Yeah, bad joke. But also kind of true. Some of the ads on this site are softcore porn.

moriador posted at 8:35PM Tue, 13 October 2015 - #4233231

There is nudity on this pictureor i'm wrong ? Animals nudity is allowed ? Putting a cow head on V4 and let her being fu.... by a horse BIG LOL

AmbientShade posted at 8:40PM Tue, 13 October 2015 - #4233422

Renderosity's Terms of Service do not allow posting of pornographic content or images on this site.

No Posting Unacceptable Images or Writing Themes:

No Rape [actual or implied]

No Torture [defined as: the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, wounding, crucifixion) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure]

No Sexual acts [no depictions of sexual intercourse - between humanoids/non-humanoids/animals - no masturbation]

No Physical arousal [This includes but is not exclusive to: no images of an erect penis/ no images showing the inner portion of the vulva or vaginal area]

No Explicit sexual content [No manipulation of breasts/nipples/ no sexual situations/ no 'implied" sexual acts/ no extreme or explicit S&M bondage situations/ no lewd or >obscene sexual references]

No Genital contact with ANY object, other than sitting or clothing.

This is a warning to those involved. I've deleted the last two images. You can discuss the topic if you can keep it within the TOS.

ETA: An image tagged with nudity still has to comply with the tos.

I think you need to see the thumb gallery, you'll have a lot of work.

The two first pages !

Capture_thumb.JPG man nipples and woman nipples without advisory thumb.

We don't use content advisory thumbs in the galleries anymore. That is what the filters in profile settings are for. Those that are there are being uploaded by the users.

'Man nipples' is not nudity.

Chuckle.

Man nipples' is not nudity.

If i understand you filter what is nudity and not just as you want. Excuse me but man or woman torso nude is nudity or i miss something when i was to school ;)

Ambientshade seems to be the mod that steps in and sets things right when there's some confusion over an appropriate course of action over particular posts. Or so it seems after observing the forum dynamics for a while. It's probably futile to argue semantics with the guy that carries the stick, no?

Does the TOS allow adult toys in an image if they are not being used for adult purposes, just as a bit of clutter on a shelf maybe? Or a scene where somebody picks one up and goes "WTF is this?" or "Oops, didn't know THAT was there!" In Texas there's a student protest going on where participants will carry giant plastic dildos in response to a change in the university's policy to allow (more? open carry?) guns on campus. Which has given me a few ideas for some rather amusing renders.

There was a playboy joke cartoon where a boy used his mom's bedroom companion as the nose of a snowman. No nudity, not being used in a sex act. Would that be allowed here?

Oh, and speaking of Playboy... they recently announced that they would no longer feature nude women in their magazine. I believe it may be because magazines like Maxim and FHM are getting a lot more readership without resorting to nudes.

"I only read it for the articles!"

Yeah, right.

Gotta admit, I thought that "No naked women in Playboy from now on" story was another internet hoax or an article from the Onion that the regular news stations had picked up on -- hey it's happened before. Then I went to their site and yep, it's true. Nothing more explicit than you'd see in a Victoria's Secret catalog maybe come February 2016. I guess they decided since the internet really is for porn after all, and free porn at that, it was time to try something else. Wonder if they realize the internet, not to mention TV and magazines and catalogs and Poser too is full of scantily clad females? So if they want to stay in business as a magazine, it's gonna have to be on the basis of their articles. And sell clothing and whatever else they can slap a Bunny logo on.

I own a few issues myself, special celebrity editions with the old movie stars in them. And yes, I did read the articles. All in all, pretty good. But then again, I am not a heterosexual male, so I really can't speak for anyone in that category who claims "It's only for the articles!" when the mother, wife or significant other discovers his stash. I do, however, take such claims with a honkin' big heap of salt.

haven't seen a Playgirl in over 20 years.

and i didn't buy the mag for the articles. lol

Did you all know that the Puritans who first formed the British colonies... they started slavery. It wasn't the Spanish in Meso-America and South America. It was the Puritans. They not only began the near genocide of the native American peoples... they also introduced slavery as a skin based market.

They also are to blame for why we are afraid today to say porn and so say pron. In Europe they don't have this hang up. This is a completely English puritanical thing which has gone way way out of hand in the United States.

A Puritan asks "does anyone make porn with Poser?' The rest of the world asks... "Is Poser only used to make porn?"

Because that's what all non-Poser artists are thinking

My first exposure to "dirty books" was those old men's magazines from the 50s & 60s, you know the ones that had the black censor bars all over them. I was about 11 or 12 and had found my uncle's mostly forgotten stash while hunting for some comic books he said I could borrow. Never knew what all the fuss was about from the bits I could see. But they had some very good short stories in them and that summer I got hooked on hard boiled detective fiction. All because of porn.

Playgirl? Yeah, I bought one of those too, sometime in the 90's. Needed some nude male art references and it was the only thing available at the time. We used to buy a lot of porn back in art school. It was a community college with emphasis on commercial art not fine but some of us were into comics and our professor didn't see anything wrong with us using Playboy and Playgirl since live models were not available. Not to mention probably not in the budget. My strict Catholic high school teachers, many of whom were nuns, would have been horrified. My old classmates, on the other hand, would have died from envy that I got to see all that hot, sweaty naked flesh while they went on to secretarial or nursing or business degrees or got married right after prom. So yeah, I'm kinda fond of what the Puritans label smut.

Awesomeness, Byrdie!! :)

The puritans started slavery? So slavery did not exist before the puritans is what you are saying?

I think the first porn mag I ever saw was a friend's older brother's stash. It was called 'fuck mates'... when this friend was telling me about it, before he finally showed it to me, I mistakenly thought he was saying 'fuck mints'. So I was like nagging him to show me the magazine, "C'mon man, show me the fuck mints!".

My old man was a truck driver. His stash was epic.

[Byrdie]

I own a few issues myself, special celebrity editions with the old movie stars in them. And yes, I did read the articles. All in all, pretty good. But then again, I am not a heterosexual male, so I really can't speak for anyone in that category who claims "It's only for the articles!" when the mother, wife or significant other discovers his stash. I do, however, take such claims with a honkin' big heap of salt.

I am a heterosexual male, but honestly always felt the articles truly were the only reason to read Playboy. The girls were all too similar, either the "girl next door" or "rich daddy's girl gone off to college"... Thin, blonde, airbrushed and not my cup of tea at all. (The kind of girls upward moving American men in the 1950s-70s sought for trophy wives?) Too modestly posed to even be provocative, just easy on the eyes and nothing more.
That said, they did keep it classy enough that an attractive celebrity could indeed undress for their cameras without ruining her reputation.

Yeah, I think it was the classiness that made Playboy more than just another "under the counter" men's book. You had A-list stars on the cover and getting naked for the cameras at a time when even a whiff of scandal, especially if it involved anything remotely sexual, could and did ruin many a career. Be seen snogging somebody else's husband when it wasn't part of the script? Can't have that, fire the trollop. Be seen in Playboy as Miss September? No big deal, great career move. All part of the Hollywood Sex Symbol mystique. :sigh: Those days are long gone. We now have the likes of the Kardashians and Miley Cyrus or whomever baring it all while swinging on a ball. Class is out, sleaze is in.

Damn, I'm getting old!

Did you all know that the Puritans who first formed the British colonies... they started slavery. It wasn't the Spanish in Meso-America and South America. It was the Puritans. They not only began the near genocide of the native American peoples... they also introduced slavery as a skin based market.

**Unless you're trying to invent an issue........ slavery was common in China 2000 years before the puritans ever existed.... In Africa slavery has been around for thousands of years. The Puritans were certainly NOT the cause of slavery nor were they the anti-porn people. If you wish to learn where most of our anti-sex laws came from read the life story of Anthony Comstock. **

Slavery has existed as long as humanity has existed. It has always been part of human culture.

DreaminGirl posted at 2:24AM Sat, 17 October 2015 - #4233995

Slavery has existed as long as humanity has existed. It has always been part of human culture.

Despite the long human history of slave trading various periods of trade can indeed be marked as having beginnings and ends. I was always under the impression that what made slavery in the US (which I understood the above comment to be referring to, right or wrong) unique was the uncommon racial aspect. People of one color having slaves exclusively of another color. Even though slavery was a practice within Africa at the time, 19th century Euro-Americans were enslaving Africans exclusively, never their own people nor people of any other race. Asians were certainly exploited but I don't recall the notion of ownership ever being applied to them nor to the Scots-Irish miners in Appalachia.

Byrdie posted at 2:33AM Sat, 17 October 2015 - #4233936

Yeah, I think it was the classiness that made Playboy more than just another "under the counter" men's book. You had A-list stars on the cover and getting naked for the cameras at a time when even a whiff of scandal, especially if it involved anything remotely sexual, could and did ruin many a career. Be seen snogging somebody else's husband when it wasn't part of the script? Can't have that, fire the trollop. Be seen in Playboy as Miss September? No big deal, great career move. All part of the Hollywood Sex Symbol mystique. :sigh: Those days are long gone. We now have the likes of the Kardashians and Miley Cyrus or whomever baring it all while swinging on a ball. Class is out, sleaze is in.

Damn, I'm getting old!

I associate sleaze with exploitation. It's easy to look back at the Golden Age starlets and think they were inherently more classy than the divas and bad-girl celebs of today. But if Miley really wants to perform in the nude, if she's not being put up to it or coerced into it, I don't think that makes her a bad person. I wouldn't want my daughter, if I had one, to necessarily emulate that particular choice... But I wouldn't want my daughter to think that her body was something to be ashamed of, or that showing it off automatically makes her some kind of lowbrow trash, either. Women have an undeniable power in their sexuality, and words like slut and sleaze are too often code words used by those who fear or would prefer to control that power.

Reminds me of that picture (it goes around Facebook from time to time) of the modestly dressed stars at the adult video awards beside the barely covered mainstream celebrities at a music awards event.

I once smoked a cigarette in front of a cafe with a random Jamaican man... He looks at me and says "We're in Babylon." I said "What makes you say that?" He responded: "When you see the men being turned into slaves and the women being turned into whores, it means you are in Babylon".

moogal posted at 8:55PM Sat, 17 October 2015 - #4234035

DreaminGirl posted at 2:24AM Sat, 17 October 2015 - #4233995

Despite the long human history of slave trading various periods of trade can indeed be marked as having beginnings and ends. I was always under the impression that what made slavery in the US (which I understood the above comment to be referring to, right or wrong) unique was the uncommon racial aspect. People of one color having slaves exclusively of another color. ...

Actually... no.

It has been very common for a people in one culture to enslave those of another culture, regardless of skin color. Slavery has been largely culturally discriminate, except in the cases of indentured slaves or those captured in warfare as "the enemy." In the period you're speaking about, Western sensibilities may have, indeed, balked at the idea of other "Westerners" (white people) being enslaved, but, even so, forms of slavery for "whites" did exist and they, along with black slaves or indentured servants, were also considered "personal property."

The first slaves in the Americas were.. white.

http://www.pbs.org/opb/historydetectives/feature/indentured-servants-in-the-us/ http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-irish-slave-trade-the-forgotten-white-slaves/31076

Later, slavery laws changed a bit and instead of indentured servitude for blacks, true slavery was the norm. No longer was it practically possible for a slave to earn their freedom if their master refused it. Black slavery became much more economically viable and could be more easily justified by the culturally, morally, intellectually "superior" slave owners. Thus, it became much more difficult to use such justifications with fellow whites/Westerners.

A common theme was one of "ethical duty" to instruct the "inferior" black slaves and to become self-appointed stewards of their religious and moral development. That's freakishly difficult to use as a justification for a slave who happens to be white... The mirror would tell the tale.

And, I'm sure this has some sort of use in a discussion about Poser Pron, right?

So, there is some notion that black slavery was "unique" in being totally based on race during this period. There is a small bit of truth to that, but it grew from much broader interpretations of "slavery." Black slaves simply became much more economically viable and the culture of the time could use many more "justifications" for its use of slaves than they could use for the enslaving of fellow whites. But, as an example of history, the idea of enslavement due to ones cultural or racial differences was very a common one and repeated for as long as we have written records.

[Morkonan]

And, I'm sure this has some sort of use in a discussion about Poser Pron, right?

Ha ha... Yeah, I wasn't quite sure where that came from either. But those are some really good points. That was why I subtly referenced the Appalachian mine workers who were treated essentially as company property. There has always been slavery, and America sadly didn't set the precedent for countries having no involvement. But there's something about the African slave trade, the idea of going to another continent with boats and bringing people back here to work and not even recognizing their very humanity, that has overshadowed similar endemic injustices of the same era.

wonders if the pron oscars have a cgi category

moogal posted at 8:10PM Sun, 18 October 2015 - #4233901

[Byrdie]

I own a few issues myself, special celebrity editions with the old movie stars in them. And yes, I did read the articles. All in all, pretty good. But then again, I am not a heterosexual male, so I really can't speak for anyone in that category who claims "It's only for the articles!" when the mother, wife or significant other discovers his stash. I do, however, take such claims with a honkin' big heap of salt.

I am a heterosexual male, but honestly always felt the articles truly were the only reason to read Playboy. The girls were all too similar, either the "girl next door" or "rich daddy's girl gone off to college"... Thin, blonde, airbrushed and not my cup of tea at all. (The kind of girls upward moving American men in the 1950s-70s sought for trophy wives?) Too modestly posed to even be provocative, just easy on the eyes and nothing more.

Standing a bit to the side so I don't get hit by a bolt of lightning! Really? Seriously? Denial apparently just isn't a river in Egypt.

moogal posted at 2:07AM Mon, 19 October 2015 - #4234035

DreaminGirl posted at 2:24AM Sat, 17 October 2015 - #4233995

Slavery has existed as long as humanity has existed. It has always been part of human culture.

Despite the long human history of slave trading various periods of trade can indeed be marked as having beginnings and ends. I was always under the impression that what made slavery in the US (which I understood the above comment to be referring to, right or wrong) unique was the uncommon racial aspect. People of one color having slaves exclusively of another color. Even though slavery was a practice within Africa at the time, 19th century Euro-Americans were enslaving Africans exclusively, never their own people nor people of any other race. Asians were certainly exploited but I don't recall the notion of ownership ever being applied to them nor to the Scots-Irish miners in Appalachia.

ownership ever being applied to them nor to the Scots-Irish miners in Appalachia.

nah where just the troublesome ones.

but the mines paid in script not money. only the mine you worked at store would accept that script. so it wasn't slavery but I wouldn't call it freedom either. I still have some of my Grandpa's script .

Since many Native American tribes practiced the enslavement of war prisoners, I believe slavery predated the arrival of the Europeans.

quietrob posted at 2:57AM Mon, 19 October 2015 - #4234213

moogal posted at 8:10PM Sun, 18 October 2015 - #4233901

[Byrdie]

I own a few issues myself, special celebrity editions with the old movie stars in them. And yes, I did read the articles. All in all, pretty good. But then again, I am not a heterosexual male, so I really can't speak for anyone in that category who claims "It's only for the articles!" when the mother, wife or significant other discovers his stash. I do, however, take such claims with a honkin' big heap of salt.

I am a heterosexual male, but honestly always felt the articles truly were the only reason to read Playboy. The girls were all too similar, either the "girl next door" or "rich daddy's girl gone off to college"... Thin, blonde, airbrushed and not my cup of tea at all. (The kind of girls upward moving American men in the 1950s-70s sought for trophy wives?) Too modestly posed to even be provocative, just easy on the eyes and nothing more.

Standing a bit to the side so I don't get hit by a bolt of lightning! Really? Seriously? Denial apparently just isn't a river in Egypt.

I think it's just a matter of not preferring the same kinds of girls Hef does. The Playboy ideal is tall, tan and athletic... Sporty, outdoorsy... I'm not saying I couldn't be attracted to a specific woman of that type, but I'm not attracted to that type in general. I prefer petite to tall, pale to tan and curves to tone/definition. I like the hipster librarian types... the curvy girls in hip-hop videos... emo girls with purple hair and maybe just a little bit of ink. I find the girls in Playboy attractive, just not very arousing. Honestly, I really thought that was the point of Playboy.

playboy is pinup not pron.

need 2 people engaged in sex activity for pron.

woman or man alone with a sex toy, imo, fancy masturbtions - not really pron, is it?

MistyLaraPrincess posted at 4:25PM Mon, 19 October 2015 - #4234256

playboy is pinup not pron.

need 2 people engaged in sex activity for pron.

woman or man alone with a sex toy, imo, fancy masturbtions - not really pron, is it?

Actually, yes. There's a big difference between simply being in a state of undress and performing a self-satisfying act. Add the sex toy, and all "innocence" goes out the window. Even without the sex toy I'd say nudity+sexual stimulation=pron. There's hardcore and softcore pron, we can call it erotica if pron seems too disparaging, but once you add stimulation/arousal you've crossed the line that Playboy never did (AFAIK). Everything I've ever seen from Playboy would be kosher here if flagged for nudity.

bhoins posted at 9:51PM Mon, 19 October 2015 - #4232539

I think you spelled Prawn wrong. :)

Here's some transsexual pr0n...;er prawns...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/19/us-israel-prawn-gender-idUSKCN0SD12E20151019

Byrdie posted at 12:03AM Tue, 20 October 2015 - #4233936

Yeah, I think it was the classiness that made Playboy more than just another "under the counter" men's book. You had A-list stars on the cover and getting naked for the cameras at a time when even a whiff of scandal, especially if it involved anything remotely sexual, could and did ruin many a career. Be seen snogging somebody else's husband when it wasn't part of the script? Can't have that, fire the trollop. Be seen in Playboy as Miss September? No big deal, great career move. All part of the Hollywood Sex Symbol mystique. :sigh: Those days are long gone. We now have the likes of the Kardashians and Miley Cyrus or whomever baring it all while swinging on a ball. Class is out, sleaze is in.

Damn, I'm getting old!

The old joke:

What is the difference between a slut and a bitch?

The slut will sleep with anybody. The bitch will sleep with anybody but you...

How did we go from pron to slavery?

rokket posted at 8:11AM Tue, 20 October 2015 - #4234381

How did we go from pron to slavery?

Puritanical ideas about sexuality; porn as exploitation; the "white slave trade", which no one has mentioned yet. A natural progression.

But let's not blame the Puritans for everything. Long after their revolution in Britain was ended, the Victorians evolved their own peculiar brand of prudishness -- covering the legs of tables and chairs because they were legs. Even saying the names of the body parts was shocking, which is why we often say "white meat" and "dark meat" when referring to the breast and legs of chicken. Victorians made even the Puritans seem sexually free. Interestingly, for the Puritans, it was a matter of Biblical morals. For the Victorians, at least in Europe, much more a matter of manners. And lest we think manners could never be that important, during a time of enormous growth of the middle class, including the rise to great riches for some, there had to be some way to maintain a sense of class distinctions in a culture that was built on social hierarchy. A way to keep the upstart middle class feeling inferior even when they had more money. For the Victorians, manners served that purpose. And even today, in Britain, the word "class" refers to more than just a person's social and economic position -- but also his/her deportment: his or her manners.

Oddly, the Americans banished the idea of class, but kept the prudishness about sexuality -- an attitude that was easily available to everyone equally. LOL.

moriador posted at 12:53PM Tue, 20 October 2015 - #4234415

But let's not blame the Puritans for everything. Long after their revolution in Britain was ended, the Victorians evolved their own peculiar brand of prudishness -- covering the legs of tables and chairs because they were legs. Even saying the names of the body parts was shocking, which is why we often say "white meat" and "dark meat" when referring to the breast and legs of chicken. Victorians made even the Puritans seem sexually free. Interestingly, for the Puritans, it was a matter of Biblical morals. For the Victorians, at least in Europe, much more a matter of manners. And lest we think manners could never be that important, during a time of enormous growth of the middle class, including the rise to great riches for some, there had to be some way to maintain a sense of class distinctions in a culture that was built on social hierarchy. A way to keep the upstart middle class feeling inferior even when they had more money. For the Victorians, manners served that purpose. And even today, in Britain, the word "class" refers to more than just a person's social and economic position -- but also his/her deportment: his or her manners.

It wasn't just that. A portion of the Victorian conservatism was in reaction to what their parents and grandparents had done in the Georgian and Regency Eras. Gambling, casual sex, alcohol, they were so into it they wouldn't have felt out of place today (although we'd probably look sideways at the rampant boozing). But that period was also the era of revolution, when populations struck against what was described as the morally bankrupt aristocracy. and it wouldn't be hard to associate those two things. The Victorians, in England, entered an era where they were for the most part isolated from conflict, they had created the most widespread empire the world had ever seen (and odds are will never see again), society had settled down, and there was a feeling that if society struck to the straight and narrow they'd avoid the messes and chaos that had broken out elsewhere in Europe in their lifetimes.

Speaking about victorians: They invented the vibrator to heal hysteric women and I think a woman in a corset is quite erotic.

Guess they were whale oil powered vibrators, or maybe you had to wind them?

Keith posted at 2:27PM Tue, 20 October 2015 - #4234446

moriador posted at 12:53PM Tue, 20 October 2015 - #4234415

But let's not blame the Puritans for everything. Long after their revolution in Britain was ended, the Victorians evolved their own peculiar brand of prudishness -- covering the legs of tables and chairs because they were legs. Even saying the names of the body parts was shocking, which is why we often say "white meat" and "dark meat" when referring to the breast and legs of chicken. Victorians made even the Puritans seem sexually free. Interestingly, for the Puritans, it was a matter of Biblical morals. For the Victorians, at least in Europe, much more a matter of manners. And lest we think manners could never be that important, during a time of enormous growth of the middle class, including the rise to great riches for some, there had to be some way to maintain a sense of class distinctions in a culture that was built on social hierarchy. A way to keep the upstart middle class feeling inferior even when they had more money. For the Victorians, manners served that purpose. And even today, in Britain, the word "class" refers to more than just a person's social and economic position -- but also his/her deportment: his or her manners.

It wasn't just that. A portion of the Victorian conservatism was in reaction to what their parents and grandparents had done in the Georgian and Regency Eras. Gambling, casual sex, alcohol, they were so into it they wouldn't have felt out of place today (although we'd probably look sideways at the rampant boozing). But that period was also the era of revolution, when populations struck against what was described as the morally bankrupt aristocracy. and it wouldn't be hard to associate those two things. The Victorians, in England, entered an era where they were for the most part isolated from conflict, they had created the most widespread empire the world had ever seen (and odds are will never see again), society had settled down, and there was a feeling that if society struck to the straight and narrow they'd avoid the messes and chaos that had broken out elsewhere in Europe in their lifetimes.

Hmmm.... Yes, I believe you're quite right. Very good points, indeed.

bopperthijs posted at 7:29PM Tue, 20 October 2015 - #4234467

Speaking about victorians: They invented the vibrator to heal hysteric women and I think a woman in a corset is quite erotic.

Wonder Woman...