I'm no bigwig here at Renderosity or anything, but I'd like to suggest some guidelines (some of which may already be in place) that may help ease the troubled minds here as of late. 1. No child or child-like characters in sexual situations - A no-brainer. This would include little boys with erections, little girls with breasts, pubic hair, etc. Fairies are a sticky issue, being child-like yet having breasts and all, but I think they should be acceptable so long as they are somewhat inhuman (more luminous, magical beings as opposed to just a kid with wings). And nothing sexual. That's a little over the line whether they have wings or not. Of course, a less child-like creation would be more flexible. But this seems to be a big issue here, so tread carefully. 2. No clearly sexual items, or at least separate them into an "Explicit" category. Anus props and vagina morphs are bad enough, but when they're mixed in amongst cookies for the Mil girls and the such, you're just begging to get busted. Use your heads people. And any kind of breast morph or such specifically for the girls should be banned utterly. 3. Let's clean it up, people. OK, Catherina sells a texture for Michael. The ad is a tasteful, non-sexual picture of the product. People want to see what they're buying. To me, at least, that's fine. But must we see nipples shopping for, say, hair? Nudity is in no way related to this product. The model could just as easily be dressed. That is the very definition of "gratuitous" nudity, and we'll all pay for it in the end. And must so many of the models be posed so seductively? Yes, sex sells, but Calvin Klein we're not. The wolves are already at the door, and we need to keep them out. Can any of us, even the most open-minded of us, stand up and staunchly defend EVERYTHING on this site? Could ANY of us stand up in court and defend the artistic validity of an anus prop? Because it may come to that... These changes won't please everyone, and they may not even keep the wolves out, but I think they're all a necessary start, at least. Opinions?

can you take this discussion to community ideas or complaint and debate?

Perhaps we should just adopt the Taliban's philosophy about totally covering up all female and child CG characters in opaque shrouds. That way, all the Puritans in this forum will be completely happy. :-P

Well, that's real helpful. Very constructive, people.

I agree with your ideas, x2000. They're all 'no-brainers', and I'm surprised some people would view them with belittlement. Folks, at least the ideas here are constructive ones. Now if any of you geniuses have anything better to offer, then I suggest you get off your moral high horses and do so. Whether any of you want to admit it or not, this is a problem, and while I tend to agree more and more with the idea that this new law is way over the top and playing to the lowest common denominator in the American public, it's still something we're going to have to deal with. Snide remarks are not helping any, so... again, anyone have anything else better than what was posted at the beginning of the thread?

My opinion is the same as black-canary's. Take your post over to Complaint & Debate or Community Improvement Ideas. There are plenty of people there who will hear your thoughts. But our forum gets enough flak as it is from the government, let alone our members. If you paid enough attention, you may have taken a slight notice to the fact that people from this forum are dedicated to discussing art, art related problems, art ideas, etc. Not politics. Yes, the situation is very important to us, but its been gone over here many, many times. We've already had a few people shut down their sites for the mere implications they were receiving. But overall, your post in the Poser forum is not the place for it. So my "constructive" idea for you is this: go to one of those forums mentioned above, and please, pretty please (with a cherry on top), knock yourself out.

I'm not saying i in any way condone such things. But again, this situation has been addressed.

The reason I posted here is because a lot of people (myself included until recently) only visit the forum(s) that pertain to their particular software and so might not be fully informed on this subject. And while these images can be created on other software, make no mistake about it: when they start busting down doors and seizing computers it's the Poser people who's asses are going to be on the frontlines. Not Truespace or Bryce or Amorphium. And if you think that won't happen, read my post in the ACLU thread regarding "Boiled Angel". This is an issue that's not going to just go away. Being both a comic book collector and a rock musician, I'm only too well acquainted with the history of these witchhunts. Anyone ever heard of the PMRC? Or Frederic Wertham and the fate of EC comics? And thanks, atthisstage, for your support. All I'm suggesting is a little compromise from both camps before the choices are taken away from us.

I'll agree with x2000 except that in my opinion if you put breasts & pubic hair on a little girl, then she it's a little girl anymore. Breasts and hair come with age in case you haven't noticed.

Well, I wasn't thinking teenage or anything. I was talking more about the preschooler Mil girl or whatever. Which is exactly the kind of distinction that needs to be made here, you know? Let me say that I'm not sure anyone has actually done this, but I've seen things mentioned here and there that inferred stuff like this was being done. Also, let me point out that I don't neccessarily agree with all of this. I certainly don't have anything against the fairy contingent, but someone obviously does and we need some rules before things get carried too far. Frankly, I'm sick to death of this issue, but it's not going away until it's dealt with. And my stake in all this is -A- I recently had a close friend go through hell because of false charges of molestation and I know that it can wreck a person's life, even if they're vindicated in the end (and his resolution wasn't exactly a clear-cut victory...). People don't seem to realize that once you get busted, even if you win, you lose. Lawyers aren't cheap, hearing after hearing takes its toll, and if you're too poor to make bail while you're waiting (like my friend), you can spend months (or more) in jail for something you didn't do without even getting convicted. -B- I really like Renderosity, I think it's the greatest resource for 3Der's on the web, and I'd hate to see it shut down. My hope is that some us more moderate types can workout some guidelines that the Renderosity Top Dogs could consider. I'm not trying to give orders or anything, it's just that for all the talk around here I thought SOMEONE should actually make a few suggestions as to how to calm things down so that we can all just get back to USING our software.

I'm with x2000 on this. In the last 15 years or so, prosecutors have found that witch-hunting is great fun, and a good way to gain votes from radical feminists and radical Christians at the same time. On many sex-related subjects, from child molestation to workplace "sexual harrassment", a mere hint of accusation is enough to destroy and convict. The rule of law no longer exists in those areas. So a certain amount of self-censorship is necessary for survival, just as it always has been in totalitarian societies. (And every society is insanely strict about something. The subjects of this insanity just vary with history and geography.) If nothing else, self-restraint makes it possible to be genuinely outraged (and to stir up sympathy) when the witch hunters finally get around to burning you.

A few truths: -1- "Innocent until until proven guilty" is a myth. Locked up until proven not guilty is the reality. -2- Freedom does not mean you can just do anything you want to. That's anarchy, which is something entirely different. -3- Covering your ass is not paranoia, it's simply being sensible. -4- Marilyn Manson or Michael Jackson may face sex charges and walk away, but you won't. They're millionaire rock stars and you're nobody (Harsh, but true). Don't confuse artists with celebrities. No one here has that kind of power. The courts would eat us alive. -5- Ignorance IS bliss, but it'll get you in the end. You can't defend yourself against what you don't see coming. -6- Nothing EVER "just goes away". -7- When you take a stand against authority, the anarchists are all behind you. When you get busted, you're all alone. People criticize Thorne for closing up shop, but who would pay his legal bills if he got nailed? Anyone? Hello...

Hi, Well speaking as a man who's father is an anarchist, I would contend that "freedom" isn't what you think it is, but that's niether here nor there. I'm not going to criticise Thorne for shutting up shop, his site, his rules. though if it came to it, I probably would chip-in to his legal defense, I've done so with others, (most recently I contributed $100 to 2600 for thier legal bills) and I shall continue to do so, but again, at my discretion. As for "innocent until proven guilty" it's an ideal, not a guarantee, or a "get out of jail free" card. Those who mistake it for such are both dangerous and stupid. Like most of you I guess I have chose my battles carefully, becuase the state is all about maintaining the status quo, change is never good if it means that those in power may lose it. But when I take my stand it wil be because I believe it to be the right thing to do, and not becuase I think people are going to applaud me for doing it. "Outside the street's on fire In a real death waltz Between what's flesh and what's fantasy And the poets down here Don't write nothing at all They just stand back and let it all be And in the quick of a knife They reach for their moment And try to make an honest stand But they wind up wounded Not even dead Tonight in Jungleland" -Bruce Springsteen "Jungleland" later jb

x2000, Thank you for making some suggestions for guidelines. I think we do need to regulate ourselves so as not to be censored by the Government (initially in the US, but it may well spread!). I made such a suggestion earlier in a thread (Number 79) called "Instead or fighting amongst ourselves.." I take on board the critisism that such threads belong in Complaints and Debates Forums, but agree with you that most people don't go there and this is an issue which could affect us all ... imagine what happens if Curious Labs or DAZ3d close due to having to fight expensive court cases with the Government. These issues need airing and they need to be discussed. For example: Your intention is presumably to help prevent Renderosity being used as a base for Child Pornography. Good, very laudable. However, your wording is far too vauge and general, for example, you suggest; "And any kind of breast morph or such specifically for the girls should be banned utterly." The Mil Girls both have breasts (they're part of mammalian physiology), I am making morphs to REDUCE the size of their breasts, to make the girls look thinner. Would you ban that too? Real girls may start "breast development" from as early as 8 or 9 years old or as late as their mid teens. The Mil girls have an ethnic body shape which is very typically American. No I'm not shouting "racism", I'm saying that size and shape of body have nothing whatsoever to do with whether a picture is pornographic or not. OK, so my point is we do need people to make suggestions for guidelines and they need to be discussed. Have a look at my suggestions (Thread 79, Post 10). Perhaps you feel I'm being too lenient, please say where you think the statements can be improved. IsaacNewton

I think those that would abide by your guidelines, most likely have not put any offensive work in the gallery in the first place. It is the over the top folks you would have to convince...Good luck.

Isaac,I agree with your point about the breast morphs. That WAS awfully broad (no pun intended). I was, of course, only referring to the overtly sexual, "breasts bigger than head" thing we see so much here. I did read your post, although I missed it somehow until after I started this thread. I did think it was a bit lenient, but then, maybe I'm being to strict. These are just suggestions and I did ask for opinions, and yours were exactly the kind I was looking for. I haven't worked with the Poser kids much, and I don't have the Daz girls, so I haven't really thought too much about these aspects. At this point, my biggest question would be what Poppi alluded to. Even if some of us were to work out some modest guideline suggestions, would the Top Brass even care? I don't even know who runs this site. Are they listening? Are they concerned about this issue? Would they welcome any advice? Or are we all just wasting our time discussing it? Should we all just cover our own asses and let the chips fall where they may?

x2000...I do think the admins care. Pop over to C&D and read some of the threads. Sadly, it seems it is all coming too little, too late. I got badly flamed oh a month, six weeks ago for being vehemently against a gallery picture with genitalia so badly morphed it appeared (to me) a painful mutilation. As far as I know that pic is still in gallery. It seems some folks don't understand that if a random right wing gallery viewer (or potential client) runs across a picture like that....they MAY tend to view other works in our gallery with a bit of a cocked eyebrow. Fairies? Hummmm...well, these folks do have some real nasties in their galleries...maybe the artist is a pervert. Pop...pop...pop!!! BTW...My female characters are almost all very youthful looking. Yet, I doubt that any of them could be mistaken for a child, due to things like covering my butt with an adult body. LOL...they are all 75+ and have excellent plastic surgeons.

You know, one of my concerns, aside from the legal issues, is that someone new may find this site on the wrong day and just get turned right off and not come back. Someone who might have become a very talented, important part of our community. To be honest, I don't even go to the galleries. But there are some things in the free stuff and marketplace alone that are a bit much. I see things here that make me cringe. And I'm NOT one of the Puritans that are bringing down all the trouble. But like I said earlier, I don't think we need to see titties in a thumb advertising hair. I don't think we need vagina morphs at all. What could anyone do with them that isn't going to be pornographic? And an anus prop? Yeah, I know I rag on that one every chance I get, but I don't think it has any place here. Not unless it's part of a complete "invisible man" anatomy set or something. I DON'T want to see want kind of "art" anyone makes with that...

I can definitely not be called a Puritan....A number of my gallery pics portray naked couples. However, they are posed artistically. Focus is meant to be on the facial expressions, as opposed to the genitalia. No, most of us don't really have a need for anal probes, or vagina ...no word here, except...morphs that make the vagina look scarey, to me.....However, our admins, in their infinite wisdom are now making folks in the marketplace put clothing on their texture previews for the milennium kids. The distorted anuses, and vaginas, are allowed to stay in the public gallery. Go figger. Pop...pop...pop!!!

Clothing on texture previews. Exactly the misguided overreaction I'd feared. Instead of setting guidelines for tasteful nudity using the child characters we just ban it altogether. And the really offensive stuff remains untouched. Sounds like the Puritans have already won.

No...was only banned in the marketplace. I don't understand so much of this issue. Well, in my way I think I know where folks are coming from...The admins don't want to impose something that could be construed as "censorship" upon the unwashed masses who are the "community". In the meantime, there are only just a small few artists who are distressingly over the top in the galleries. If this was my site...I mean ownership, mine....I would piss off the few imho abhorrent members who have posted way over the line stuff, and, do my very best to hit a comfortable middle of the road state of affairs with artists like Thorne. I also would have posted some "official" notice to the whole community....On the front page, most like...To allay some of the discomfort, and set down "possible" new guidelines for the future. Somehow, that seems a bit more professional than the way things are currently being handled. Poppi

Actually, that sounds just about perfect to me.

Why...thank you. Too often I get flamed, around here ;)

Hi, I think I'm against the term "tasteful" on general principal, it's frequently misleading for a start! :) Though on a more serious note, I doubt that any potential pervert is going to bother slavishly collecting "child porn" from the galleries hereabouts, the reason is simple, it's not real. Child porn, paedeophilia, etc. is all about power. My mother was a "social worker" and she dealt with this every day, I've been with her when she went to repossess people's kids, (couldn't find a babysitter :) and abuse of any kind is all about power, subjugation, etc. and if the kid ain't real, then neither is the kick, the thrill. Ask any psychiatrist, (perverts more interested in diagnosis than cure) and they'll tell you that. On a purely personal level, speaking as a man who has purchased porn in the past, both in RL and online, there is simply no contest between a real woman doing indecent things, and a 3dmodel, however expertly modeled, posed and lit, (even if the post work was by Michealangelo himself) doing the same thing. Because knowing it's not real, leads you to ponder the artifice with which the image was created, instead of wondering just what it is she's doing with that bottle... Crude, but true. Poser porn is fantasy, build your perfect woman/man, then make them bend over. The kind of people who like poser porn are the kind of people who like looking at Disney characters naked. Real men/women just don't punch thier buttons. So they build something themselves that does. I would suspect that the gallery images are covered by the disclaimer on the front page about nudity, whereas the "free stuff" section isn't. lets face it, if you're at all annoyed by texture previews with clothes on, then download and test render yourself. Personally I feel the same way about the anal probe, when Cartman got one it was funny, but other than that what are you going to do with it? Perhaps if the admins of 'rosity & 'rotica would kiss and make up they could send some traffic each others way, that way the "porn" would be where everyone who wanted it could find it, and where timid creatures could safely ignore it. Though somehow I doubt this will come to pass, fewer perverts means fewer page views and less advertising revenue. I would also say you're right about the pubic morphs, but more because we already have two models (Eve and Latexa) who are both anatomically correct down to the smallest detail, there's also ample scope for doing things to "the dork" though they are admitedly harder to find. Right, 4am, time for bed :) later jb

I agree with x2000s terms of peace. I also believe that this space is the right venue.

An old Jewish fable told to me once: There were two Jews about to be executed by the SS. The first demanded a cigarette from the SS officer as a right of the condemned. The second turned to the first and said, "Moishe, Don't make trouble."

Poppi and x2000, Having read your posts I think we are generally in ageement. I would say that it doesn't matter what the few "offenders" (ie posters of material which breaks the law) think about the Guidelines. If they don't post within the Guidelines then Admin removes their stuff, after due process. No longer a problem. BTW this doesn't change what people do in the privicy of their own computer, which is fine by me Praxis22 made a good point Poser Art is entirely fantasy. However, if that private fantasy is "not decent" according to agreed public standards, then it should be kept private and not posted publically. That way we avoid all the dreadful ramifications of over stringent laws affecting the "innocent". At least I hope that will be the case. Maybe we can make a presentation to Renderosity Admin of our ideas on Guidlines so far and see how they respond. Isaac

Right, right, right. But I'm not entirely sure how to reach the Admin. And so far, only a few of us here have come straight out and agreed. Anyone want to start a petition or something? I'm going to be tied up a lot for the next few days so I'm kind of out of this for a while, though I'll make sure I sneak in long enough to sign up if anyone wants to take it to the next step.

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/index.ez?viewLink=318

Amp3, I've certainly heard of PMRC (aka the "Washington Wives") and Frederic Wertham. PMRC is a classic example of the Rakolta effect. No self respecting kid will listen to a CD that doesn't have a PMRC warning label, so the PMRC has dramatically increased the sales of the very things they oppose. Wertham recanted in the 70's, and started pushing a "comic books are tue art" point of view. Basically, he went in whatever direction made him money on the lecture circuit. That's the real problem, whenever a relatively affluent group is rallying about something, there's always a money hungry pop psychologist (or other scientist) ready to cash in on the books and lectures. This adds an air of legitimacy to all sorts of strange causes. And the rest of the problem is "power grabbers". 90% (my estimate) of the people involved with most of these "save this or that" causes do not care about what the cause is trying to save, they just see it as a way of manipulating a bunch of people's lives and gaining some power.

Wiz: For the rest of us uneducated louts, please explain what the "rakolta" effect is. And what is the PMRC? OBTW: Eric Hoffer wrote "The True Believer" back in the fifties. Prof Hoffer lectured at UC Berkeley when he wasn't down at the docks as a longshoreman.

[I don't think we need vagina morphs at all. What could anyone do with them that isn't going to be pornographic? And an anus prop? Yeah, I know I rag on that one every chance I get, but I don't think it has any place here. Not unless it's part of a complete "invisible man" anatomy set or something. I DON'T want to see want kind of "art" anyone makes with that... ] And here is an example of why some people are really uneasy with this whole discussion. Lets be honest, almost every member on Renderosity does not want to see the Mil kids used in "sexual or pornagraphic" pictures. That is a given. Illegal material should be immediately removed.BUT once again we find the "we must prevent child abuse" agenda being used as front to further puritan agendas. You may not like pornography but for other people it is what they want to look at. Who are you to remove the choice from them? Let me set you straight on this, after about 2 months I got tired of all the big tit pics myself and I don't click on their thumbs anymore, but that is my choice. At worst I would like to see a seperate gallery for the nudes, but I'm really getting tired of the Decency Police pushing a personal agenda under the guise of "Child Pornography".

Well moonbiter, you're in luck. We still have the vaginal and anal stuff (as far as I know...). But if you take a look above at isaacnewton's thread "Well this really takes the biscuit..." you'll see that instead of the sort of compromise I was trying to achieve, the "Child Porn Warriors" have won. Just flat out won. So the adult pornmongers can have all they want (for now...) but any child nudity, even something you'd see in a damned parenting magazine or National Geographic, is strictly taboo. And the only agenda I personally was pushing was indeed to reach a fair compromise and avoid the kind of absurd over-reaction that has indeed taken place. But apparently the decision has been made, so any further discussion is moot anyway. Nonetheless, I do urge you, and everyone, to read isaac's post. You may find it...enlightening.

Poppi wrote: >>>>>>>> I got badly flamed oh a month, six weeks ago for being vehemently against a gallery picture with genitalia so badly morphed it appeared (to me) a painful mutilation. <<<<<<<< No Poppi, you got appropriately roasted for your incredible 'witch hunt' reaction, which included unfounded, unwarranted and scurrilous allegations that the artist was a wife beater. >>> As far as I know that pic is still in gallery. <<< As far as I know, your personal attacks on the artist are still there... That wasn't one of your best moments, Poppi, and it doesn't behove you to misrepresent it to claim any moral high ground in subsequent discussions. You'd be best off not mentioning it at all. Rest assured, I will point out the reality if I happen to come across you tinting it with rose in the future.

I hate this site, It has so many stupid people and bitchers that it has become a bitchpot for moaners and complainers. If that is not enough the Daz Kids have to spark a damn debait of what is exceptable, Jeez,Who does not know what kid porn is and why does a person have to use a no pubic hair texture or no brest morphs, You miserable Bitchin goody too shoe high up GODS ASS with your damn conditions and judgmental asshole artistic expression slapping rules need to shut the fuck up and let people use the figures in artist ways, They paid to use them keep your damn judgments to yourself. As for you kiddie porn white trailer trash pigs, Get a real life and leave those Kids alone.

As for protecting the site fine,, Get rid of Kid porn not art. By the way there is no law yet in place that makes a nude poser kid figure against the law. I think renderosity is overreacting to hearsay and responding more to the overvalued complainers with thier high and mighty judgmental values.

EXPLOITATION means the image has something in it that EXPLOITS children. A rendered nude teenager or child in an image that is nonsexual is not EXPLOITATION of children. So who gives a fuck if a pedifile likes the image. If the image is ment to be artistic then I see no problem with it. Renderosity needs to get a backbone and stand up for what they Know is artistic and bann what is clearly porn.

There is a fountain not far from where I live that has a statue of a Kid peeing and yes real water comes out of his penis and his penis is rather big, I guess they needed it that way to make the water run through it. I do not see anyone raising hell over that statue claiming it is sexual or lude or even that he may have pissed on someone.

Attached Link: http://www.aclu.org

That a bunch of crap, The p3 kids were never restrictied this way, And this site never had a problem with kiddie porn and suddenly with the release of the DAD mIL KIDS IT'S A PROBLEM. Im not buying the PR crap about new laws, I checked into this and found no law has been passed yet and It wont be becauseit infringes on artistic rights, The supreme court will alter this Submitted Bill to only prosecute porn depictions and excluse art because freedom of artistic expression falls under the freedom of speech and can not be changed without violating the constitution.

MM: The Supreme Court doesn't alter submitted bills, ever. This is a law on the books that has been challenged and is in the process of resolving the constitutional issues involved. The Supreme Court has no part in the process of turning bills into laws. It only acts in the case of laws already passed or in actions taken under existing law that are challenged. The cases involving the Presidential Election are an example of the latter. Whoever you checked with needs a better understanding of the Constitution.