I started a thread to find out how many folks would want a 3D female figure with a detailed integrated genital. Partly because I am making one.

I've seen that this issue can cause some heated discussions on forums, so i just wanna set this thread up so that everyone can express their concerns about it in one place, and not in various different places.

Also, since I am making such a 3D figure, and maybe there might be more artists like me around aspiring to do so, this is a good place to check what we migh have to be careful of.

Subjects can vary from simple concerns about exessive polys to deep moral objections on the matter. Someone just posted concern over the possibility of Poser and DS being endangered if they get too associated with porn. Another said that would not be such a problem.

Everyone's opinions must count, but please also understand that erotica, porn, sexy art, whatever we call it, has been around since the beginning of time, and many respected artists throughout the history of time also contributed to the genre, either openly or secretively. So please lets not pretend asif this is all so shocking.

I for one know that erotica is a tricky subject because of the place I live in. Sex can be a beautiful thing, but also a dangerous thing. And also, since the beginning of time, we all share the responsibility to control who gets to see these things, but also to respect those who are old enough and enjoy it. A passion for erotic expression doesn't have to be a problem, we all have it to some degree, some like it more exciting than others, some like to keep it subtle, so let try to respect that of each other.

So you don't have to, but if you really really feel you must say something about a 3D figure with detailed integrated genitals, say it here and keep it cool... but please don't start a nasty fight!

So long as there are alternative female grown-up figures which can be used in situations where adult art is not the intention, it should be fine to proceed with creating a female figure for expressedly adult or mature art renders. 

I've no problem with a female 3D figure with articulated genitals, although I would like to have the option to turn them off if I want to.

While you're at it, you might want to make some realistic male gens as well. Just make them detachable for those of us who model clothes for these figures.

Quote - So long as there are alternative female grown-up figures which can be used in situations where adult art is not the intention, it should be fine to proceed with creating a female figure for expressedly adult or mature art renders. 

I can't see what the problem is...

When photographers do fashion shoots that aren't porn, they don't insist the model remove their genitals first, just in case they get in the way. They just put clothes on them.

Seems like the easiest way to get a figure that has genitals to work well in non-erotic renders is to, urm, give 'er a pair o' knickers. :D

The boys would need some movement/squish morphs.

I'm all for anatomically correct figures purely on philsophical grounds. If the parts are visible in the nude body, it's strange to exclude them.

Quote - > Quote - So long as there are alternative female grown-up figures which can be used in situations where adult art is not the intention, it should be fine to proceed with creating a female figure for expressedly adult or mature art renders. 

I can't see what the problem is...

When photographers do fashion shoots that aren't porn, they don't insist the model remove their genitals first, just in case they get in the way. They just put clothes on them.

Seems like the easiest way to get a figure that has genitals to work well in non-erotic renders is to, urm, give 'er a pair o' knickers. :D

The boys would need some movement/squish morphs.

I'm all for anatomically correct figures purely on philsophical grounds. If the parts are visible in the nude body, it's strange to exclude them.

Absolutely! If you don't like nudity then aren't you going to be putting clothes on your figures anyway?

I have sent a pm because not sure what I can say here.:woot:

Include a set of bloomers with the figure and everyone is happy. Make the figure cr2 include the bloomers by default. that should make everyone happy ;-)

Make the members at the other render... site happy and give her an anus. Morphable of course.

Quote - When photographers do fashion shoots that aren't porn, they don't insist the model remove their genitals first, just in case they get in the way. They just put clothes on them.

This!

Personally, I do mostly male-based renders, and I'm not afraid to call some of it porn ;)

But to me, this whole discussion is bordering between hilarious and insane. IT IS NOT REAL PEOPLE!

So what if someone uses it to make pictures that are forbidden to act out IRL? It's not REAL. No real, live people are harmed!

Along the same lines, I'm an avid Dexter-fan. He kills people and chops them up. On tv. It does not make Michael C Hall a serial killer. IIt's make believe. Fiction. As is Poser porn.

I don't want anyone to limit what I can do with (or to) my Poser people. I don't want other people's moral imposed on me. I'm an adult, I can decide what my morals are :)

So I prefer "intact" figures. If I want to do porn one day and a Madonna-with-baby the next, I really SHOULD be able to use the same figure for both.

Quote - > Quote - When photographers do fashion shoots that aren't porn, they don't insist the model remove their genitals first, just in case they get in the way. They just put clothes on them.

This!

Personally, I do mostly male-based renders, and I'm not afraid to call some of it porn ;)

But to me, this whole discussion is bordering between hilarious and insane. IT IS NOT REAL PEOPLE!

So what if someone uses it to make pictures that are forbidden to act out IRL? It's not REAL. No real, live people are harmed!

Along the same lines, I'm an avid Dexter-fan. He kills people and chops them up. On tv. It does not make Michael C Hall a serial killer. IIt's make believe. Fiction. As is Poser porn.

I don't want anyone to limit what I can do with (or to) my Poser people. I don't want other people's moral imposed on me. I'm an adult, I can decide what my morals are :)

So I prefer "intact" figures. If I want to do porn one day and a Madonna-with-baby the next, I really SHOULD be able to use the same figure for both.

Exactly!

I write erotica and am considering illustrating some of the texts with quality, and hopefully artistic renders. I don't think I should be embarrassed or ashamed to admit it. :)

I believe all models should be anatomically accurate in all forms, but there's still courtesy to keep in mind, for those who don't feel comfortable with it, for whatever reasons.

So build models with both options, since only having one or the other alienates those who would prefer the opposite. 

Worries about it's perceived consequences have their merits in certain regards, but no one has ever been able to shut down the porn industry or even take a chunk out of its exponential growth. It has too much influence on entertainment and its related technology, and its video sales alone are roughly a third larger than mainstream media sales. It's pretty much accepted that porn is the #1 reason the internet exploded in growth in the 90s, and is largely credited for the devlopment of HD cameras (somethng I picked up while in film school, though I've never actually researched it myself). Too many detials to really go into where adult entertainment influences things you'd never even think of, but if anything is certain, it's that porn will never go away.

The only problem I see is being able to morph a fully detailed adult figure into a child sized figure with all the adult parts. But the thing is, that can already be done by using content that already exists. So if it were going to cause problems, why hasn't it yet?

~Shane

[quote

The only problem I see is being able to morph a fully detailed adult figure into a child sized figure with all the adult parts. But the thing is, that can already be done by using content that already exists. So if it were going to cause problems, why hasn't it yet?

~Shane

That's my question, too. If the ability to make illegal images were going to get content creators in legal trouble, it would have already happened. I seriously doubt there are a bunch of child pornographers browsing through the content saying to themselves, "It's just too much of a PITA to scale the genitals. Let's wait until someone makes it a bit easier."

Quote - The only problem I see is being able to morph a fully detailed adult figure into a child sized figure with all the adult parts. But the thing is, that can already be done by using content that already exists. So if it were going to cause problems, why hasn't it yet?

 

~Shane

Valid question. But look at Poser now compared to 10 years, or 5 years ago. Technically it's more capable and can produce higher quality results, and overall it's easier to use. I think I'm right in saying that single-axis scaling was only fixed in SR3 for P9/PP2012, so that's relatively recent.

So my question would be, is the risk of that sort of thing happening (and I sincerely hope it doesn't) likely to increase or decrease over time?

And would the availability of easy to use figures with detailed genitalia (and I would guess that we're talking about something along the lines of Lali's Bits) increase or decrease that risk?

I don't have any moral objections to the creation of anatomically correct models.

From a practical point of view, however, I think detachable genitals are the way to go.  If you're doing porn, or erotic art, or whatever, you'll probably want a lot more detail than someone doing artistic nudes or clothed figures, and it's a waste of polys.  Maybe you could even have high and low-res naughty bits.

Quote - > Quote - The only problem I see is being able to morph a fully detailed adult figure into a child sized figure with all the adult parts. But the thing is, that can already be done by using content that already exists. So if it were going to cause problems, why hasn't it yet?

 

~Shane

 

Valid question. But look at Poser now compared to 10 years, or 5 years ago. Technically it's more capable and can produce higher quality results, and overall it's easier to use. I think I'm right in saying that single-axis scaling was only fixed in SR3 for P9/PP2012, so that's relatively recent.

So my question would be, is the risk of that sort of thing happening (and I sincerely hope it doesn't) likely to increase or decrease over time?

And would the availability of easy to use figures with detailed genitalia (and I would guess that we're talking about something along the lines of Lali's Bits) increase or decrease that risk?

If you can buy a gun and kill someone (a perfectly forseeable risk since killing is exactly what guns are designed for) and the gun vendor isn't liable, how on earth could a content creator be liable if someone chose to make an illegal image with their content?

Slightly trickier in the UK but I see your point :)

Though I would consider the likely media reaction, and the attitude of the general public, to be more important than any potential legal issues (if there were any that could be applied in such a situation - I have no idea about that). That could cause enough reputational damage to bring a company down, plus it would have the potential to cause damage by association on a wider scale too.

Detachable genitals works fine for males, but for females there's really no reason not to have them there. Let's face it, they're only visible on a standing person if you look for them.

Just let the figure load with them in their smallest and most closed state. Then if some bigot chooses to enlarge and poke around.. well.. 

And yes, I chose the word bigot quite on purpose. I've yet to see (although I'm sure it will happen in some place of the world) people being born clothed. Or showering with burqas on.

Of course there are people qwho cover up the legs on chairs in order not to have such blatant nakedness in their dining room. But frankly, such people are IMO suited for an institution anyway. The kind with padded walls.

Now. The sake of child pornography... Well believe me, it has been done. Along with most sane people I don't condone it, but OTOH I can't get my knickers in a twist over someone doing it with VIRTUAL children (as long as I won't have to look at it). Who knows.. it MIGHT prevent them from living out their sick fantasies IRL?

If something is at all possible, there's someone who has already been there, done that. And believing that simply neutering a Poser lady will stop people from making something illegal is delusional.

Also PLEASE remember that figures with genitals has been around for a LONG time. Since Poser3 proably (oh yea one of the first things I downloaded, more than 10 years ago, was a Posette with bits. And yes I did unspeakble things to her just because I could L

So if it was to have any impact on the companies behind Poser (really...) It would likely have happened YEARS ago. Poser porn is not exactly a new invention L

What about fully articulate wub-wubs?

Get jiggy with it and all that.

Let's see:

MilBaby 2 came with male genitals borrowed from M2 but is the same mesh as V2, so it can use her genital morphs.

PreTeen and PreSchool Vicky are the same mesh as Vicky 2 so they can use her genital morphs, too.

MilBaby 3, Matt, Maddie, Luke and Laura are the exact same mesh as V3, M3, David 3, SP3 and others, so whatever morphs or add-on genitals work for the grown ups, work for the little ones, too.

Kids 4 are the same mesh as V4 and M4, so again, they can use whatever the grown-ups have.

Finally, while the geografted genitals are (rather clumsily) "blocked" for Genesis' generic "child" morph, they work just fine with Justin and Julie, which are definitely not of age of consent, either.

Sooo.....

I think if DAZ isn't afraid of aiding and abetting the perverts by releasing figures that could theoretically used for something unsavoury by anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of Poser's basic functionality, we shouldn't be either.

After all, all what's needed to break the law these days is a piece of paper and a pen.

Otherwise we might just call the PaedoFinder-General and be done with it.

:-)

Quote - Slightly trickier in the UK but I see your point :)

Though I would consider the likely media reaction, and the attitude of the general public, to be more important than any potential legal issues (if there were any that could be applied in such a situation - I have no idea about that). That could cause enough reputational damage to bring a company down, plus it would have the potential to cause damage by association on a wider scale too.

The general public doesn't own Poser or Daz Studio: almost no one I know who doesn't frequent these forums even knows what the software does. Renderotica was still functioning last time I checked and it has some some stuff for sale that even manages to offend me. There are plenty of character morphs/textures for sale here the promos for which include rather details shots of genitals (though not articulated), and yet I'm not hearing any loud cries against Rendo...

Before I can subscribe the the idea that offering such a figure will damage a company's reputation, I'd like to hear of an example of it having actually happened.

Whether or not I wanted to render porn, nudes, or anything, I'd always prefer a model to have integrated genitals.  Just seems daft not to.

Quote - Whether or not I wanted to render porn, nudes, or anything, I'd always prefer a model to have integrated genitals.  Just seems daft not to.

Yes!

If people are that worried about their reputation, and that certain that their target customers have zero interest in rendering nude or semi nude figures, why don't they model the figures with built in underwear that cannot be removed? I mean, it won't show if the figure is clothed.

The fact that the success of such a figure is hard to imagine should tell us that we know perfectly well whose money and what kind of renders drive the market.

You know on the non-porn side, I guess you could use these morphs for delivery room or medical themed images I suppose.  Yes it's a small market, but it's legitimate. 

So where do mermaid babies come from?

"When photographers do fashion shoots that aren't porn, they don't insist the model remove their genitals first, just in case they get in the way."

Those fashion shoots can get pretty hairy (NPI) apparently one of the job assignments for the assistants is trimming the protruding evidence of feminine hygene products products of models who prefer not to wear bloomers. Sorry, can't find the original article that listed that and equally odd revelations. Credit to Chrissy Teigen.

"If you can buy a gun and kill someone …"

Simple. In the US at least, the NRA owns the souls of enough pols to make it that way - 3D content creators don't. Add in the fact that there must be only two or three people buying all those nekkid videos 'cause that's all you'll see actually willing to defend it in public. Throw in the word "children" in any way, no matter how ridiculous and even that tiny cadre gets real quiet. So, children slaughtered by guns, so sda - children exposed to nekkidness has to be avoided at all costs. That's just the way we roll. Caution is always in order in a litigious society but, but there's a difference between at best paranoia and at worst, a straw man argument. There are plenty of things someone can do (and many have done) with a neutered figure that some ham sandwich indicting prosecutor could in theory go after. If we discover that Ariel Castro rendered nude Vickies tied up in a basement before doing it for real, do we charge DAZ for incitement? Anyone who's going to be deterred by those possibilities is probably better off modeling teapots and hoping none of their customers gets steam burns on their penis IRL, cause they just may sue. On the plus side, maybe he'll be too badly burned to pass on his addled genes.

As to the question, I don't think many people would refuse to buy an otherwise quality figure just because it was AC. Personally, I don't even see the need for a way to hide the goods, since presumably they won't be any more obvious than some of the current figures unless you twirl the morph dials. Maybe people feel a need to be protected from themselves, who knows. It is not a subject known for promoting rational thought. Some people who sound like MDs discussing this or that muscle group are reduced ti childish babble words when a vagina appears. A certain amount of sensitivity is fine and I enjoy a bit of Beavis & Butthead adolescent fun (ehhh, he said cooter), but seriously. And Lord knows why people can't say renderotica (oooh, the 'other place') - heads up, it ain't against the TOS if you don't link to it. 

For me, cost would be the only factor. Since I haven't done anything requiring said features in some tim, and may not often in the future, I might be reluctant to pay a signifivant premium just to have it - again depends on how much I liked the figure otherwise. In the past, the bane of add on props has always been texturing and posing, plus it just makes sense the have the genetalia be organic to the figure IMO. I think some already mentioned the marketing thing. Tailor your marketing to the venue. Here, just mention the detailed AC features. You're not going to be able to show them here anyway. At renderotica, you can emphasize those elements. If possible, you might make the genital morphs a free add on that could be obtained on request. That might minimize the 'taint' - and yes, clever readers of the Southern persuasion, that could be a hilarious pun.

Sorry to say that actually the more you discuss it, the greater the chance that the figure will be perceived as a 'porn figure,' and that might actually decrease the number of potential customers. Luckily, the vast majority probably don't haunt the Poser forum here and many don't go to renderotica - might want to produce it under another name anyway. Needless to say if she's only available at 'the other place' you're limited. Oh, and come up with a name that in no way suggests anything, you know … no Bits, no V-Jay, no Uvula (might confuse the dyslexic), etc.  Best wishes, carry on and good luck.

HAMLET: Lady, shall I lie in your lap? [Lying down at OPHELIA's feet]
OPHELIA: No, my lord.
HAMLET: I mean, my head upon your lap?
OPHELIA: Ay, my lord.
HAMLET: Do you think I meant country matters?

Hamlet (Act III, Scene 2)

Quote - > Quote - Whether or not I wanted to render porn, nudes, or anything, I'd always prefer a model to have integrated genitals.  Just seems daft not to.

Yes!

If people are that worried about their reputation, and that certain that their target customers have zero interest in rendering nude or semi nude figures, why don't they model the figures with built in underwear that cannot be removed? I mean, it won't show if the figure is clothed.

The fact that the success of such a figure is hard to imagine should tell us that we know perfectly well whose money and what kind of renders drive the market.

Yea sorta like Action Man /G I Joe. I had some that came with an oddly malformed-but-fleshcoloured-groin. And some that came with built-in-swim trunks.

The nude ones were fitted with a match L The trunk guys were forever deemed to a life of looking without doing. (gawd and I was like 11-12 at the time.. ROFL)

(oh and yes I did fit my Barbie with an appropriate place to put said match, too >_<)

Quote - > Quote - > Quote - Whether or not I wanted to render porn, nudes, or anything, I'd always prefer a model to have integrated genitals.  Just seems daft not to.

Yes!

If people are that worried about their reputation, and that certain that their target customers have zero interest in rendering nude or semi nude figures, why don't they model the figures with built in underwear that cannot be removed? I mean, it won't show if the figure is clothed.

The fact that the success of such a figure is hard to imagine should tell us that we know perfectly well whose money and what kind of renders drive the market.

Yea sorta like Action Man /G I Joe. I had some that came with an oddly malformed-but-fleshcoloured-groin. And some that came with built-in-swim trunks.

The nude ones were fitted with a match L The trunk guys were forever deemed to a life of looking without doing. (gawd and I was like 11-12 at the time.. ROFL)

(oh and yes I did fit my Barbie with an appropriate place to put said match, too >_<)

Hahah. I had the same guys. Action Man, definitely.

This topic first kicked off when a new figure was released without detailed genitalia, and without the poly density in the pubic region to enable a morph which disappointed some posters. It seemed fairly clear that it was a conscious decision by the company, and most likely based on risk avoidance.

Now there are several threads running on this subject. I look at the OP's commercial product Lali's Bits, and I assume (maybe wrongly?) that when he then opens a discussion on detailed gens that that is the level of detail under discussion. On the info page for Lali's Bits it states that "there are well over one hundred morphs and master parameters to make the vagina prop open and close nicely along with the key movements".

I'd argue strongly that porn and erotica are not the same, and that gynacological levels of detail is one of the differences. I genuinely do not understand why that level of detail would be desirable in a figure used in non-pornographic renders. Would seem like a big waste of resources.

I'm not making value judgements. I'm aware that there are figures with gens currently available. I thought that what was under discussion was something that went quite some way beyond what was already out. 

Did I misunderstand something?

Quote - I thought that what was under discussion was something that went quite some way beyond what was already out.

That's what I thought as well.  If we're talking about just a camel toe morph, fine, no need to make that separate.

But if we're talking about something with over a hundred morphs - that's a resource load.  Especially if you're doing animation.

And if I were doing porn, I'd want something with lots of morphs.  Not just open and shut.  Women do not all look the same down there.  There is quite a bit of natural variation. 

Quote - This topic first kicked off when a new figure was released without detailed genitalia, and without the poly density in the pubic region to enable a morph which disappointed some posters. It seemed fairly clear that it was a conscious decision by the company, and most likely based on risk avoidance.

Now there are several threads running on this subject. I look at the OP's commercial product Lali's Bits, and I assume (maybe wrongly?) that when he then opens a discussion on detailed gens that that is the level of detail under discussion. On the info page for Lali's Bits it states that "there are well over one hundred morphs and master parameters to make the vagina prop open and close nicely along with the key movements".

I'd argue strongly that porn and erotica are not the same, and that gynacological levels of detail is one of the differences. I genuinely do not understand why that level of detail would be desirable in a figure used in non-pornographic renders. Would seem like a big waste of resources.

I'm not making value judgements. I'm aware that there are figures with gens currently available. I thought that what was under discussion was something that went quite some way beyond what was already out. 

Did I misunderstand something?

As far as I can tell, detailed genitals are indeed under discussion (as per thread title) along with "concerns" people might have over the existence or creation or use or whatever of such a figure.

When I render people wearing boots, I don't bother to load all the toe and foot fixes that are available for those characters. That doesn't mean I want to have to use an entirely different figure just because in my next render he or she will be barefoot.

I thought the question wasn't whether, every time you loaded a figure, it would be equipped with massive amounts of genital detail, so much as that the figure would not be created without any genitals at all and that its mesh would be designed to accomodate such detail with a degree of ease that simply isn't possible right now.

I don't buy the risk avoidance claim at all. Like I said, if there's an example of a company that got sued or bankrupted specifically as a result of selling potentially sexual content, I'd like to hear about it. Until then, I'll be skeptical.

In any case, I can see no reason whatsoever, other than prudery, to create a model with no nipples. After all, they're visible even under clothing, and sometimes one has to go to considerable lengths - or wear padded bras - to hide them. It's just as silly as the default M4 with no bulge in the crotch. It looks bloody ridiculous even on clothed figures. I'm sure risk avoidance had nothing to do with the choice to exclude nipples; as a result, I don't see why I should believe it has anything to do with the choice to exclude genitals.

Even if the detailed genitals are for porn, again, what's the problem with rendering it?

It seems to me that if you're going to make a figure with proper genitals then you might as well do it properly! Otherwise do you have to make a series of figures with various degrees of anatomical accuracy?

I had the old stylee Action Man, based on the Mk 1 Hasbro GI Joe, which was a nude figure, without genitals but an all flesh coloured body.  It was the pre "realistic" hair, and pre "Gripping Hands".  

Wish I still had 'em.  They're worth an outrageous fortune* now.

• Shakespeare continuity.  :) 

Quote - Slightly trickier in the UK but I see your point :)

Though I would consider the likely media reaction, and the attitude of the general public, to be more important than any potential legal issues (if there were any that could be applied in such a situation - I have no idea about that). That could cause enough reputational damage to bring a company down, plus it would have the potential to cause damage by association on a wider scale too.

I honestly don't think enough people are that uptight about it, even in the US. They might bitch and moan if it even came up to the general public, but honestly how many people outside of here do you know that even know what Poser is? Yet it's been around for what, nearly 20 years now? I know of at least one MMORPG in development right now that has been stated to have strong sexual content, and laebeled as such, of course. How many children do you think that will prevent from playing it? I'm sure that at least the vampire fans around here know what I'm talking about. 

Don't forget all the Skyrim mods out there that are free to obtain by anybody. There's one in particular that I found and even I'm surprised no one has said anything. I would show you a video of it on YouTube but I don't want to get punched in the nads by a mod for posting links to adult content.  

Ever hear of 2nd Life? I'm sure by now you have if you look at anything outside of poser in terms of 3D art or games. Aside from its own redlight zones there's its naughty cousin that's nothing but one giant redlight digital world. Adults only of course.   

So, why is this even an issue? 

~Shane

While a super detailed integrated genital can be smoothed out easily, I rather solved the problem for myself with transmapped morphable genital props.

For the men, I turned the conforming genital figure into a prop and added that prop permanently to the figure as an additional bodypart.

Movement is supplied via morphs and if I don't need the genital, I simply make it invisible. As the pubic area is transmapped, I need no separate genital hip as the prop blends seamlessly with the original hip. There is also no hole in the hip, so if the prop is invisible, the figure looks just like a standard DAZ figure without conforming genital attached.

For the ladys I use the same principle, except that the outer parts are sculpted directly from the hip mesh, so no need for cumbersome texture matching.

The inner parts are transmapped so that they blend with the hip. They are very detailed and morphable. I also use the pubic hair mesh layer with a special transmap to tint the "inside" more pink to add realism. This makes it easy to work with unmodified skin textures.

I find it much easier to morph the "outer bits" separately from the "pink bits" and it also reduces RAM as morphs are either in the hip or in the genital instead of a very high res combined hip/genital bodypart.

Again, the genital bodypart can easily be set invisible and the hip either set to a simple "artistic" genital crease or all genital sculpting zeroed completely so the figure has the neutral "Barbie-Doll" look.

Another advantage is that I don't loose the original sculpting morphs for the hip or that I have to support two different hip meshes, but this of course doesn't matter with an original mesh that is built from scratch.

Quote -  

Of course there are people qwho cover up the legs on chairs in order not to have such blatant nakedness in their dining room. But frankly, such people are IMO suited for an institution anyway. The kind with padded walls.

 

Why padded? 

Hell, I say steel or concrete plasted with hustlers and let them get it over with. Be done. Save a few tax dollars in the process. Everyone's happy.

:)

~Shane

Quote - It seems to me that if you're going to make a figure with proper genitals then you might as well do it properly! Otherwise do you have to make a series of figures with various degrees of anatomical accuracy?

From a technical standpoint, for making clothing, it makes more sense to make male bits detachable. But if more people used dynamic clothing that would not be nearly as much of an issue. The biggest issue is conforming clothes. It can still be done if the model is designed to take clothing but a simpler approach for the user and the clothing maker, is to make it a seperate conforming piece. It does make texture and materials a good bit more of a challenge though. 

For females, there's realy no technical reason not to include at the very least, a general shape and enough polys for a content artist to build whatever add-on morphs they want. Ok so don't include shape, just enough geometry. That shouldn't be offensive to anybody. 

~Shane

I wouldnt say it bothers me to see an anatomically complete figure.  Its not high on my list either though.   As far as concern with whats included in a base or default version of a figure.. well honestly I'll be more likely to use a figure that I can work with regardless of who is in the room from my 4 year old son to my friends to my co-workers or whatever.  Not that I cant discuss or explain artistic nudity to people.. but I dont want to have to anytime I feel like showing someone what I'm working on.  

I suppose it depends on whether or not you care about amking a mainstream figure or a niche 'poser porn' figure.  If the figure is over all very well done but its primary distinction is its marvelous morphing vagina and anus (really?!) I think it will set a tone where it will end up niched regardless of quality or potential.  I would expect that as much as the figure is focused on its sexuality so too will be the lions share of the products made for it.  I could see it pushing an otherwise versatile and well done figure into becoming -just- the poser porn blow up doll figure.  which would be a shame, though I wouldn't begrudge you that decision any more than I begrudge HW3d their decision to permanently neuter Dawn

 I see no issues with realistic models. Oddly enough-I donlt do nekkid renders-but the body should be complete.

I live in an ABSURD society-recall the Wailing and Gnashing of Teeth when Janet Jackson's nipple was revealed for a second. Oh Mah GAWD- think of the Children! I swear some people must close their eyes when they shower.

Quote -  I see no issues with realistic models. Oddly enough-I donlt do nekkid renders-but the body should be complete.

I live in an ABSURD society-recall the Wailing and Gnashing of Teeth when Janet Jackson's nipple was revealed for a second. Oh Mah GAWD- think of the Children! I swear some people must close their eyes when they shower.

Speaking of which, at our community recreation centres, there usually aren't any separate change rooms/showers for kids. Up to age 7 (I think), they get to see all the naked breasts and genitals they could imagine in every possible shape, size, and age (including other children).

For some reason, this isn't considered harmful.

But a 3d rendered image appearing in t-pose on a preview screen, OMG! It will destroy their innocence.

You mean it's possible to grow up healthy having been exposed to this? It cant have been in the US. In our society evidently any form of violent image is OK-but a nekkid breast? Ahhhhhhhhhh!!!!!

Quote - > Quote -

Speaking of which, at our community recreation centres, there usually aren't any separate change rooms/showers for kids. Up to age 7 (I think), they get to see all the naked breasts and genitals they could imagine in every possible shape, size, and age (including other children).

For some reason, this isn't considered harmful.

But a 3d rendered image appearing in t-pose on a preview screen, OMG! It will destroy their innocence.

I really donlt care one way or another, there is a time and a place for genitals, and for no genitals. When it gets to be irksome is when people get 'in your face' and pushy about their views, whether it is about genitals or no genitals.

I prefer that be left to my personal choices.
Having said that, I have not used 3D genitals, especially female ones so much to find what is available now deficient. I tend to have a higher degree of interest in male gentials.

If I was being pushy, I'd get all insistant about having enough geometry on her so she can grow a weeniee, especially considering that in a real person, elements of those organs are shared on males and females, just rearranged in differnet places.

Quote - If I was being pushy, I'd get all insistant about having enough geometry on her so she can grow a weeniee, especially considering that in a real person, elements of those organs are shared on males and females, just rearranged in differnet places.

Yup. This.

Didn't DAZ break down and give Vickie some kind of a 'crease' morph? I haven't read the thread at Sunshine Manor so I don't know what the creator said, vs. speculation. 

I can buy personal objections. I can buy wanting to put more polygons in some other area. Fear of being sued? Well, you can give away ice cream on a hot day and risk getting sued. Judging from the other figures available, the too low poly to be abused and get us sued rationale, well, I'm dubious, but that's just my opinion. Maybe they have a shyster who told them that I don't lnow. If they bring out a male figure with anything other than nothing, I'd say the gynophobia fix is definitely in. IIRC, the guy at 3DU said he didn't support male genital textures in TC because in his view they only got used for porn. A simple, albeit rather odd explanation I can buy, but he didn't say he was afraid of getting sued. Whatever; they believe what they believe and they do what they gotta do. Now I shouldn't be so skeptical when the poor man's just trying to stay out the place where he'd get too up close and personal with Bubba's genitalia, but I gotta be honest, it do seem a bit odd - even in the land of 'I burned my mouth on the hot coffee in the cup that said Warning Hot! - give me money.'

As for porn vs. erotica, unless someone can explain how they don't appeal to the same basic human drive, then it's thumb wrestling vs. ultimate fighting, a matter or personal taste and interest. I don't think any of is's designed to make people muse on the glories of creation or God's goodness. Even if they were, why would the intricacies of a vagina be any less inspirational than a cheeky glimpse of ankle or whatever passes for 'erotica' these days. Adam's package could have been tossed off (NPI) with Poser primitives, but Eve's garden took some serious Maya time by the Almighty. Remember the guy who offered a girl $10,000 to sleep with him? She jumped at the offer. Then he offered her $100 and she sniffed, "What kind of a girl do you think I am?" He said, "We've already established that, now we're just haggling over price." That is the difference between porn and erotica, all delusions aside.

Hey guys, woah! I didn't see all these replies.

Thanks for the very interesting discussion, for sharing your opinions and concerns... and for keeping it cool! I think it was good to give this subject its own thread.

I'm off to bed, I'll reply tomorrow in more detail :)

Quote - I started a thread to find out how many folks would want a 3D female figure with a detailed integrated genital. Partly because I am making one.

I would definitely be interested.  I know you are trying to make her compatible with V4 textures.  I'm hoping you can map her so the V4 hip textures work on the figure with extra mapping for the additional areas. 

I mainly use dynamic clothing anymore so the cloth draping would be more realistic over characters (male and female) who contain all the genuine parts of real humans.

Curious Labs gave users the anatomical parts and morphs to go with them when they released Poser 5.

Well, it can't just be about genitals, the figure has to also be useful and contemporary.

Poser 5 female was neither, if memory serves.

Just for clarity, the guys at HW3D never said anything about getting sued or about concerns over what their character might be used for.  From my understanding, in addition to the poser market they have a long term goal of reaching a education market(i assume read this as kids not adults) and have made a deliberate and foundational decision that everything sold at their store will be PG13, including their base figure.  Now I'm not sure that -really- meant that they couldn't have provided the looping and geometry needed to do the morphs, but the reality is that if they didn't actually play at making morphs of some kind they would likely have put the geometry in wrong anyway and instead of the current discussion we'd be talking about 'if you arent going to build the geometry right(from an experienced vag morpher point of view) why put it in at all'  which is really back where we are now - not at all.

Quote - Didn't DAZ break down and give Vickie some kind of a 'crease' morph? I haven't read the thread at Sunshine Manor so I don't know what the creator said, vs. speculation. 

I can buy personal objections. I can buy wanting to put more polygons in some other area. Fear of being sued? Well, you can give away ice cream on a hot day and risk getting sued. Judging from the other figures available, the too low poly to be abused and get us sued rationale, well, I'm dubious, but that's just my opinion. Maybe they have a shyster who told them that I don't lnow. If they bring out a male figure with anything other than nothing, I'd say the gynophobia fix is definitely in. IIRC, the guy at 3DU said he didn't support male genital textures in TC because in his view they only got used for porn. A simple, albeit rather odd explanation I can buy, but he didn't say he was afraid of getting sued. Whatever; they believe what they believe and they do what they gotta do. Now I shouldn't be so skeptical when the poor man's just trying to stay out the place where he'd get too up close and personal with Bubba's genitalia, but I gotta be honest, it do seem a bit odd - even in the land of 'I burned my mouth on the hot coffee in the cup that said Warning Hot! - give me money.'

As for porn vs. erotica, unless someone can explain how they don't appeal to the same basic human drive, then it's thumb wrestling vs. ultimate fighting, a matter or personal taste and interest. I don't think any of is's designed to make people muse on the glories of creation or God's goodness. Even if they were, why would the intricacies of a vagina be any less inspirational than a cheeky glimpse of ankle or whatever passes for 'erotica' these days. Adam's package could have been tossed off (NPI) with Poser primitives, but Eve's garden took some serious Maya time by the Almighty. Remember the guy who offered a girl $10,000 to sleep with him? She jumped at the offer. Then he offered her $100 and she sniffed, "What kind of a girl do you think I am?" He said, "We've already established that, now we're just haggling over price." That is the difference between porn and erotica, all delusions aside.

erogenesis, as long as it doesn't look too much like V4, I'd buy the figure. I've worked nearly 40 years in the medical field. Seen far more naked people than Hugh Hefner, just not as many good looking ones . I agree with the comment about medical scenes. I know of at least two, maybe more 3D GYN chairs for sale.

Even children have genitals, and it may frighten people to know that they are aware of them. I've had children, had to explain things many times. To me, figures without genitals are like the old three fingered cartoon figures.

“Speaking of which, at our community recreation centres, there usually aren't any separate change rooms/showers for kids. Up to age 7 (I think)”

And at 7 they turn into unicorns? Just kidding. I sounds like a more rational way than what prevails in certain places and was exported (usually at sword point) to other places. Mostly originating somewhere people are still cutting each other’s throats over swaths of desert no one else would give a rat’s rear end about if the buried dinosaur crap underneath it hadn’t turned into oil.

“From my understanding, in addition to the poser market they have a long term goal of reaching a education market(i assume read this as kids not adults) and have made a deliberate and foundational decision that everything sold at their store will be PG13, including their base figure”

Now that makes sense. Not that I think the compromise is going to win them a lot necessarily, but I live in an area where giving the kids a 3D Olive Oyl with her clothes welded on would be considered an unspeakable crime by many. Presumably there are other places where they can make a buck. If I were them though and I really wanted to reach the largest number of schools, I would go all the way and clothe them permanently ala the Poser casual and business women etc. Dimes to donuts someone will show up at the board meeting and wave a render of Naked Dawn being ridden by the Mil Pony, that they found somewhere and put an end to that heathen 3D edumucation nonsense.

No matter how cynical you get, it is impossible to keep up. - Lily Tomlin

Quote - Didn't DAZ break down and give Vickie some kind of a 'crease' morph? I haven't read the thread at Sunshine Manor so I don't know what the creator said, vs. speculation. 

I can buy personal objections. I can buy wanting to put more polygons in some other area. Fear of being sued? Well, you can give away ice cream on a hot day and risk getting sued. Judging from the other figures available, the too low poly to be abused and get us sued rationale, well, I'm dubious, but that's just my opinion. Maybe they have a shyster who told them that I don't lnow. 

Actually, I donlt have very many personal objections, perhaps beyond that of bing attracted to men and finding female genitalia rather gross, like a slimy slug. Dicks, I can discuss those for a looong time without getting grossed out. I expect for men it's the other way around, you get a mild euphoria going by discussing VJ's.

However, working in corporate america for 15 years, I've had to go to numerous routine 'sexual harrasement in the workplace' yearly remonder seminars that companies are supposed to put on in order to satisfy this or that legal requirement, so I know for a fact this is a real concern.

Quote - From a technical standpoint, for making clothing, it makes more sense to make male bits detachable. But if more people used dynamic clothing that would not be nearly as much of an issue. T

Just have a morph for dressing to the left or right, or whatever you guys do when you have to stuff your bits and bobs inside underwear and tight jeans.

Quote -  

Just for clarity, the guys at HW3D never said anything about getting sued or about concerns over what their character might be used for.  From my understanding, in addition to the poser market they have a long term goal of reaching a education market(i assume read this as kids not adults) and have made a deliberate and foundational decision that everything sold at their store will be PG13, including their base figure.  Now I'm not sure that -really- meant that they couldn't have provided the looping and geometry needed to do the morphs, but the reality is that if they didn't actually play at making morphs of some kind they would likely have put the geometry in wrong anyway and instead of the current discussion we'd be talking about 'if you arent going to build the geometry right(from an experienced vag morpher point of view) why put it in at all'  which is really back where we are now - not at all.

Maybe their educational market contacts are near to where they live and they want to cater to that area. I know for example atBbringham Young university art department, even college and post grad figure drawing can't be done in the nude.

When people plan to penetrate a certai market, they tend to go with what they are familiar with, and most people are most familiar with the customs, laws and habits in their local area.

Regardless of the reason, it is their decison.