I'm not against nudity either, having done life drawing, photography etc, also agree that sex can sell. For me it's a question of relevance, for example when to apply things such as tension or dynamics to showcase an idea. Plus not everything in life is about sex. Sometimes in an image a stick is just a stick, theres nothing sexually implied in it being there. So if theres nudity just for the sake of nudity, that's closer to pornography than art. Equally I'm not saying that all poser porn is automatically bad either. If the end intention is to create "gentlemens material" then fair play to whatever rocks the artists and viewers. Problem comes when poser porn is dressed up as art, it can give a false impression that some poser artists are little more than virtual perverts. Especially with younger 3d models, theres a risk of assuming the creator might have something like pedophillic tendancys. Or with stronger stuff like rape, it's even simpler, it says sicko. Which in turn can reflect on poser art and artists in general, not everyone renders or wants to render naked people. Poser is a more capable tool which can encompass a massive variety of genres, yet thats not always seen. So why be not straight, if the image is adult call it adult. Shove in a dedicated gallery or site and give viewers a choice of whether or not they want to see it. If a majority want that they'll look at it. Dress it up as art and it convinces no one.

Pinky - you left the lens cap of your mind on again.