Is someone working on providing Stephanie with some reproductive organs? She is very versatile but some realism would be welcome.

Hmmmmmm why?

So people can make porno, of course.

Poser porno? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Naw, I think its for something legitimate. Maybe a school project? ;)

ROFL

I don't "get" all the fascination with morphing genitalia and such. Guess my use for poser is abnormal. BTW, I even removed the Dork's dork in the mesh...

For a lot of us the issue is one of natural beauty, whether female or male. This has nothing to do with porn. To many people the human body looks disfigured with part of the anatomy missing. It is as distracting to see no genitalia where according to nature they belong as it would be to see no ears or feet. I would rather see figleafs than amputations, because figleafs only cover, whereas removed genitals imply a motivated mutilation of the pattern of natural beauty. Porn is cheap erotica and both porn and erotica have to do with sexual arousal. The sight of genitals may in and of itself be sexually arousing to some people, but certainly not to all of us. Not to me. And things that are not genitals can be arousing to many people. High-heeled shoes, long blond hair, etc. (Not to me!)

True pj-bear, I am a pen-and-ink artist that uses 3d models as 2-d tools. I have an appreciation for fine nudes - my wife used to be a fine-nude model. However, I guess it depends on what the user is using Poser for. I like removing the genitalia because my final renders are going to be clothed and I'm looking at the end result from the beginning. I'm not mutilating them as an anti-porn crusade ;)

By not including female genitalia, they are saying that there is something wrong or nasty about OUR bodies... as opposed to the male anatomy. This is discrimination of the most obvious sort. ::grrrrr:: We don't need the innards, but some natural shaping of the labia would help a lot. Carolly, female and proud of it

Oh yeah Khepricaun. It makes complete sense as a means to an artistic end. But I think we agree that for many of us genitals are not the same as porn. They are just proper parts of the anatomy. One does not even have to be talking about fine nudes in my opinion, to justify leaving the genitals intact. A naked, wrinkled, bent, old woman or man would also look even more disfigured to me if the genitalia were removed. Frankly it would not look like serious art if something were removed that would normally be seen in a given pose. Of course if you are going to cover with clothing ultimately, then that is another issue.

And you want this for what? I suppose if you were doing nudes lying on their backs with their legs spread this might be an issue, but otherwise what's the point?

I think they explained the whole reason they removed the genitals... Since she was made off of the Michael Mesh... Go to the Daz site and FAQ or write them an e-mail

I personally think the conscious act of ADDING male genitalia to a models (it takes work (and money for pay), you know) and consciously NOT ADDING female genitalia is the most sexist act of public mutilation I have witnessed. We all sprang forth from our mothers' womb. I prefer not to have her "sewn back up," thank you. Either provide both or neither sex. Anything else is, by definition, a sexist affront. I don't care what DAZ's rationalization is. It's sexist rationalization.

Why, is not a question you get to ask. Why is up to the user. What one wishes to use Poser for, is that person's own business. Asking this gets you into the area of propaganda, and propaganda in its orginal sense at that. The mesh in the hip is too sparse to support much in the way of morphing. The area of the pubic bone may have enough to shape. In my estimation, the rest will require a prop. Someone is probably going to do this by merging the prop with the hip geometry. This will negate morphs, and mess up the texturing. Granted, DAZ' patch job on the replacement hip mapping looks a little strange, with the saw tooth border, but it is flat. I think the prop should just be that, a prop. It will work just as well.

Hmmm. I'm not buyin' any of it. Nature is sexist if you want to get right down to it. That's why men are big and strong and women are little and weak.

KIDDING!!!!!
(I'm going to get my ass kicked for that, I know it. Before any body jumps on me I'll have you know I used to be married to a big, beautiful, black woman who could kick my butt at wrestling. Sometimes.)

But really:
The simple fact is that female genitalia are primarily internal. For most art purposes, the external bits are easily supplied with good texture and bump maps... unless of course you want to do erotica.

I'm not saying that there's not a legitimate reason to provide genitalia, I like to do erotic images too. But I'm not going to veil that with pretenses about natural beauty.

The female models, as they are, are more than adequate to express natural femininity in a huge variety of forms. Whereas, a male without a penis and testicles is obviously missing something.

The only reason to provide more than the groove we get is to be able to get up close and open it up. As I said, that's fine if that's what you want to do. Just say so, instead of being embarassed about what you're really making Vickie do at night.

RANT WARNING
Ask yourself why the hell Mike is circumsized. That's religious persecution!! I WANT FORESKIN MORPHS! Men's bodies are beautiful in their natural state! This is anti-male! It's sexist too! Why are they foisting MUTILATED figures on us???

Whatever.
I'm sick to death of party-line politics. "Let's see... is there something in this that I could possibly be offended at? There is!! Oh goody! I get to rant my favorite rants! All pre-packaged and ready to go! I don't even have to think them through myself, 'cause I read them in Utne Reader!"

snickers at the rant warning from Hiram Actually, my husband would say that the female body is a thing of beauty, the male body is a thing of mirth ;) Something about looking half goat when bent over or such ;) Anyway, kudos, FORESKIN!!!!! Now there's something you hardly ever see.... though I have to say while you're at it in rationalizing..... The only to objects with real genitalia are the Male Poser Humans and Bloodsong's Heavy Horse..... That be it as far as I've seen. The dogs don't have it, the cats don't have it, the horses and dragons don't have em.... heck, as far as I've looked (okay I haven't gone around lifting up the poser-kitty's tail to check so I may be wrong) They don't even have a sphincter much less a working mouth on a few of them ;) Poor little creatures.... must be plan boring sitting on my hard drive all night without being able to do anything but watch Eve and Michael go at it while the user's asleep ;) Heck some of em can't even play with their poser chewtoys cause their mouths won't open ;) Okay, I'm punchy, but I thought I'd add to the sillines ;) Hugs all around, Lilfox

I'm not sure where the propoganda or party-line idea comes from. Look at Vicky's body. See something missing? If not, either you are blind, not female, or never seen a real nude woman before. The visual impact of a female without genitals is the exact visual impact of a male without genitals. Female genitals are automatically erotic and male genitals are not?

Ok, I'll try to be helpful... carlosmanuel there are RealFem projects at morphworld for Vicky and P4, have you tried one of those models? Perhaps in time there will be something for Steph...

littlefox, ROFL!

I am working on a Steph version of the Hi-Rez gen prop as I type. It should be ready soon.

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

You GO, Hiram! Personally, I'd like enough morphs on Mike's, ahem, extremity, that you can do something just kinda vaguely realistic with it if he's lying on his side... now, I don't mind stickinng straight out, but comes a point, you know. BTW, there are some foreskin morphs at Penguin Bar: http://www.penguinbar.com/Main/Other/other.htm if you don't mind a bit of healthy gay eroticism.

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/softgood.ez?ViewSoftgood=4572

"If not, either you are blind, not female, or never seen a real nude woman before. The visual impact of a female without genitals is the exact visual impact of a male without genitals." I'm neither blind or female and I've seen at least my share of many different body types of women. The second half of the statement is obviously ridiculous. Male genitalia ***hang off the body for crying out loud!*** It's painfully simple to make these female models look complete. Anything beyond that is projecting an ideology onto the makers that suits your agenda. Check out the link. I give you exhibit A: Yuma. What more do you want, *a cervix? A urethra?* Hell, I don't see anybody complaining about the lack of a Millenium uvula! Party-line politics is simply endorsing and adopting a stance because that's what your gang does, not because you've thought it through and agree. It happens a lot in discussions concerning misplaced accusations of sexism. ***Challenge:*** Post a reasonably artistic photo of a nude woman that's not porn, sexualized or focusing on the genitalia (you know, spread-open labia), that no-one here can get a similar image of with Stephanie or Vickie, sans props. It must be within the Renderosity TOS. I'll be among the first to blow it out of the water.

Why is it that every time this issue comes up, the person requesting it is accused, albiet subtly, of being a pervert? And the person is asked WHY they want that. It's no one's business. All characters wear shoes in my renders, but I wouldn't like it if the models came without feet.

"Personally, I'd like enough morphs on Mike's, ahem, extremity, that you can do something just kinda vaguely realistic with it if he's lying on his side..." I know, huh? "if you don't mind a bit of healthy gay eroticism. " Ah, a bit of healthy gay eroticism never hurt any--- well that's probably not true if you count jail time served. Never mind. But I'm going there now.

LOL Hiram! Now, I don't mind detailed female models, but Hiram's point is well taken: the female body is much more cleverly designed than the male, with all the bits on the inside, where they will not be subject to excess cold, heat, or accidental landings whilst attempting a slippery stile on a dark morning. For scenes that aren't clinically focused on the female genitalia, a good texture map is all you need. If somebody wants something more detailed-- hey, even if they are a pervert and want to create horse-rattlesnake-Vicky porn, I don't really mind, but I can't see much rationale for it in most artwork.

You sayin' this ain't art???

...but can someone please make a rectal prop that opens up really wide? Oh, and how about a "throbbing clitoris" morph, preferably with an animated pose? Also, I need a poseable urine stream, a really good inner labia bump map (something at 3000x3000 should do nicely) and a strap-on dildo. Oh yeah, and a nice helmet. I need these for an artful nude.

LOL! You rock, Legume. I've learned to always swallow my coffee first before reading your posts.

It's painfully simple to make these female models look complete. Anything beyond that is projecting an ideology onto the makers that suits your agenda. Check out the link. I give you exhibit A: Yuma. What more do you want, a cervix? A urethra? Hell, I don't see anybody complaining about the lack of a Millenium uvula!< My God, youre right....my characters have no UVULAS!....no wonder I can't get them to yodel! This is a disaster...I'm going to lose the "Swiss Miss Instant Cocoa" contract.... Scarab <-yodelaydeehooooooooo

All of this has little to do with Stephanie. This has all to do with the simple fact that all of us are enamored with a wonderfully inadequate piece of software. We go to incredible extremes and expense only to find that when we try to approach realism, the software is inadequate. It does not matter how or why we want more realism. It just matters that we do. The common thread here is that we all want more detail and flexibility. We spend our time and money in increasing amounts trying to make up for the deficiencies in the product we use. The fact that the Poser community exists with it's many wonderful, commercial resources is evidence that we do not get what we want. The length of this very topic thread tells me that we all want the same thing:JUST LET ME DO IT! That means to what ever degree. A small cleft on Stephanie, or a gaping genital oriface with hugely swollen lips. Doesn't matter which. We either tell the "Lab" or shut up. There's enough of us we can have an impact. I hope their staff members are reading. Maybe there's room for a more complete piece of software instead of a Poser 5. Let's face it: We can't all get in the same phone booth 'cause we aint all makin' the same call! We all gotta call, 'cause we all gotta' communicate!

A well made point. I'm sure that DAZ or CL will be happy to give us a sphincter on the Next Millenium Model, all in the cause of realism, if we all just asked for it. The technology exists to give us everything we're asking here, but will it still be a mid-range consumer product? No. It would be MEGAPoserXL-5000 bundled with Maya, Lightwave and some other motion picture studio proprietary stuff we've never heard of. This is hobby level stuff here, folks. There's a limit. Beyond that, there's Traveler and the other fine people who make us morphs and props. I have a pretty vivid imagination, and I can't think of a whole lot that I can't do with what I've got (now that I have those dandy foreskin morphs). You want to complain about improving models? How about a few extra polygons around those elbows, huh?

HA HA HAA HAA HAA! FEAR ME, PUNY GENITAL-LESS WOMEN! I AM STRONG AND BIG AND POWERFUL!!! I HAVE GENITALS!!! I HAVE MORE POLYGONS THAN YOU!! I CAN... Wha...? I have less clothes? I need third-party stuff to get it up? ...... Never mind.

Well, it is not that difficult to change the hip region at all with a little MT. When I saw Stephanie does not have genitals I just said to myself: well make your own. May it be pervert in your eyes or not, I think I will offer a freebie soon in the Free Stuff section. Anyone who has no use of it can decide not to download it. I don't want to start a flame war, BUT: can it be that some of you are deep in american puritanism (I admit I'm from Europe)?? I know, it is a provoking question. But again: who has no us for that morph must not download it and use a map to show what he/she wants to show (or cover). IMO it is a kind of censorship to mean that anyone using a gen MT is a pervert. How about nipples? You can show them in a plain map too, but, well... showing naked breasts, isn't that close to porn? What I mean: just relax. Noone is forced to use gen MTs, noone should be treated as a pervert if he/she does. Legume: how about a cell model of inner labia? Pervert enough? Traveler: Looking foward to your freebie! Jackson: I agree comletely.

I don't care about the genitalia, just as long as she's ... soft! ;=]

I love it, geep! I think it's dead, Jim. No takers on the challenge? Damn. I was looking forward to that.

And that pic is "not porn, sexualized or focusing on the genitalia"?

Give me a break. What are you, sixteen? Do you know what "sexualized" means? An ad for what kind ofclothing? Let's see... could it be PVC fetish clothing? I think so. Aside from the fact that that's a really hot picture (I'll give you that), I'm insulted. Does anybody here think this comes anywhere close to filling the criteria of my challenge? Besides, if she's clothed how can she be nude? (just kidding) No, seriously, I can see this on your wall, framed, when mom comes over: "No mom, that's not porn. It's a clothing ad featuring a tasteful nude. No, it's not about the vagina, you have to look past the vagina into her soul. I think your objectivizing her mom; no I don't just keep it up so I can look at her vagina. Why do you keep focusing on her vagina? Well, I don't know why she shaved it... maybe she has a condition. No, I'm sure it's not because she wanted us to see it more clearly." Please.

Had to repost because I forgot the nudity flag. As I said before, this is an ad for latex clothing. And, no, My mom wouldn't appreciate the art, but my wife does. I'm not going to engage you in a debate over what is porn. This is "reasonably artistic" and meets the TOS.

BTW, Hiram, you may be looking for the word: Vulva: The external genital organs of the female, including the labia majora, labia minora, clitoris, and vestibule of the vagina. Vagina is a different word: The passage leading from the opening of the vulva to the cervix of the uterus in female mammals. You cannot see this person's vagina in the photo.

Whatever. I was just trying not to say pussy. Besides in my original post I said labia. Fer cryin out loud, I'm 44, been married 3 times, have 2 kids who are married, I think I've figured out a few clinical details. You're skirting the issue: That's a sexually oriented image. It's about her VULVA. It's trying to sell latex "clothes" with her VULVA. My whole original point was that for NON-sexual imagery, our current models are adequate. I stand by that.

And a render of Mike with his nearly erect 8" penis is not sexual imagery? And a woman's vulva is? By who's definition? Yours?

If a tired female goes into the bathroom to take a shower, disrobes, and kneels on one knee with her head on the sink to feel the cool porcelain just for a moment, the fact that she is kneeling on one knee and exposing her vulva is sexual? This is why I said the discussion of what is porn or not is never-ending. The image is reasonably artistic and is within the TOS. You are hiding behind self-made definitions and self-made rules. I accepted the challenge fair and square, and you are replying with opinion. You said you could reproduce it. Do so.

Nobody saw that coming, did they? "If a tired female goes into the bathroom to take a shower, disrobes, and kneels on one knee with her head on the sink to feel the cool porcelain just for a moment, the fact that she is kneeling on one knee and exposing her vulva is sexual?" No. That fact that someone would take a picture of it might be though. But that's not what I see here. I don't see a tired female here, in a moment of simple human refreshment. What I see here is a picture of a stereotypical (silicone implanted, mind you) porn model saying "Aren't I hot? See my "genitalia"? If you bought some of these rubber clothes, hot babes like me would rub themselves all over you, too." You're pretty new to Poser aren't you? Otherwise you would have chosen a more challenging image. I'd advocate doing a good look-through in the Gallery here and on Renderotica so you can see just what's possible with a little experience and artistic talent. But my guess is you just want to push buttons and make pussy pictures.

Look. You are the one who posted the challenge, not me. You are the one who restricted it to a photograph and got impatient when you didn't get a quick reply, not me. I could have found a better picture if I had more time. I say -- stand behind your challenge and render it with DAZ Vicky out of the box. I am not interested in your vulgarities. Do the job you said you can do. And I quote, "I'll be among the first to blow it out of the water." And if you don't like her clothes, remove them. Show me the render.