I wish everyone would stop using the term 'slut' to describe brief/sexy clothing with the resulting implication - intentional or not - that a woman's character is defined by the clothes she wears - even if she's only a virtual woman. This isn't aimed at anyone in particular, merely a longstanding peeve that I have now gotten off my chest.

I don't know how closely Poser images track the ratio of male/female imagery in art as a whole. I wouldn't be surprised if female depictions are more prevalent in most art forms. That may be partly due to esthetics, maybe the female figure creates more interesting possibilities of light and shadow, whatever. Females may have more symbolic appeal, whether it be fertility, purity, motherhood and apple pie etc. Females are probably going to dominate in erotic imagery because the odds favor most male artists being (presumably) heterosexual, and women are (supposedly) more into literary rather than graphic erotica.

I think that Vilters has a point in that women's clothing offers greater variety in color and style. That may not be as true for modern 'everyday' wear, but you have to go back quite a ways to when mean were flamboyant peacocks, and even those wher pretty much the upper classes. For pinups etc. you can have an endless variety of mini-skirts, bustiers, teddies, panties etc. What are you going to put a man in besides a pair of briefs or a chest revealing Fabio shirt? I can sympathize with the desire for more male figures/content though I virtually never use them myself. Seriously (not really), now that women can be presidents, soldiers, construction workers - and of course dragon slayers - they should be sufficient for any image needs :-) Mark my words gentlemen, once they learn how to self-fertilize, they'll smother us all in our sleep - if the cats don't learn how to use can openers and train dogs to provide warm laps first - in which case, all of humankind will be doomed.

"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." - H. L. Mencken