... hold on just a sec, I'm looking for my Soapbox....
well here goes, with the release of the new MM Baby... with "male genitlia " option, I just have to ask this. It seems there is an age gap in what can viewed in the "nude"... The baby can crawl butt naked, Vicki show all the T n A she want to, Mike can show his stuff too... as long he does not touch another male in the process.... The MM boy, well he has nothing to show... except for his tits, which are bigger than the preteen girl.
Now before I get labeled as a pervert, I have never done any nude pics where I needed the full equipted boy... but if I did... why not the "option", just like with Mike, By the way I have never need to use The FULL Mike, but I do have the option. Just my thoughts.... niles

Well, there are girl babies too, aren't there?

no, I think Niles is commenting on the fact that nude babies are ok, nude adults are ok, but nude children (out of diapers but not able to vote) are not ok. the sad truth is because there are some sick people out there who get their thrills from kiddie porn. With the new technology of the internet and the ease of which kiddie porn is now able to be spread comes a new paranoia to do anything to prevent it. (even digital children)

ah, my apologies Niles, I completely misunderstood.

Well the millennium boys actually use the Vicky "body" or geometries don't they? (Probably not the right words). Bear in mind that Vicky has no Genitals, and no Pubic Hair setting in her textures. (Breasts are not considered genitals in this case.) So you have boys who borrow from "their mom's body," and she has no genitals. It's rather hard for the boys to have genitals when Mom doesn't. Ron

Look at DAZ. For Victoria, every 'popup' image that shows her pubic hair (the only 'genitals' she has) (and even the breast popup) has a 'nudity' warning. For Michael, there is a view 'genitalia' popup as if to say 'Check him out folks.' Apparently, the male equipment does not come under the heading of nudity. This strange double standard has always puzzled me. I can only assume that it comes from some primitive concept of the female genetalia being somehow unclean - who knows.

There was a long explanation from (then Zygote) on Vicky's neutered state. Basically, they had no good explanation. Maybe they couldn't find a woman in Utah to show them her naughty bits.

As for the boy, I think Ron is right - like mother, like son. If you ever need to do one of those little boy fountain pics, stick Lee Moon's or Digiport's genital prop on him and reduce the size accordingly.

NOT the peeing brat! My mother had the stupid fountain in the front yard surrounded by roses. ::gag:: Personally, I think they made the whole story up.

I was wondering this exact same thing. OK the Mill Boys have no genitals because they came from the Victoria mesh. That was DAZ's explanation. Now they tell us the the Mill Baby was made from the Victoria mesh, but it has a male genitals option. I would like to hear DAZ's new excuse for why the Mill Boys have no genitals, because the old one doesn't work anymore. I don't do any porn pictures. I nearly always have completely clothed characters. Yet it drives me up a wall to have these models not "complete". And it REALLY bugs me that while

And I suppose they made up the story about the Dutch boy sticking his finger in the dike too? And Hans Brinker and his silver skates and the Little Mermaid? Come now, no respect for European history!

"And it REALLY bugs me that while " Why my post got truncated, I'll never know. :) I think I was saying something about how the female genitals are not important enough to be included, which irritates me (as a woman who thinks her bits are pretty holy important.)

LOL - "...[DAZ/Zygote] couldn't find a woman in Utah to show them her naughty bits..." DAZ is in Draper - they should've come up towards Ogden, esp. near Hill Air Force Base, where in my previous experience as an airman proved that there's no shortage of ladies more than willing to show them their umm... heh - forget I said anything ;) Shadowcat is right WRT the boys, though... there's more than a bit of (IMHO justifiable) paranoia over what a couple of NAMBLA-types would do with such a model, and it can't feel good knowing that a huge potential for abuse is there, especially over something you make and sell. (I won't even Also there's the fact that Utah, due to its huge birthrate (#1 in the nation) and populational proportion of kids to adults, is also unfortunately a mecca of sorts for paedophiles (at least if the evening local news is any indication...) Ergo, I wouldn't be too harsh on DAZ for doing what they did. /P

"(I won't even mention the lawsuit potential)" Dontcha hate it when you forget to finish a thought? /P

paranoia over what a couple of NAMBLA-types would do with such a model Oh, please. The fact that there are genital props all over the web is clear enough reason to accept that DAZ's elimination of genitalia isn't going to stop anyone who's that driven to make his/her kiddie porn. Like Niles said in the very first post, I wouldn't be using them that much either but it's nice to know they're there just in case I ever do need them. You really have to wonder who they're really protecting sometimes.....

Yes, they can create kiddie porn with third-party props, but that perfectly absolves DAZ from any legal challenges arising from the results, no? Also, while you cannot stop someone from abusing your prducts, you can make it harder for them to do so, thereby damning them further in the trial, yes? Ex: "The make child figure doesn't come with props, Mr. Defendant... you obviously added them, blah blah blah" (thereby make a clearer case of motive, IMO.) /P

"male child" ...damn typoes :) /P

This motivated me to do a search. Apparently chachforce.com is not cowed by dire what-if scenarios. Their 'Poser Family' (family mind you) collection includes Bernie and 'Little Arnie,' both as nature intended. For that matter, I'm sure any enterprising pedophile could come up with plenty of compromising uses for even a neutered Millenium boy.

Seriously, I think this has risen to the level of being just a little ridiculous if that is their true motivation (and I don't doubt that it is). If a jury would convict them over what someone else did, then the Bin Laden's of the world are the least of our worries.

And, of course, none of this explains poor sexless Vicky and Posette. I think perhaps the idea is that any pose in which the female genitalia would be evident (i.e. anything other than standing, legs together) would be 'obscene' by definition. Of course, a woman without pubic hair doesn't count as again, that would be immoral. A neutered male viewed from the same angle is obviously missing something.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Yes, they can create kiddie porn with third-party props, but that perfectly absolves DAZ from any legal challenges arising from the results, no? Actually, probably not, because if the company that provided the "additional tools" needed got caught in the suit, DAZ probably would be as well. I honestly doubt either company would be hit with anything that got created by a pedophile for the purposes of cyber-porn. That's about like saying Ford is responsible when a driver runs a red light and kills a family of five. I'm sure DAZ is trying to just protect us all, but, as lmc says above, it's really getting pretty ridiculous. We might as well return to the days when Sears airbrushed all of its mens underwear photos so as not to offend anyone..... =)

Attached Link: http://www.overlawyered.com

Cacheforce is free to do what they will - I'm just explaining what (IMHO) DAZ was probably thinking in keeping their models as neutered as possible. As for the lawsuits, you'd be amazed. Say they catch a paedophile, and discover a huge collection of Poser-made smut on his hard drive. Now, imagine that DAZ and Curious Labs provided default kids w/ genitals. Anyone even remotely related to the paedophile's real-life victims could then get a very solid case against CL and DAZ for "encouraging" the paedophile... not too many juries would reject the argument, either. Yes it sounds far-fetched. Yes it even sounds facetious in some lights. OTOH, there is a little old lady running around with $3 million because she spilled hot McDonald's coffee on her lap. Head on over to the link I supplied - you'll see that it's just the tip of the iceberg. Now, Cacheforce may not be all that big of a company, and therefore their level of risk tolerance is probably much higher than CL or DAZ, who have a lot more jobs and assets to protect from such a thing. Me? I have no problems with how they build models either way, since I'm not a paedophile, and to be honest, I have no use at all for a nude child model in anything I do, or would want to do. OTOH, if I were building commercial versions of child models and making one hell of a profit from selling 'em, I'd damned sure sit down at the board meeting and think through all the more obvious 'what-if?' scenarios to cover both my public relations and my risk-management butts respectively. Why no adult female genitals by default? (shrug) - you got me there; I haven't the slightest idea. /P

I honestly doubt either company would be hit with anything that got created by a pedophile for the purposes of cyber-porn. As it stands now, of course not... just like it would be hard for a fertilizer plant and a diesel oil supply plant in Oklahoma to be sued over what happened at the Murrah Federal Bldg. in 1995... seperately, the parts are made for ostensibly legal and perfectly normal means, ie: each has a perfectly peaceful and legal use, and were sold by each company for those obvious uses. Probaly a bad example, but it shall have to suffice :) Now, look at DAZ and (insert genital prop-maker here). Each can credibly claim on their own, in any court of law that they built their items for the purposes of harmless art, and as it sits now, no jury alive would ever disagree about their intended use. OTOH, when you combine the two, it gets harder and harder to justify the intentions of use, and easier for a lawyer to make his case against you. Besides: Right or wrong, logic isn't exactly a prevailing factor in most jury cases, but until we find a better way to do it, it is the jury that decides, no matter what method they base their decision on... If an ambulance chaser is looking to hang your company's collective wallet, why on Earth would you want to give him more rope to tie a noose with? Laff - I guess I just hang out around too many lawyers :) /P

when you combine the two, it gets harder and harder to justify the intentions of use But you would have to show collusion or that all time favorite "conspiracy". You'd have to prove that CL and the prop-maker got together for the express purpose of providing licentious materials, and I just can't see any lawyer capable of that, save in the most tangental ways. Of course, as you point out, some woman got three mil because she was too stupid to figure out that it's dangerous to drink hot coffee and drive at the same time. Christ on a stick, what a world sometimes.....

Blaaaaaaaaaaa :( Lawyers,politcians,accountants,Lawsuits,CEO,CFO,Enron,Ken Lay,Chaney,Bush,Rectums,ect,ect,.... I take the 5th.... ....ART..... ....Boy without penis... ....:( My head hurts!!!

Your head hurts? Imagine how the boy feels! And somebody tell me how Coppertone is still getting away with that 'doggie pulling down the little girl's bathing suit bottom down' logo. Oh, Schering-Plough has good lawyers.

Actually, I'll buy the CYA defense for DAZ. After all, these days, folks are worried that their AIDS or breast cancer awareness page will run afoul of the latest child 'protection' act out of our esteemed Enron employees, excuse me, legislators. Concerns of this nature forced Thorne to pull his free faeries (which thankfully are coming back).

Regarding Cacheforce, to read their blurbs, they may be bigger than DAZ but they are headquartered in Gibraltar. The Europeans have no respect for good puritan values or American juries.

"There is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress." - Mark Twain

BTW - will Thorne ever bring back the Faeries that he pulled? I started getting interested in Poser about the time he pulled them from his site (I use a very heavily modfied (custom texture, lots of assorted morphs) version of his most recent freebie as the 'mascot' on my site.) Oh, VS - I'm sorry I wasn't clear - when I said "combine the two", I meant watching DAZ combine boy+genitals in a model and then sell it as a set. /P

personally I don't see what all the big fuss is about. So what if Daz doesn't put the genitals on the boys or vicky. They don't come with textures or hair either and there's no big controversy about that. Daz has put together some very decent models that are chock full of morphs. If these models lack some feature you want for an image you find it to download or make it yourself. No big deal.

I think we all know where to find any missing parts, so it's not a big deal or fuss (though an interesting and provocative dicussion). In the case of Vicky however, I would say that it is the basic, dare I say inequity, that is a puzzle. If Michael were similarly equipped (or non-equipped), I think it would fall into the 'that's just the way they do there models' category. I'm not questioning the quality or versatility of their models, just pondering their different philosophies for representing male and female human beings. This has been discussed before and I doubt there will ever be an answer which seems plausible to everyone.

DAZ seems to have looked at the improvements/sugestions other people have made to the figures and incorporated them in some cases. Despite Eve/P4WWG/Hellborn, etc. however, they have not seen fit to create an anatomically correct female. Just seems odd, and yes, perhaps even a bit sexist. But hey, I'm not complaining. Thanks to Traveler, Arduino and others, my Vickys are ready to rumble. Now, if the phone would just ring.

....and where does it stop, will they sue the hardware makers and software companies because digital porn can be created using their products, the ISP's that by their very existence facilitate its transmission, the power companies that give the whole thing life......?

It is a bit like suing an arms/munitions manufacturer because someone shoots someone using one of their bullets that they bought, or a artists materials supply company because someone paints an obscene or illegal image with their product.

I know such things are much more likely to happen in the USA, but it reaches the point of ridicule. At what point does personal responsibility kick in?

What someone might do with your product is not a good argument for not producing. If that were the case cars would all have a 30mph max speed capability, alcohol prohabition would be in place and the legal profession would be banned and classified as a terrorist organisation because of it being detremental to everyone's health!

Daz have no real argument on this one.

Porn and 3D model....let me laugh a bit. Even the best texture and the best pose and the best of everything you want will never do a very good porn like a picture or a photo. I do not do this kind of stuff but for me it is ridiculous. For me DAZ3D should always produce models that stick to the reality or not produce them at all. Do you really think that people who produce, use, download or whatever children porn are interested to plastic 3D porn models.

Well, as we saw in the thred yesterday, the Japanese are real big on plastic kids, and it sure didn't look like they were keeping them around for decorative purposes...