It's me or is there more and more nudity picture without advisory ?

Many time i've seen picture with "pussy" really visible, is it normal ?

All pictures showing nudity are required to have the advisory. We try to catch all the ones that don't, and activate the advisory for them, but we sometimes may miss one or two. If you see a picture that doesn't have an advisory, but it needs one, feel free to use the "report" button to report it and we will take care of it.

i saw one with a content advisory thumbnail a day or two ago.  there was no "nudity" or "violence" keyword to be seen, hence I deduced it might be a trick to get more views. 

We don't allow that either. If we catch an image using the content advisory thumb and there's no nudity or violence, we require the person who posted it to provide another thumb.

Lol !!!

That is just not right!  LOL!

After we finally liberated ourselves during the 60's, well does anyone even care about such trifles nowadays, such as an exposed tit or pussy?  Just live, and let live!
DPH

if you're stuck in the Bible belt, they do...;) but that's another topic...

TheOwl: that image is just wrong on soooooo many levels...lmao.

Laurie

Quote - if you're stuck in the Bible belt, they do...;) but that's another topic...

If they're stuck in the Bible Belt, then they have no business browsing the art galleries anyway!
DPH

Now that is one piece of shaved pussy LOL !

"If they're stuck in the Bible Belt, then they have no business browsing the art galleries anyway!
DPH"

What a ridiculous blanket statement.

I don't wish to offend but I can hardly believe you are having this conversation. This is 3D imagary and unless it is grossly offensive - portraying minors indecently etcetera, surely a bit of "pussy" as Anthanasius puts it, does not really matter???

I know Renderosity has TOS but when country laws become outdated they are just ignored by law enforcement before being eventually repealed. It seems to me that Rendo moderators are doing the same.

Agree, it is really just us Americans (not including myself) that are really bothered by it.   But I guess a flag of nudity helps those who are offended avoid it.  I think that someone who flags nudity to be safe though, should NOT be punished for it just cause someone is silly and thinks they are only doing it for attention.

Quote - Agree, it is really just us Americans (not including myself) that are really bothered by it.   But I guess a flag of nudity helps those who are offended avoid it.  I think that someone who flags nudity to be safe though, should NOT be punished for it just cause someone is silly and thinks they are only doing it for attention.

Agreed

Quote - Agree, it is really just us Americans (not including myself) that are really bothered by it.   But I guess a flag of nudity helps those who are offended avoid it.  I think that someone who flags nudity to be safe though, should NOT be punished for it just cause someone is silly and thinks they are only doing it for attention.

You must also remember that there are those who look at the galleries on either a public computer, in mixed company or even at work. You have to account for those.

Laurie

Quote - > Quote - Agree, it is really just us Americans (not including myself) that are really bothered by it.   But I guess a flag of nudity helps those who are offended avoid it.  I think that someone who flags nudity to be safe though, should NOT be punished for it just cause someone is silly and thinks they are only doing it for attention.

You must also remember that there are those who look at the galleries on either a public computer, in mixed company or even at work. You have to account for those.

Laurie

Not really!  It's THEIR Problem, and Responsibility to beware of when and where they browse!
DPH

Quote - You must also remember that there are those who look at the galleries on either a public computer, in mixed company or even at work. You have to account for those.

Laurie

Not really!  It's THEIR Problem, and Responsibility to beware of when and where they browse!
DPH

LOL...well, that may be the way YOU think, but not the way the admin of the site think. Since there are all different kinds of images here (and all kinds of people who enjoy them) and the Marketplace (there again, all different tastes), the administrators must accommodate EVERYONE. I'm sure that must make sense to you.

Also, using your own logic, there must STILL be nudity tags and no nudity in thumbnails so that those people may make an informed decision on just what they want to look at ;o).

Laurie

I wonder if there is actually ANYONE who is actually offended by "nudity" (note the quotation marks, since it is not even real nudity) and who, because of that doesn't ever view the "nudity" tagged products and images.

Hmmm

A lot of people aren't offended by it (myself included); however, some are. Some are, but they still look at the galleries...lol. There's plenty there for those that don't wish to view it.

It's respectful of those who DO and who DON'T want to view it. If it's tagged for nudity, there's nudity in the image, therefore those that want to view it know exactly where to go. Those that don't, know exactly what to avoid.

Laurie

"After we finally liberated ourselves during the 60's, well does anyone even care about such trifles nowadays, such as an exposed tit or pussy?  Just live, and let live!
DPH"

I'm throwing my lot behind DP.

I lived through the 60's and 70's and thought we all grew out of this.....then......bang......everyone's reinvented Victorian morality.
Bring it on I say. Just please don't ask me to to conform to Bible Belt morality. Way over it.

Quote - Just please don't ask me to to conform to Bible Belt morality.

The thing is, this web page and all contents is essentially private property, so yes they can ask you - require you! - to conform to any standard of morality they see fit.  People don't have to like or agree with whatever rules are in place, just follow them.

Bringing the subject back to what the original poster was pointing out, images shouldn't be posted without being tagged for nudity if they do contain nudity. So that's really the end of that.

I guess the discussion has just drifted into a) what is nudity on a 3D graphics forum and b) how prudish some people can be - being offended by viewing apparently nude images.

The answer to a) can be really difficult to answer. Images can be extremely lifelike these days, especially if postworked. Even toon images can be graphic and maybe offend some people.

When it boils down to it, I guess, there are all types, in all cultures that can view these galleries and as such some system must be in place to avoid people accidentally falling foul of workplace rules, religious rules or even authorityes rules in the culture in which they live.

I feel Rendo's system of tagging is too limited though Nudity, Violence & Language are extremely broad terms. There should be graduated levels of each, possibly two or three levels.

The depiction of a nipple hardly merits nudity warnings but with the existing system it is flagged as nudity. Something more explicit needs a greater warning and graphic nudity needs a more extreme level of warning.

I feel that the fact there are discussions like this one, brought about by relatively minor issues such as the initial poster's query, highlights a problem with the advisory tagging system as it stands.

Renderosity need to review the system, make it more flexible and bring it more in to line with prevailing attitudes.

"The thing is, this web page and all contents is essentially private property,"

Looks like very public property to me.
The public are invited to view and post comments and images.
Very open to the public in all aspects.
Not Palm Beach Golf Club for members only as far as I can see.
But I'm no Madoff.

The other issue that is often overlooked has to do with use in some Public Places, Work, etc....

School Systems often have a zero tolerance policy on nudity in any form and I can see art teachers looking for some images needing to know if an image contains nudity

Many local Libraries and other locations that offer Computers for public use have designated machines if you need to view Nudity or other content of a mature nature.

Tagging in Galleries help everyone meet these requirements. Mistagged or missing tags can get the viewer in trouble.

Actually, while it may be open to the public, it is, in fact, private property.  Your local mall is private property, but the public are welcome to come in side whenever they like, so long as they follow the rules.

It wasn't the issue of tags and advisories that's got us so biffed by the OP, I can abide and comply with those.  It was this statement here: "Many time i've seen picture with "pussy" really visible, is it normal ?"
DPH

Quote - It wasn't the issue of tags and advisories that's got us so biffed by the OP, I can abide and comply with those.  It was this statement here: "Many time i've seen picture with "pussy" really visible, is it normal ?"
DPH

That was in context to the missing tags... and as stated by the Staff, it is not normal.

Site Areas (Galleries, Forums, Homepages, Blogs, etc):

• No Posting Unacceptable Images or Writing Themes:
• No Rape [actual or implied]
• No Torture [defined as: the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, wounding, crucifixion) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure]
• No Sexual acts [no depictions of sexual intercourse - between humanoids/non-humanoids/animals - no masturbation]
• No Physical arousal [This includes but is not exclusive to: no images of an erect penis/ no images showing the inner portion of the vulva or vaginal area]
• No Explicit sexual content [No manipulation of breasts/nipples/ no sexual situations/ no 'implied" sexual acts/ no extreme or explicit S&M bondage situations/ no lewd or obscene sexual references]
• No Genital contact with ANY object, other than sitting or clothing.
• No Child Nudity (Refer to the Child Image Guidelines )
• No character attacks, which could be interpreted as defamation of character, slander, and libelous.
• Commercial posts/images may only be uploaded by Renderosity Vendors advertising their Renderosity products to the MarketPlace Showcase Forum/Gallery
• Avatars may not contain nudity

• Thumbnails for all areas of the site may not display nude female breasts, male or female genitals or buttocks, or graphically violent images. (Refer to the Thumbnail Guidelines )

Quote - Does this image require a nudey tag?  It's a little cheeky.

LOL! Cute!

No doubt someone will say "yes"

Quote - > Quote - Does this image require a nudey tag?  It's a little cheeky.

LOL! Cute!

No doubt someone will say "yes"

Anyone who does say yes should be smacked in the face with a wet fish.

Quote - Looks like very public property to me.
The public are invited to view and post comments and images.
Very open to the public in all aspects.
Not Palm Beach Golf Club for members only as far as I can see.
But I'm no Madoff.

It can look any way you care to see it, but what it is is private property.  If someone invites you into their house as a guest, does that make you the new owner?  :huh:

Aw....lol.

Well, the other kind is too, just not in a thumnail and it has to be tagged. I know it's such a chore, but that, as they say, is the way it is.

Laurie

Lol

I'm personally glad this is being discussed.  I live in the proverbial "Bible Belt" that's being maligned and it is a "blanket stereotype (profiling?)" to say only those here are adverse to nudity.   There are countries I have visited where nudity (even what we here in America consider our Sunday best) would bring a death sentence from those who don't believe in the Bible.  Don't think it's only the American "Bible Belt."  As a "full bible" Christian (there's more Can's in the Bible than Can'ts [another stereotype but brought on by the early American Puritanical standards]).  Nudity is a part of life.  Pastor's I have worked with say, "God has seen you naked, don't worry about it, He's not worried what's on the outside, but what's on the inside."  We don't care if you show up in fishnet stockings, mini skirt and heels as long as you're truthful in wanting to worship.  I'll get off that soapbox for now.  lol

Now, with that out of the way.....

Thanks, LaurieA for reposting the "standards."  I was caught last week without an advisory and JenX was absolutely correct and "all" I had was a woman's buttocks showing under an umbrella.  BUT, I made a mistake, it was corrected and everyone was nice and cooperative, in the process.  It's the rules, follow them.  Which brings up the next item.

**"What constitutes nudity?" **

I've seen everything here with advisorys for nudity from full nudity (which I feel should have an advisory for it), to a truck without tires (which shouldn't).  I didn't know you had a report button for that (still learning Renderosity).  Cool!  But, again, how much "skin" broaches the limit to need an advisory?  I (again personally) don't feel bikini's, boxer shorts, cleavage, need an advisory, but understand others may.  Sure I'm disappointed to see an advisory, for less skin than what I'd see in my wife's school (middle school) in the hallways.   Then, I see one with the subject leaning back, hands (close but not touching genitals) with no advisory.  The rules posted leave don't really leave room for suggestive license.  But come on people, a truck without tires with a nudity advisory?   

On the other hand, Renderosity does what it can.  For some reason, my "cookie" didn't catch this morning and I was logged on as "guest" and when I tried to get to "our" artist's galleries, it required me to log in.   You still have to be a member to see most galleries.

As a professional webmaster and learning graphic arts, I open EVERY item, with or without an Advisory.   I'm an adult and respect my "spirit within" as to what's appropriate and what's not for my own inspirations.  I don't linger, but it doesn't shock (okay, a couple has shocked, but still...) and move on. 

The opinion expressed is purely my own, if I offended anyone, forgive me it wasn't the intent.

Heh Rosity, on itself gives off some sort of warning that makes the computers at my work balk and scream that I am about to enter a site which is NOT WORK RELATED, and that my attempt to do so will be logged. So there's something in the meta tags or somewhere that makes at least SOME web filters believe this site is pure porn. Which is rather hysterically funny really since it's so vanilla it's almost bland L

So far I haven't been called in to the bosses to explain why I'm browsing "non work related" stuff in my breaks but I must admit it gives me a small scare.

So now I'm just bringing my netbook and browse Rosity from that one.

(FWIW I work at the National Railways here, as a train conductor. So no, it's not work related in the slightest. But Rosity isn't porn either L)

Fact is, some people are offended by nudity and not all of them are religious Americans. Rosity have had the content advisory policy for a while now and it doesn't bother me in the least. If I wanted to post pics outside the TOS I'd post elsewhere. Checking the galleries is a very time consuming job and probably the least favourite of all staff members. Trust me, it's a real pain in the rear end but everyone tries to be fair. Now, you'll note I'm no longer a staff member but that's no reflection on Rosity's policy on anything. I've stepped down because I have too many demands on my time, amongst other things. So anyhow, my point is, I'm not speaking the Rosity line here, I'm saying it the way I see it. I have somewhere to post my pics for free. What's not to like?

I'm not offended by nudity, I'd just like a warning before I open it up.  If I'm at work, or around my kids, I'd prefer not to open up a full nudity pic on my computer screen.

Indi.

So there's something in the meta tags or somewhere that makes at least SOME web filters believe this site is pure porn.

Maybe the "Art" tag. We know how dangerous that can be.  I know that at least one military command's proxy blocked this site. Many corporate proxy servers ban gambling, gaming, sports, news, social networking etc. sites not just porn since they are not work related. I assume that the porn, gambling etc. companies have their own lists. Larry Flynt probably doesn't want his employees on-handed surfing on his dime either.

Try going to a railroad art site and see if it blocks you.

Indi makes a good point as does Sam.  I like the advisories because, parents read in DAZ's intro it informs their "safe" type of characters are without genitalia "like a Barbie doll."  Without a truthful advisory, how will they "trust" what their family will see when they visit the site?  It can turn them off from presenting their children to an exciting career in art.  

For the sake of "realism," and there is a place for that, but the originator of the thread wanted to know why so many renders are beginning to show up emphasizing outer vaginal detail.  Simply use the proper advisories for the proper content.   

lmckenzie also made an excellent additional point.  I work on a major AF Base as the base webmaster and every site not a dot mil or dot gov has to be categorized which means it has to be reviewed at higher network management levels.  Actually, when I tried Renderosity, it came back denied access for "art and self improvement."  :o)  Hmmm, can't self improve I guess.

Myself, (along with a few other military webmasters and artist) have actually received permission to use Poser, Lightwave, Bryce and Maya on our dot mil computers for creating multimedia presentations.  But consider, how quickly that will change if, a Colonel or General, not in an artistic mode, wants to see a "gallery" of our work and they're met with an eyefull of realistic, non-advisoried genitalia (because we can't post our galleries on a military owned machine and can't use a "personal" laptop at work)?  I can see all that banned and our drives reimaged.  I mean, some of us (especially me) are relative babies compared to most of you and we're just learning.  But, very inspired by some of the renders in all categories. 
     
I've been a member for just about a year, and the originator is right, I've seen a LOT of emphasis on that part of the female anatomy the last few months, yet that's only a part (an important part) of our second greatest gift God gave us men.

It's kind of a double standard though.  The nudity standards don't allow an erection, yet engourged pubis mons and labia is okay because (unless you flunked biology in high school), you know these are visual effects of a woman's arousal (along with the enlarged, erect nipples [unless it's really really cold in the virtual studio] ;o)  ), thus, since it's not "listed" in the standards a few feel they can (pardon the pun), let it show.

Oh, I found the "report" button.  It was right there, I just ignored it evidently.  Too interested in the renders I suppose.  'o)