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.