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?

---

PoserPro 2014, PS CS5.5 Ext, Nikon D300. Win 8, i7-4770 @ 3.4 GHz, AMD Radeon 8570, 12 GB RAM.