appears however to be a case of damned if we do and damned if we don't among some. Actually, we were NOT harrassed into anything, though considering the number of attacks we have had as Dale said, I admit it has made me very angry to have to constantly deal with the self-righteous moralizers whose idea of art is something you click- hence my statement about the "wag-tongues". The decision was also made in part because some people took advantage of our open policy, regardless of the number of times they were warned. Feel free to debate this same issue with the admin here and see how far you get with your arguments. 

We NEVER allow any sexual images at all at Faeriewylde; that has been in our TOS from day one. That includes clothed as well as nude images, and regardless of apparent age of the models. Some people tried to push the limits occasionally, but those images were deleted. A few may have slipped by, such as the one in the Free Gifts forum that has since been deleted. We aren't on a mad crusade to go back through 5 years of posts and delete images. Anything that has been posted and passed previously will remain. I am well aware of the current laws regarding this issue.

We feel this decision will make more people comfortable posting, and in fact I have already received messages from members telling me that they agree with the new policy and think it was the right thing to do. The very fact that there ISN'T a big outcry against this decision tells me that it was the right thing to do at this time. There were only ever a very few images that would be affected by this new rule anyway. We may change it back again at some time in the future, but I wouldn't hold my breath. Remember, this rule is still up to the discretion of my admin and mods, and they tend to be level-headed in this regard. I dare say you might still see the occasional cherub butt.

Bottom line- I am tired of dealing with the association of my websites and my work with something despicable. I don't make enough money doing this to have to deal with it. In fact, I should be working now instead of here making this post! It is those same wag-tongues that turn light into darkness, sweetness into bitterness, beauty into ugliness, and innocence into something putrid and vile. It is this sick and perverted  mindset, seeing evil at every turn, that is the problem, not the faeries.

Thanks for your understanding and support.

To those who say it's just those with the bucks, I'd respond: To a point, folks. The site's income through advertising from outside sources (say, for example, SmithMicro taking a banner ad here) is determined by the amount of traffic the site receives, not the number of paid memberships it has. If we're going to go by the latter, then any discussion along these lines becomes moot, because we have no say and therefore no influence in the site's policies. We are here strictly as customers, no more, no less, and the existence of the fora is little more than social chit-chat that means nothing in and of itself.

Is that what you see here? If so, then we might as well just all walk away from this thread and collectively shrug our shoulders and say "Well, that's how the ball bounces". If anything comes down the pike that changes other gallery policies, we'd better not complain because it's not our site and we have no say. If the marketplace is suddenly told it cant support DAZ figures because Rosity and DAZ have decided to part ways, we'd better just go along and say nothing. Aint our site.

I just read Thorne's post, and it's one of the saddest things I've read in a long time in these fora, either here or anywhere else. Cut through it all, and FW had to cave, pure and simple, just so some people would feel comfortable. Not because it was right, but because it was... ewwww.... icky for some folks who apparently felt they had the right to question a long-standing, very positive policy and turn it into something dark and perverted and dangerous.

And that sucks.

And not in a good way, either.

Nobody says you "better not" complain - only that the most effective form of complaint is to simply stop using the site that makes you complain, and possibly cease doing business with the owner in any form if it really gets your goat.  Rendo for example has many policies that I find highly annoying, but at the end of the day, they own the site and I do not, so I can either adapt to their policy or take my business elsewhere.  Complaining is valuable for the site host in that you're giving feedback that may be of use to them - but only to a point, and any decision remains with the site owner (the guy paying $100 a month out of his own pocket in this case).
ps: I'm a frequent complainer myself, I feel the pain of all complainers everywhere when their complaints aren't dealt with satisfactorily

Oh, most websites do listen to input -- to a point.  But they don't have to listen & obey anyone who yells at them.  There's a difference between the two -- and that's where some go off the rails between making suggestions and issuing commands.

You see, one of the key problems with the implied business model of obeying the whims of forumites with opinions is that the forumites don't all share the same opinions about how things should be done.  There are other critical problems with following such a model -- but that basic issue is one of them.

If you think poserdom is touchy about this subject - try the academic world. 

Wikipedia is fine as like as you cite it and confirm the sources.

I'm currently writing a disseration about website methodologys and building one for a local kids charity, it's been running for over 25 years, these guys helped to design the original Criminal Record Checks.

However - if the charity wants to use any photograph on the site while I work on it, the uni (following the schools guidelines -) states explict consent from child and parent is required for each picture. 

Even though some of the photos are now over 10 years. One member of staff advised against using stick men in case a misplaced line is miscontrued! Like with that disney poster.   

Some of the staff agree it's bloody silly - others don't, but end result is the same. 
 
Cartoon penguins. yep. cute. cartoon pengys. 
 
So far they've not noticed one of the little fish eaters is tooled up with a rocket launcher :) 

I agree that there are some issues forumites have no business being a part of... but at the same time, guys, look at what happened with the EULA at Artzone. That got changed pretty quick because a handful of people made enough noise. I doubt DAZ stopped and conducted a poll to see which way the wind was blowing on the issue - it was changed literally over a weekend.

Insofar as this issue, all we're hearing is one small part of a much larger discussion that could have larger ramifications down the road. If you folks are all content to let someone else make the decision for you, I'll let it drop... but it does seem a bit odd that an issue like this, one that is based more on suspicion and fear of what might happen, is one that we should just say, "Fine, okay, whatever." Yep, not my site. My financial stake here is limited to what I buy on occasion in the store, so I guess in the Grand Scheme of Things (TM) that aint much. But I repeat: I find it pretty sad to see places like this and FW and all the other Poser sites caving in to some strange nameless fear that has no statistical proof to back itself up. It's just sitting there, all shapeless and vague. But we're scared to death of it.

Quote - If you folks are all content to let someone else make the decision for you, I'll let it drop...

What is the alternative if any complaint isn't addressed in a way that satisfies the complainer, you will go to Thorne's home and beat him up and make him do things differently?  Nobody has said "Fine, okay whatever" but on the other hand, Thorne is the guy paying the bills and bearing all the risk for the users of his site, not any anonymous internet folks that can drop whatever bag of flaming dog poo on his doorstep whenever they like.  Some guy in a different country can post a borderline image and cause him legal problems or jail time.

Quote - I agree that there are some issues forumites have no business being a part of... but at the same time, guys, look at what happened with the EULA at Artzone. That got changed pretty quick because a handful of people made enough noise. I doubt DAZ stopped and conducted a poll to see which way the wind was blowing on the issue - it was changed literally over a weekend.

Insofar as this issue, all we're hearing is one small part of a much larger discussion that could have larger ramifications down the road. If you folks are all content to let someone else make the decision for you, I'll let it drop... but it does seem a bit odd that an issue like this, one that is based more on suspicion and fear of what might happen, is one that we should just say, "Fine, okay, whatever." Yep, not my site. My financial stake here is limited to what I buy on occasion in the store, so I guess in the Grand Scheme of Things (TM) that aint much. But I repeat: I find it pretty sad to see places like this and FW and all the other Poser sites caving in to some strange nameless fear that has no statistical proof to back itself up. It's just sitting there, all shapeless and vague. But we're scared to death of it.

Well, I for one don't have such a burning desire to see child nudity that it bothers me a great deal that it's not allowed around here.
Not too long ago there was a case here in california where some creep molested a two-year old baby... so, who knows what kind of deviants exist out there, and what it is they get off on. I don't mind at all that places like rendo are playing it safe.
Also, I'm confident that places like rendo are not so extreme that they will go around telling what to think or engae in types of censorships that will seriously violate my rights.

Actually, the more sexual or potentially sexual displays on rendo are toned down, the more exposure real art might get around here.

No, I don't get flabergasted by a naked three year old running around the house. At the same time, I wouldn't let the same three year old run around the neighborhood streets naked, or in front of a webcam. Internet is the neighborhood street, even if you're lulled in the false sense of security by the computer sitting inside your house.

*Well, I for one don't have such a burning desire to see child nudity that it bothers me a great deal that it's not allowed around here.

Who among us expressed a burning desire to see child nudity.  Do you have any names?

Quote - Typical authoritarian thinking.

No. Authoritarianism is forcing someone to do something with their own property... Like a forum-goer dictating site policy to the owner(s).

Quote - But members of poser forums act like they are just tolerated guests, eternally gratefull and ready to be pushed around anytime like unruly schoolchildren.

They are tolerated guests. Administration can ban them, w/ or w/o reason, anytime they want to. They don't have to provide an explanation, they don't have to answer any requests for reinstatement in any way, they don't account to a social committee or a court or an official for why they banned someone (what a grotesque thing that would be, huh?)
FLICKR could have told everyone that didn't like it to get out. They didn't do that because it is not a good business decision, not because anyone else had any real say in the matter. Strictly a FLICKR administration decision, based on feedback. The way any business (at least successful ones) operates.

Quote - Sorry, but to me a forum is not a "private propety".

It's private property in every sense of the word. Someone owns it, they pay the bills to make it possible. If there is legal problems, it is the owner that takes the flak, and pays the fines. When the bills are due to keep the doors open, it is the owner that gets the tab. When profits come in (if there are any), the owner gets those too. They have 100% unrestricted power to say how their forum will operate.
In what real sense is it not private property?

Quote - The owner deserves a certain amount of gratefullness for providing the place, but his rights are limited as long as it is open to the public.
Especially if you using a forum to make $$$.

Limited by whom?
Do we really need (or want) some committee somewhere dictating internet website policies?
The admin. has 100% control of their own forum. The way it should be.
If I invite guests to my home, do I lose all right to tell them not to kick the walls in, or not to take a piss on the carpet?

Quote - ...make the real world such a miserable place to live in for anyone but the super-rich.

The real world is not miserable for me (And I am not super rich). The real world is not miserable for a lot of people; even a lot of poor people enjoy life. Shocking!
Besides, what other choice do you have?...

A couple of years ago there was a bit of a ruckus about a photograph on an art exhibition in the Netherlands. The photo depicted a nude man (the artist himself), carrying his young son on his shoulder, and sporting an erection.
After a short while the photograph was removed from the exhibition. I've seen it, and I agreed with the decision of the gallery owner: it was far too sexual in nature.
I have no desire to see art like that anywhere.
(By the way, the OTHER photographs by this same artist were quite artistic and interesting, IMO).

In the same period there were posters for sale depicting a nude young woman lifting a naked baby. The atmosphere was completely different: the image was clearly about the love between mother and child.
I have no problem whatsoever to view artwork like that.

Both of these images would be forbidden on just about every site I can think of. As far as I know, both images could get their owner in trouble in the US. Which would be justified in the first case, but totally ridiculous in the second case.

While blanket rules are easy to write up and (relatively) easy to enforce, they don't do justice to anything.
The "advantage" of blanket rules is that you don't have to think anymore. Just apply the rules, and you know whether what you're doing is acceptable or not. Blanket rules eliminate the need for personal responsibility, they eliminate the need to THINK.

It is a sad thing that so many people prefer the ease of blanket rules to the freedom and responsibility of thinking for themselves.

THAT"s what I don't like about blanket rules.

>> Some guy in a different country can post a borderline image and cause him legal problems or jail time.

I'm not debating that. I realize the policy is there. But in all of this, has anyone really asked the core question of why it's necessary?

We have this strange little vague fear that perverts are trolling the galleries at FW or Rosity or here looking to get their jollies off by pictures of little boys and girls. There probably are, just as there are pervs tearing through the catalogues from Sears to see all those little boys in their tidy-whities. But y'know, here's the thing: if the PTB knew anything about child porn, they'd know that whether or not the kid is naked is immaterial -- all the child molester is interested in is seeing the kid, period. Child molestation isnt about sexuality so much as it is about power, and power doesnt care about the kid's genitalia, just that the kid is underage and therefore pliable to the will of some perv. So does that mean we should eliminate all images of children? After all, a child molester is gonna be just as excited by Sadie in a rainjacket as Sadie buck-ass nekkid... probably even more so, because that rainjacket just allows his imagination to run wild.

Where does it stop, folks? Just asking the question, because IMHO it deserves more than just "well, if you feel so passionately about it, open your own site!" I'm not saying let's just open the floodgates and let any- and everything go. But a little common sense seems to be lacking in all of this.

Why is it necessary to be extremely cautious about allowing childhood nudity, whether actual photos or paintings or CG renderings?

http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2003/April/03_ag_266.htm
http://judiciary.senate.gov/special/S151CONF.pdf

Look at pg. 68 and subsequent.  To make a long story short, US Federal Law that is current, on the books, and enforced with heavy jail time, that does not make any distinction between "obscene" real images and "obscene" CG or Photoshopped or whatever other types of images that involve depictions of minors.  Since the definition of "obscene" is pretty subjective, it is a lot safer to avoid the risk entirely rather than to defend oneself after the fact, from a prison cell.  It's very easy to talk about challenging "censorship" when we're all anonymous bits and bytes floating around on the internet, not so much when your name and address is listed as the site owner.  If anybody wants to bear that risk themselves they are free to run their own site and have more child nudity than you can shake a stick at.

""While blanket rules are easy to write up and (relatively) easy to enforce, they don't do justice to anything.
The "advantage" of blanket rules is that you don't have to think anymore. Just apply the rules, and you know whether what you're doing is acceptable or not. Blanket rules eliminate the need for personal responsibility, they eliminate the need to THINK.

It is a sad thing that so many people prefer the ease of blanket rules to the freedom and responsibility of thinking for themselves.

THAT"s what I don't like about blanket rules.""

Here Here
Very well said Svdl

Quote - We have this strange little vague fear that perverts are trolling the galleries at FW or Rosity or here looking to get their jollies off by pictures of little boys and girls. There probably are, just as there are pervs tearing through the catalogues from Sears to see all those little boys in their tidy-whities. But y'know, here's the thing: if the PTB knew anything about child porn, they'd know that whether or not the kid is naked is immaterial -- all the child molester is interested in is seeing the kid, period. Child molestation isnt about sexuality so much as it is about power, and power doesnt care about the kid's genitalia, just that the kid is underage and therefore pliable to the will of some perv. So does that mean we should eliminate all images of children? After all, a child molester is gonna be just as excited by Sadie in a rainjacket as Sadie buck-ass nekkid... probably even more so, because that rainjacket just allows his imagination to run wild.

That's a lot like saying, since the thieves know how to break in, why bother locking your house. A logical fallacy.

Quote - Where does it stop, folks?

It's really rather simple and boils down to common sense. When in a public place, do what is socially acceptable in a public place. This is a public place.

If someone wants different rules, then they need to build their own community where those rules are acceptable, and hopefully for their own protextion they will find a way to screen the membership.

It's interesting to see that there is a fair amount of people whom people have such a flippant attitude about internet, and think that all of a sudden all rules of life and social behavior and interaction should suddenly dissapear.  Yea, sure it would be nice to have this virtual fantasy outlet where the annoying rules we have to follow in life wouldn't apply, but guess what, that's not a very realistic expectation. So, yes, I can understand when someone's unrealistic expectation gets trampled on, they're going to get upset.

Quote - A couple of years ago there was a bit of a ruckus about a photograph on an art exhibition in the Netherlands. The photo depicted a nude man (the artist himself), carrying his young son on his shoulder, and sporting an erection.
After a short while the photograph was removed from the exhibition. I've seen it, and I agreed with the decision of the gallery owner: it was far too sexual in nature.
I have no desire to see art like that anywhere.
(By the way, the OTHER photographs by this same artist were quite artistic and interesting, IMO).

In the same period there were posters for sale depicting a nude young woman lifting a naked baby. The atmosphere was completely different: the image was clearly about the love between mother and child.
I have no problem whatsoever to view artwork like that.

Both of these images would be forbidden on just about every site I can think of. As far as I know, both images could get their owner in trouble in the US. Which would be justified in the first case, but totally ridiculous in the second case.

While blanket rules are easy to write up and (relatively) easy to enforce, they don't do justice to anything.
The "advantage" of blanket rules is that you don't have to think anymore. Just apply the rules, and you know whether what you're doing is acceptable or not. Blanket rules eliminate the need for personal responsibility, they eliminate the need to THINK.

It is a sad thing that so many people prefer the ease of blanket rules to the freedom and responsibility of thinking for themselves.
THAT"s what I don't like about blanket rules.

...If only those making the rules were perfect, and had foresight to see all possible ways those rules affect things....
........... ....If only life was perfect....  ...........

THUD    Ouch... I dozed off and fell out of my chair

Peace and goodwill to all.

Quote - Peace and goodwill to all.

And Fuzzy Bunnies!

Quote - It's interesting to see that there is a fair amount of people whom people have such a flippant attitude about internet, and think that all of a sudden all rules of life and social behavior and interaction should suddenly dissapear.  Yea, sure it would be nice to have this virtual fantasy outlet where the annoying rules we have to follow in life wouldn't apply, but guess what, that's not a very realistic expectation. So, yes, I can understand when someone's unrealistic expectation gets trampled on, they're going to get upset.

Aye, ye fuzzy eared one and a good point ye makes...but there are somes who believe this world exists!

...for the record, not me.

""It's really rather simple and boils down to common sense. When in a public place, do what is socially acceptable in a public place. This is a public place.""

I gotta come back and play devils advocate connie :p

I think alot of the things were discussing here are in fact very acceptable in public places.  I've been privy to a baby fanny or two on the beach in the past.  I've seen people breast feed.   I saw children in the nursery of a hospital before.  I would like to think I have some common sense in regards to what should and should not be acceptable.  Eh who knows though - I was once told that I should nurse my child in the john - maybe I'm the confused one!

I really think Svdl hit the nail on the head with the blanket rules thing.  It's unfortunate honestly.  Someone else who mentioned that if the majority of images here weren't overtly sexual in nature that gallery would be a more acceptable place for artistic nudity of all sorts.  That's true too. 

Quote - It's really rather simple and boils down to common sense. When in a public place, do what is socially acceptable in a public place. This is a public place.

Who determines what is socially acceptable in a public place?

I don't have a good answer to that question.

How can we know what's socially acceptable in a public place?
Personal ethics and responsibility, or untouchable blanket rules?

Personal ethics would work in a perfect society consisting of perfect human beings. Well, humans are not perfect and society is not perfect, as we all know.
The other extreme is not acceptable either. As usual, the best realistic solution is somewhere in the middle.

In my opinion and experience, society in general leans too much towards the untouchable blanket rule side of the spectrum these days. And unthinkingly following the rules leads to some very undesirable outcomes. Anyone remember the expression "Befehl ist befehl?"

http://youtube.com/watch?v=sZhab5MMbpA

Quote - > Quote - It's really rather simple and boils down to common sense. When in a public place, do what is socially acceptable in a public place. This is a public place.

Who determines what is socially acceptable in a public place?

I don't have a good answer to that question.

Look up discussions and papers written on sociology and social constructs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_constructs

http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0oGkmvHdQVIXWAAa.VXNyoA?p=social+constructs&y=Search&fr=fptb--s&ei=UTF-8

:)

Quote - How can we know what's socially acceptable in a public place?
Personal ethics and responsibility, or untouchable blanket rules?

As you've implied -- it's a combination of both, actually, working in concert.  It's not an either/or proposition.

Some either can't or won't see that -- typically for ideological reasons.

Quote - Who determines what is socially acceptable in a public place?

In the U.S. it is 'The People', acting through elected representatives that make all those determinations.

Unreal expectations are hopes and dreams wrapped in faith. 

Quote - That's a lot like saying, since the thieves know how to break in, why bother locking your house. A logical fallacy.

And what will happen to the lock fabricant? What will happen to the profit of alarm makers, security cameras, electrified fences, fortifications, security services, the goverment protecting you, blah, blah.
You see, all is resumed to $$$$, they sell you the illusion and you pay.

Quote - Quote - " Quote - "It's really rather simple and boils down to common sense. When in a public place, do what is socially acceptable in a public place. This is a public place."

Who determines what is socially acceptable in a public place?

I don't have a good answer to that question."

Look up discussions and papers written on sociology and social constructs

That's the problem, how the society must behave is dictated by sociologists and psychologists, schizofrenic people full of personal traumas, social problems and that live in an imaginary world.
Neither Freud is saved, all his work is based on his own personal sexual problem.
Tell me, do you know a person that was ever cured and had his problem solved by a shrink?

Wow, I've heard of thread drift but this is getting surreal. :)

We must sepparate business from art. Business is for making $$$$$, is for profit, if you sell an urinol for $15,000 it was an excellent business, but is not art!
Business can sell you a Van Gogh painting or a toddler's painting painted with his own shit, what is important is the amount of $$$ they get in the transaction.
Business has his own rules, rules that are independent of art and freedom, you can make business with Democarcy and with dictatures, even China that is Communist is making an excellent huge business.
Who makes business takes his decisions, the risks and set the rules, if they find that censorship is good for business you have censorship. If their decision was good the profit will increase, if this was bad they'll jump through the window.

Art is something different, art is above commerce, puritans, moralists, lawyers, goverments and sociologists dictating the rules. Art exist and existed even was forbiden and lot of works destroyed in a pyre. Artists were burned, jailed and even so they continued to make their art, to not be so dramatic, most of the artists were expert enough to survive, nothing happened with them neither to their work, even forbiden and against the moral, religion or politics.
Of course you can make art and business too, only you need to sepparate both activities (Dr Jekyll and Mr Hide???, well... who is who?)

>> That's a lot like saying, since the thieves know how to break in, why bother locking your house. A logical fallacy.

In the small town I was raised in, no one locked their doors at night. Car keys were routinely left in autos for the convenience of the owner, and no one cared. Where I live now, I can go off and leave my apartment door unlocked all day and know that there's a good chance that no one will go in.

But you just inadvertantly underscored my point, actually: because we think someone will stroll int our unlocked houses and steal everything, we lock our doors. Because we think someone will run off with our unlocked car, we have these cute little beep-beep things. The odds of someone actually going into your house or stealing your car are miniscule, but we have been so trained to think otherwise that the very idea is impossible to let go of.

Same, IMHO, with this whole nonsense about child nudity. Because we think it's bad, it ipso facto must be. And the fact that the government has a massive document in support of something it cant even define at all simply adds to the comic-opera nature of the whole thing.

The religious right in the US are dictating morals for all of us. That's what all of this is actually about.
Before they started gaining momentum about 20 years ago, the world just went about its business.

But with the Internet and the corporations that own financial systems and means of communication and information, some well placed ownership dollars can bring the entire planet to its knees.
We all become hostages to a certain group and their agenda.
We discuss their issues, we get painted into a corner they have defined, we lose sight of the other issues because we're so busy struggling with the new reality they make for us.
Lovely...

And no, I'm not conspiratorial, this is all just basic Modern World History 101.

:] Fish

And no, I'm not conspiratorial, this
I have some shares in the Black Helicopter Corporation if you want them :) 

The religious right in the US are dictating morals for all of us.
Being a brit we don't get that problem so much - what we get is Political Correctness. 
This doesn't come from the top down it comes from idiots in local government - usually on a very nice salary - who see something and think thats insenstive to some group or another. 

They don't think to ask that group - say photographers or artist - what they actually think - they just make up a "guideline". Which assuming there was one to start with - often makes the original situation worse.
 
But you meet people like "equal opps officers" at work and Hitler would've be proud of their officalness, meet then outside and they have the morals of an alcoholic rabbit on viagra.

Quote -
It's interesting to see that there is a fair amount of people whom people have such a flippant attitude about internet, and think that all of a sudden all rules of life and social behavior and interaction should suddenly dissapear. 

Oh, that's easy to explain.

--

Quote - Oh my, the tired old: "Unless you are in EXACTLY the same situation you aren't allowed to have an opinion".

Which is of course complete rubbish.

That's not what I said. What I did say was, unless you're willing to practice what you preach, kindly do not preach that someone has "no spine" for not doing something you yourself will not do.

Thorne has balls of URANIUM for holding out as he did for five years in this legal climate. Seeing someone who hasn't walked the walk so flippantly claim that he is cowardly for his decision to stop fighting after all that time? Let's say that it's abrasive reading. You owe the man an apology.

It all boils down to a question: Under what provenance do you have the right to demand that others do what you yourself have not done or will not do?

Quote - Actually what disappoints me most is that there is not a single discussion over there.

Maybe they're adult enough to figure out that they don't want to spoil a beautiful place with such discussions? After all, one certainly doesn't stand up and start debating (much less shout) in a restaurant just because the chef decided to remove something from the menu.

--

Quote - are one gigantic NDA.

It's not about any NDA - it's about respect.

--

Quote - Sorry, but to me a forum is not a "private propety".
To me it's what "the commons" are in the real world.

No. The Commons in most towns are government-owned entities held in public trust.

Websites can be private businesses (think "coffee shop"), they can be private assemblies (think "volunteer group") but all non-governmental sites are indeed private property, and they can set their own rules as they please.

If I run Poser on a laptop in a coffee shop, and the owners/employees are highly offended at the content, then I would be rightly asked to leave. Standing there shouting about my 'rights' is not only stupid, but can be illegal if I refused to leave. If the other patrons take umbrage at my being thrown out, then they can leave as well.

It is up to the owners to determine what is best for their enterprises - not you, not me. Persuade them if you can, but they have the final say. If their business or enterprise collapses, that's their problem - and not ours.

--

Quote - If you folks are all content to let someone else make the decision for you, I'll let it drop...

If I'm not content and it's not my site, I'll ask them. If they hold to their decision, then I let it drop and decide whether or not to stay or go.  If I feel that strongly about it, I'll go start my own site. Faeriewylde, PoserPros, 3DCommune, Renderotica... all of these sites began because their owners did not like this or that policy on an existing site.

--

Quote - I think alot of the things were discussing here are in fact very acceptable in public places.

Question is, which public place? I'm not asking as an argument, but to posit that unlike the physical realm, the Internet is a conglomeration of public places, all wrapped up into one, with a paradox: Social mores differ among many physical places. Some deal with it by the 'highest common denominator' theory. Everyone else gropes around in the dark and tries to figure out an acceptable norm.

--

Quote - The religious right in the US are dictating morals for all of us.

Actually, every political group in existence is trying to dictate morals for all of us - left or right.

/P

>> It's not about any NDA - it's about respect.

Tom, almost every post you make when you weigh in on something the Perverse carries the disclaimer "Well, I'm really not supposed to talk about it, but..." After a while, it's no longer an issue of "respect". I'm not sure what it is, frankly. But it's almost becoming funny in a strange kind of way. Sorta like the boy who cried wolf so many times no one gave a crap.

But whatever, dude.

I'm merely explaining my opacity regarding this. like it, lump it, machts nichts.

/P

Quote - >> That's a lot like saying, since the thieves know how to break in, why bother locking your house. A logical fallacy.

In the small town I was raised in, no one locked their doors at night. Car keys were routinely left in autos for the convenience of the owner, and no one cared. Where I live now, I can go off and leave my apartment door unlocked all day and know that there's a good chance that no one will go in.

But you just inadvertantly underscored my point, actually: because we think someone will stroll int our unlocked houses and steal everything, we lock our doors. Because we think someone will run off with our unlocked car, we have these cute little beep-beep things. The odds of someone actually going into your house or stealing your car are miniscule, but we have been so trained to think otherwise that the very idea is impossible to let go of.

Same, IMHO, with this whole nonsense about child nudity. Because we think it's bad, it ipso facto must be. And the fact that the government has a massive document in support of something it cant even define at all simply adds to the comic-opera nature of the whole thing.

I had things stolen from unlocked places. Luckily not from a house, but from unlocked garages and sheds (I lost three high end bycicles and a a full set of ski gear this way.

We had things stolen from  sports venues. Merchandise booths getting robbed overnight, so now when we organize and event, we have to provide overnight security. Couple offices I worked at got robbed. One because an employee forgot to lock the door when leaving at th end of the day, another by the good old brick through the glass door.

There's about a dozen people I personally know whom had their cars stolen, some locked, some unlocked. My ex boyfriend had his luggage stolen out of a company van at an airport parking lot.  A gal I used to know was hijacked with her car in broad daylight in downtown LA.
The city where I lived for 10 years, turns out that one of the school principals was a child molester (got busted 2-3 years ago), you can look it up in the news reports.

I don't know where you live, but where I live theft and crime are just around the corner, and I don't even live in a spot that has really high crime rate for this general area. 
I'm not going by made up stories and threats someone has filled my head with. I'm going by what has actually happened to me and people around me.

Small towns seldom have much crime, because there's very little anonymity or possibility for getting away with it for those that commit them.
Internet is anything but a small town. It provides people even more anonymity then a highly populated city, which tends to equate to even more potential for doing something and getting away with it. Look at warez, porn, p2p copyright violations and whatever else has proliferated on the net, because it's pretty easy to get away with shady behavior.

Quote - The odds of someone actually going into your house or stealing your car are miniscule, but we have been so trained to think otherwise that the very idea is impossible to let go of

The odds, how unlikely it might be that someone would post seriously trouble-making imagery in a public gallery, do not mitigate the legal troubles if someone goes against the odds and actually does post a trouble-making image (or multiples, each multiplying possible prison term!) - when the danger goes vertical, as I think most people would consider 20 years in prison, then it is very sensible to minimize the risk to zero.  Just because it might have a .001% chance of happening doesn't mean you'd only spend a day in prison (and would you be willing to spend even one day in prison for some guy in Slobovia posting a legally troublesome image on YOUR site?)

Quote -
That's the problem, how the society must behave is dictated by sociologists and psychologists, schizofrenic people full of personal traumas, social problems and that live in an imaginary world.

huh? Not even close.  Most of what they do is observe and study and try to understand the phenomenon. For most shrinks in the US, there is a rule that they are not allowed to impose 'their ways' on the patient. If they do, they lose their license to practice.

Quote - Tell me, do you know a person that was ever cured and had his problem solved by a shrink? 

I know plenty of people whom have been helped a lot by qualified psychologists.
I am very surprized with your negativity and sterotyping of the field. It's the kind of stigmatizing that intimidates people whom could benefit, from seeking counseling.

>> The odds, how unlikely it might be that someone would post seriously trouble-making imagery in a public gallery, do not mitigate the legal troubles if someone goes against the odds and actually does post a trouble-making image (or multiples, each multiplying possible prison term!) - when the danger goes vertical, as I think most people would consider 20 years in prison, then it is very sensible to minimize the risk to zero.

But that's not the point.

The point, pure and simple, is that it becomes "trouble-making" because someone else -- not you, not me, not most folks on this site -- says it's "trouble-making". Not because it has any inherent trouble-making qualities about itself, but because someone somewhere seems to think it might. Not does or has -- might. It's not the picture of the naked child, it's what someone else will make of it... even if that someone else has completely misread what someone else still would make of it. We're lapping all these layers of protection around ourselves, as though that's gonna help the situation -- sorta like the government slapping "In God We Trust" on all our money in the 1950s to somehow prove there were no communists in the Federal Mint.

See, that's the thing about applying common sense to all this. Rather than the blanket ban, which, when you cut through it, doesnt actually address the problem save in the most general of ways, it might make more sense to handle these on a case-by-case basis. It really is time to stop treating imagery like this in a pre-judgmnental way. All it does is turn the artists creating it into perverts by extension... and is that really what we want to say about those folks?

And I noticed no one picked up on the hypocritical stance about bondage and SM gear that we tie our virtual Barbies into. You dont think there's someone out there getting off on that? In some places, that would be considered sexual assault, just as much a crime as pedophilia. So one virtual crime is okay while another isnt?

Honestly folks, where does it stop?

>> I'm merely explaining my opacity

Uh, yeah. Right. Got it.

"I'd say more, but I cant."

LOL

I have one simple rule which works nicely for me,  "As long as I am not harming another person, do as I please and to hell with what the rules are"

Quote - I had things stolen from unlocked places. Luckily not from a house, but from unlocked garages and sheds (I lost three high end bycicles and a a full set of ski gear this way.

I lived in a neighborhood where you had to chain your garbage cans to a post; or they would be stolen.  Anything not locked up tight WOULD be stolen. It's not that locking up ensured that things wouldn't be stolen; but it helped.

EDIT - Glad I don't live there anymore.

Quote - huh? Not even close.  Most of what they do is observe and study and try to understand the phenomenon.

They observe nothing, much better, don't want to observe. Theory is enough.
If engineers behaved in the same way all buildings should have collapsed, the same with bridges, if a computer does not work is because the egoist society that is unable to understand how nice and perfect is this computer.

Quote - For most shrinks in the US, there is a rule that they are not allowed to impose 'their ways' on the patient. If they do, they lose their license to practice.

No, they set the rules for education, for hiring employees, how police must behave, what must be forbiden in the media, what laws must exist, blah, blah, anyway a lot of work!

Quote - I am very surprized with your negativity and sterotyping of the field. It's the kind of stigmatizing that intimidates people whom could benefit, from seeking counseling.

Only empiric observation and they are very good to find problems and traumas where never it was a problem before, it's like you had a simple headche and ends with liver trasplant, one healthy leg amputed, no hair and have to take remedies for the rest of your life.
Any similarity with medics is pure coincidence, no animal was harmed and all animals are over 18 .......

>> Glad I don't live there anymore.

Glad I dont live in places like that at all. :-)

For the record, I live in Mebane, a small town that's pretty much a suburb of Greensboro, NC. I live in an apartment complex where I know about half the people in my particular unit.

Granted, just down the highway about 30 miles where I work is Durham, NC, which has one of the highest crime rates in the region. Lotsa gangs, and a police department that seems more than a little inept (These are the clowns that brought us the infamous Duke Lacrosse team rape case). Yeah, if I lived there, I'd lock down everything, every night. But that's why I dont live there.

And lest you think it's only small towns that can get away with such a free and easy attitude, Calgary, Alberta, has an absurdly low crime rate -- this is a place that's sent into shock when there's one murder a month. Two is unheard of. My neighbourhood there, for six years, just off the main drag of 17th Ave SW, was also a place where no one bothered an unlocked door.

Go figure, folks.

Quote - The point, pure and simple, is that it becomes "trouble-making" because someone else -- not you, not me, not most folks on this site -- says it's "trouble-making". Not because it has any inherent trouble-making qualities about itself, but because someone somewhere seems to think it might. Not does or has -- might.

Are you speaking about terrorists?
Damn!, what a coincidence.
Never mind, when you go to sleep don't forget to look under your bed, I know a case where a terrorist put a bomb under the bed of a general and the general BOOOOMMMM.
Beware, this can happen to you!

NOTE: The terrorist was his own daughter!!!....

Quote - > Quote - I had things stolen from unlocked places. Luckily not from a house, but from unlocked garages and sheds (I lost three high end bycicles and a a full set of ski gear this way.

I lived in a neighborhood where you had to chain your garbage cans to a post; or they would be stolen.  Anything not locked up tight WOULD be stolen. It's not that locking up ensured that things wouldn't be stolen; but it helped.

EDIT - Glad I don't live there anymore.

Here's an interesting observation... the office that got broken into and a number of computers stolen (I imagine for resale)... you could leave a shovel or a broom outside the door for a week, and it wouldn't get touched.
Guess no one wants one of those things - you's have to use them for work! :lol:

Locks, alarms, surveylance etc.. they can be a detterant, to a degree. Every little bit helps.
When someone is stealing things, time is a factor for them, they need to be quick, so they're much more likely to target the easy access and quick getaway places. Barring any really dumb criminals :lol:

People:  To me all this is very simple, if you go to someone elses house (or their web site.) and they have rules of the house you have to stay within the rules or get out of their house.  If it's your house make your own rules.  That's just common curtesy.