OK, I already know I'm nutz, so forget that. But, has anyone else noticed the recently increasing number of Poser images, where the nude Vickie, or Steph is looking aweful young. Not that you can say a 3D character is under 18, but some of the renders I've seen lately are getting danferously close to going over that line. If some already haven't. Is it illeagel to post nude 3D images of 14 year old girls...even if they are just 3D models? That is a direction I wish not to venture. ~EA

I understand your point, EA. Often I've noticed some suspiciously young looking renders on here..particularly the angels and stuff...BUT, I'm not gonna judge anyone unless its obviously crude. Most of the stuff is not graphic and is simply nude pics of young looking girls. It's not illegal to depict young girls (of any age) -- but it is illegal to depict young girls (rendered or not) in sexually provocative poses.

Well leagly they are all under 18yrs old. Poser hasn't been out that long. And what is the age of puberty for a fairy?

Concider yourself pardoned. My point is/was: "has anyone else noticed " Thus making it kind of stupid to post images for them. ~EA

I went into the gallery and looked at the first two What's New Pages. I didn't see anything like what was mentioned. That's far enough for me.

That's all I'm asking...your opinion. BTW: I wasn't necessaraly speaking of the galleries. It was more of a generized comment. ~EA

I know what you were speaking of, and I agree. It's unnecessary and gratuitous.

with a 3D model surely it's a question of personal perception. In the real world there are people who look 40 when they are only 20 and there are people who are 30 who only look 15. It comes down the admins to make the decision and the way things are at this site these days I feel sure that anything that could possible cause legal repurcussions for the site and, therefore, loss in revenue would immediately be deleted. I think I fit into the former category :(

ElectricAardvark, Yes-yes and I thought the very same thing EA. You have to really watch this. Even if they are sweet and nice works of art. There has been many cases where parents were arrested in some states by just taking very reg baby in bath photos. This is why I do adult fairies. To me it's just common sense, do not do nude's under 18. Even if they are art, some prefert might be getting a kick out of it. 2=== I have noticed a bunch of very tastless posts. that belong in RENDEROTICA because they are sexual acts. Not just nudes. Hell I like sexy nudes. but the ones I'm talking about are more than that. 3- Speaking of Renderotica they do not put up any young people. They are very careful with that.(at less they use to be.) haven't been there in months. Your not nuts EA.

which part? The legal repurcussions, or the 20 looking 40. lol. I have looked the exact same since I was 17. Have for eons, probably alway will. If I shave, I still get ID'd for smokes. hehe ~EA

just a remark: You are speaking about legal contents. I'm living in europe and US law are not applied here. People could say "this pic is illegal" but other could say it's legal cause the law is different. In France you can still take pic of your baby/litle kid in "adam suit" without any problem for exemple. Legal/illegal about nude/youg pic is a very hard to define without a good referencial. I hope i'm clear (english is not my language) Laurent

I've noticed a few, I think I know the ones you're talking about. I saw a few in the MarketPlace that made me do a double take. The legalities are that even virtual images can be considered actionable if they portray or appear to portray minors in sexual situations or lewdly displaying their genitals. I have seen some of what I would consider close to erotic images featuring mature-but-petite bodied figures with patently underage-looking faces. (and the hits go pouring in to the MarketPlace) I haven't seen anything I personally find objectionable but I agree the limit is being nudged. But I'm against censorship in all forms and that most certainly includes fictional images that never involved real people. As the old saying goes: I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend your right to say it. Title 18 of the United States Code governs child pornography. See Chapter 110, Sexual Exploitation and Other Abuse of Children. 18 U.S.C. 2256 defines "Child pornography" as: "any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where - (A) the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; (B) such visual depiction is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; (C) such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or (D) such visual depiction is advertised, promoted, presented, described, or distributed in such a manner that conveys the impression that the material is or contains a visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct . . ."

Hiram, thanks for that list. I also like my freedom and everyone eles too. :O) I wasn't trying to say we ought to be Judges and be delete happy with everything we don't like personaly.

Oh, I wasn't responding to anyone in particular, Turtle. In fact, everything below post 8. was made while I was researching/writing mine.

Hiram wrote:"I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend your right to say it" I couldn't agree more, however, that doesn't mean you have the right to sayit where ever you want to. Having said that (Ducks flaming arrows) I don't think we need to go deleting things either. Just that some people think that there freedom of speech ( US Constitution) allows them to be major a-holes and everyone has to accept it 'cause there protected under the constitution, and that simply isn't so. ~EA

It's the way of the world these days, EA. (insert resigned shrug here)

The portion of the child-porn law pertaining to computer-generated images that Hiram quotes is currently under review by the U.S. supreme court, after having been overturned in a lower court as being unconstitutionally vague. The decision is, as far as I know, still pending. My own view is that all that language about "appearing" and "conveying the impression" leaves law enforcement with insanely broad powers; it means, essentially, that the makers of main-stream movies, say, who cast adults in teen-age roles, could be convicted as child-pornographers if even the movie trailer depicts said adult actors having simulated sex. It basically creates a new class of thought crime, in which a concept is determined to be illegal. It's almost unprecedented in this country--I find it much more disturbing that any mildly eroticsed images of borderline teenage girls.

Well, the code in question seems to center around one requirement, "sexually expicit conduct". What is that? Does standing naked fall in that category? Or are they implying sexual activity (similar to what Bill Clinton denied)? I can tell you right now, I bought a copy of (one of) David Hamilton's books. If you know his work, you know most of the models to be under 18 (most, I would judge between 14-16). Yet the book is sold in the US. I guess the photgraphs are not depicting "sexually explicit conduct". As to the comment from France, I agree. Renderosity is worldwide. The laws on ages and such differ in all countries. And having been to about 25 countries (most of them in Europe), I can tell you we Americans come pretty close to making the top of the "prude list". So, IF anyone is suggesting some slight censorship, I guess we had better make it according to the lowest common denominator (say, the Vatican...grin) and not just assume thngs have to always be tailored for the US.

With fairies that are based on the Millenium girls, we got problems. What is mildly eroticised? For some people ANY nudity is eroticised-- I think, they have a problem since art is, and has been for 9000 yrs, centered around nudes. But they also have a voice. This is a very very subjective area. I, for one, would like specific rules. I'm going to be working with fairies soon. Just bought Ziza. I don't want to be slammed for something I didn't know was wrong. For instance, is the Conforming Ivy prop out of bounds? Are convenient flowers, on an otherwise naked body, out of bounds-?- I'm speaking of a figure based on the Mil PreTeen figure, I don't consider faeries built on standard Victoria to be other than adult. And I'm not talking about sexual situations that involve touching, just nudity or the impression of nudity-- since that seems to be the same thing in the galleries now. And, is nudity on a preteen fairy, out of bounds period? No matter how innocent it appears? It doesn't matter that I don't think it should be out of bounds, I'll live with whatever rules are set up-- my real concern is that the rules are clear and easy to understand. Emily

I've noticed that on occasion. It's kind of funny - the two major 'subgenres' of naked poser babes are 1)naked poser babes with enormous hooters and a size 2 waist and 2) naked poser babes with no chest and very young looking bodies There is a well known maker of fairies who makes the youngest looking poser girls I've seen around - and needless to say any time I see them in an erotic image I cringe. Our best solution? as usual - just don't look!

Well, I'll bite -- tell me why the obsession for creating "eroticized" images of girls that young in the first place. I'm sure the responses will be just enlightening as all hell. :)

VirtualSite-- if you tell me what an eroticised picture is, I might be able to respond. I would be interested in doing atmospheric nudes or seminudes of younger girls to picture my own childhood. I'm female, I turned off on my body rather early-- some of these pictures feel empowering to me and most of them evoke innocence. Needless to say, I'm not planning to do sexual pictures, but I don't equate nudity with sexuality-- I never have. The two can overlap, but they are not the same thing. We are back in the area of what is in the artist's head and the viewer's head, may not, in fact rarely is, the same thing. Emily

I believe -- anyone feel free to correct me, as these are not my predelictions -- that the allure is possibly in the projected "fresh innocence" and that a man would feel that his masculinity and control was unquestionable. An inexperienced young girl (or boy) has no, or limited, basis for comparison. I'll admit to being attracted to girls who are as young as my daughter (who is 25) but there is a difference, I feel, in being aroused by someone of a pre-sexual age and being attracted to a young firm, healthy physique. I don't get it, personally. I think it's an immature and insecure impulse.

I'm just wondering how any computer generated (and I frankly think that was meant to broadly cover the use of digital cameras and photo doctoring of adding a head of a child to a pornographic image) art "involves the use of a minor" in all technical aspects it does not involve the use of a minor, a senior, a middle aged woman or any person at all.

If they say a computer generated image as in the manner in which we create images - than any painter on canvas should also most assuredly fall into the same category if they decide to recreate botticelli or michelangelo etc... Frankly I am waiting for the outcome of this ruling - then if it passes I am waiting for the first instance of a completely unreal image (that in no way uses or depicts an actual person) being held up against this law and watching that concept of the law fall flat on it's face.

Furthermore if they decree a poser character to be legitimate than I would like to start the Society for the Advancement of Mythical Creatures having laws passed against their misuse as well and have a law passed regarding the use of centaurs, griffons and such in sexual scenes as that is pushing the edge of bestiality...

Images of violence should also be banned they show/encourage the rape and torture of women, the abuse of humans as a whole. And anti-political images encourage political traitors (an offense that is still hangable lol)

Art has always depicted nude young figures as they symbolize purity and innocence it doesn't make a creator a pervert. I'm also familiar with various folklore - fairies were erotic creatures - just like mermaids, who tantalised and teased mortal men. They were childlike and sexual.

I have a dear friend who is 43 and has the body of a 12 year old, she is small with no real curves and certainly no breasts - her boyfriend adores her and finds her quite attractive. She isn't a child, but she could resemble one in digital art - hell the woman even has a little pixie face...

Thus far I have never yet seen an image of an overly young girl in a sexually explicit pose. But I also don't flip out at the idea of a mid-teenaged girl in a sexually explicit image - but then again I was a sexually active teenaged girl - married my first husband at 16 ;-)

As for which law governs Renderosity, if they are an American company they fall under the jursidiction of american law, no matter what nationality their members are.

if you tell me what an eroticised picture is, I might be able to respond Emily, I daresay that two minutes wandering in the Poser gallery would tell you exactly what it is. And insofar as what might be in the artist's head... well, sometimes it's far more obvious than the artist probably wishes it were. There's a world of difference between the images in your gallery (and quite nice ones they are, too, if I may say so) and the barely-disguised little erotic fantasies of some people around here. You're right: there's a big difference between nudity and blatant sexuality. Sometimes that chick in the temple can be fully clothed and exude all kinds of sexuality. But my issue goes a little deeper than that right now. We hear all the time about the "celebration of the human body" that these "artists" hoist as their standard and banner. Uh-huh. If one were really celebrating the human body, it would be in all its various forms, not just the Budweiser Swedish Massage Team. Someone laughably posted a long time ago that, if aliens were look at our Poser gallery, they would go away with a very skewed sense of people and women in particular. I guess the "celebration" is confined to pretty much just gender and just one body type and just one skin colour and, as EA points out, pretty much just one age bracket. And that's so lamely predictable, on many levels. Even more so, these days, it seems. We've become such a sexually obsessed society here in North America -- not in the way the Europeans see it, which is a far more healthy POV, IMHO -- but in a merchandised, sell/sell/sell kind of way that reduces everything to its sexual component. Seen the new ads for Bridgestone Tires? We're talking tires here. You know, for cars. The new campaign zeroes right in on the under 21 bracket and turns automotive tires into a 30-second sexual frenzy. And they ain't the only ones: everything, from 0911 on down, is turned into a sexual platform, as if we can't express ourselves any other way anymore. It is indeed the dumbing-down of America.

What worries me is a point that Turtle made earlier. The artist may be thinking entirely of the aesthetics of his picture, but some pervert out there may be enjoying it for totally different reasons. Lots of people may like Wyrmmaster's art because of his obvious breast fixation (nothing inherently wrong with that), but that may not be the intent behind his pictures(I use him as an example purely because I like his stuff). So if an image has a child-like nude figure in it, who exactly is 'tuning in' to look at it. The catogories that Lyrra referred to plainly exist. Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating censorship here, nor am I totally against it, but true freedom of speech exists only as a concept. Otherwise we would not have laws against racial hatred, encitement to riot or child porn. No biggie, I like it that way. Remember, anyone with a PC and a modem can access the internet.

VirtualSite-- I understand what you're saying but it ultimately doesn't help too very much. It puts us back to "I know pornography when I see it." I always wanted to respond, "and do you see it on a regular basis?" I really think we need clear-as-day rules. I just revisited the pic that started my antennas quivering last night. Preteen girl on a Ouija board, scary as heck, sexy, hell yes, in a terrifying way. Out of bounds?? I don't know. I only know I found it inspiring! And, I have no idea if this sort of thing is going to be off-limits imminently. That's the problem. Pervs, like the poor, are with us always. And it doesn't matter how tame you make your pictures, pervs will get off on them. Well, maybe not the nude I post tonight, but she's a big gal and definetly over 18-- I referring to her dress size, if she were wearing one. Don't expect many hits, and don't care. I think I'm more put-off by the blank stares in the Poser gallery and the lack of expression than any of the nudity, male or female. Some of the renders are so darn tasteful they are soulless. I'm pleasantly surprised that I like most of the VV pictures and will probably get the package, though I doubt I'll be scaling her up to double Ds. Emily

Oh, and I mean no personal criticism towards VirtualSite or anybody else who wants to see the place porn free. I only mean good intentions won't do it, clear rules will. And though the rules are very clear now-- although, renders keep pushing them right to the edge and beyond-- it seems most people feel a different standard should be used for underaged models. Even if they only exist in mesh. If so, then those rules should also be in black and white. No guessing. I seem to remember the rules on teen nudity at Renderotica is more stringent than here-- but I haven't been there in awhile and could be wrong. Emily

Hey, can I be the "bordeline underage" mod? Can I? Please?

I don't have a problem with everything seeming like it revolves around sex in America. It's about time we begin to crawl out from under our puritan rock. Up until the last 30 years sex and sexuality was a taboo subject for the most part. That has been changing slowly since the sexual revolution, but since the inception of the internet that has changed. 10 years ago, PORN, was a subject that was occasionally joked about by men when they gathered together. Thanks to pop-ups, tv commercials and movies, sex is become more and more of an open subject. I'd hardly call it a dumbing down, more like an awakening in many respects. As with all things it will take time for the balance to be found. I'm sure I'm going to get trounced for this but in my opinion a pic of a young girl, with no/little breasts and no pubic hair is wrong. I don't care if you slap wings on her and call her the bunjy fairy. If she is nude it gives a serious impression of child porn wether the artist intended it or not. In the last several week I've only run into a few pics that gave that impression. I figure the admins will do something about it if it crosses the legal line.

LadySilverMage: I certaianly don't claim to be an authority on business law in a global setting, but as an ex-holder of Amazon stock, I read the news excerpts on them regularly. Tho an American company, they had to comply with laws in their foreign places of presence. So did E-Bay. Most memerable among these was the selling of WW2 memorabilia in Germany--strictly verbotten! Both of these companies had to wrestle with code that did not allow certain things to be purchased in foreign countries while continuing to make them available in other countries. I even believe there were legal threats made if those companies continued to allow it. So, again, not saying I'm all-knowing in this field, but if Renderosity, tho operating in the US as a US entity, got unhappy scrutiny from a foreign government, I believe they would have to "knuckle under" so to speak. Or else somehow (difficult) exclude accounts from the complaining country.

I only mean good intentions won't do it, clear rules will. But, as you and I both know, clear rules are impossible, particularly when it comes to matters of morality. What's perfectly acceptable to me may be wildly out of bounds for you, and vice versa. It makes it all terribly subjective and therefore impossible to rein in, no matter if both you and I look at it and go, "Now wait a minute here!". And so what do we get? These "borderline" cases, which IMHO serve no purpose except to get someone's jollies off on a Saturday night. Oh, and yeah, it's "art" -- can't forget that, right? :) It's just the way of the world, I guess. Over 35? Don't look like a supermodel? Lady, forget now about marriage. Not hung to your knees? No cleft chin? Bud, better stay home Saturday night. What a pathetic way to have our society enframed. And yes -- based not just on our dear Poser gallery but things reflective of society in general these days -- that's how it is. Logan's Run does indeed live. One other note to the "I'm only celebrating the human body, like the Great Masters did!" artists. Take a look at DaVinci's notebooks sometimes and tell me how many nubile young things he drew in his studies. Then look at the amazing range of humanity he did capture. Same with Raphael. Same with Michaelangelo. Even the Greeks, who idealized the human form in their art, gave it variety and personality and style. These guys all figured out early on that there was more to the human figure than DD boobs.

VirtualSite-- DaVinci and Michaelangelo weren't overly interested in the double D variety so perhaps that isn't the best example.:))) I do respectfully disagree that clear rules are impossible. People will break them, but at least then they know they're doing so and can be told that is happening. They will also disagree with them, but as far as I know nobody's got an inalienable right to post at Renderosity. I still submit that it's the hidden unspoken rules that get you every time. Now, the other problem is being the mouse who'll bell the cat. Who wants to step up and be the "prude" who lays down the law? You see, until there is a clear rule-- all we can voice concerning teen nudity is "opinions." We all know who has those and what else they have in common. I can't believe I'm arguing for censorship. Yeah, I can, cause I don't want to be the ugly test case. Emily

How can we judge the age of 3d figures when people have a hard time judging the age of real people. I was still getting carded at 40. No joke. I had some refuse to sell my beer because I didn't look over 21 and thought that my Driver licence was a fake. The manager told me if I was going to get a fake ID to at least make it realistic. On the same note, a few years earlier I was at a bar with a friend. He and I noticed a couple of young women and being single kind guys walked over and offered to buy them a drink and dinner. They said that buying dinner was fine if we ate early because they had a curfew, and had to be home 10. They couldn't accept the drink because they were both under 18! One was 15 and the other was 16. They had snuck with a crowd that had came in a few moments before. My friend and i beat a hasty retreat. He and I both had thought that the two girls had to be in their mid to late 20's. And don't forget Tracy Lords. She almost shut down the adult film industry for a time when her real age came out.

DaVinci and Michaelangelo weren't overly interested in the double D variety When it comes to DaVinci, that's popular rumour, I think, although you're probably right about Michaelangelo. Still, in Raphael's case, there's no equivocation: the guy was straight as an arrow. Maybe the best way to get "clear rules" is to suggest them. What would you recommend?

Well, I tried to answer and the computer ate my message which I choose to regard as a Message from God--in the Blues Bros sense. I'm sure 'rocity knows a good lawyer and they will come up with something. I was going to split the difference and say no bottomless, since, that young, there ain't no top. Emily

Wierd...same thing happened to me! dodo do do dodo do do (Twilight Zone music) ~EA

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=166262&Start=1&Artist=Penguinisto&ByArtist=Yes

The U.S. Supreme Court may have something to say about guidelines. They will probably have a decision by July, so the Justices can go on vacation. But it's not a sure thing...after all, it was Justice Potter Stewart who coined the phrase "I know it when I see it," which fortunately is not the law of the land. I've written about the law in question at length in at least one other thread, and won't rehash the issue here, except to note that LadySilverMage is correct about the law being intended to apply more toward Photoshop-type cut and paste jobs than to Poser renders, though the law would apply to both, as both are CGI. While pure CGI does not involve the use of a minor, they can "appear" to do so under the law under review, as Hiram's quotation shows. However, an "unreal" image seems to fall outside the scope of the law; hackwork (and probably most faerie pics) would be legally protected, even if the Supremes uphold the law. The purpose of the law is to prevent pedophiles from using realistic CGI as a tool to convince their prospective victims that the conduct shown in the "photographs" are acceptable. It is also true that R'osity, as a private entity, is free to have stricter standards than those imposed by law. Of course, they are in the unenviable position of having to balance such concerns against lost membership and business for a site that primarily caters to artists. I would add that one of the better artists here recently had an image removed from the poser gallery, supposedly because the model looked too young, though the image was certainly not pornographic under any reasonable reading of the Supreme Court's decisions in Miller v. California, New York v. Ferber, and their progeny. It did not depict any sexual activity, and the model was not lewdly exhibiting its computer-generated genitals...indeed, it did not display its genitals at all. In fact, the banned image was largely similar to the vast majority of images posted by this same artist, none of which were banned in the gallery when posted...though all of them appear to be gone now (by action of the artist, I would bet). So it would be advisable to develop guidelines...once the Supremes have had a chance to set the minimum. Otherwise, it seems like at least one of the decisions to remove an image here was basically arbitrary.

Moonbiter: do you avoid the art of the classics such as Michelangelo due to the nudity of his cherubs? I'm really curious about that since they are small toddler children with wings thrown on, how about botticelli? Like michelangelo - and many others he had small naked "children with wings" in paintings with full grown naked adults..... or is it just nude fairies, what about child centaurs? How about naked baby pictures that parents show to friends? where do you draw that line? at the lack of pubic hair?? at girls with no breasts? Many women (even tiny childlike ones) shave their pubic hair. Many would never be mistaken as a child, but it could be said that men who prefer it shaved prefer children - it's a matter of extreme thinking... Many women have little or no breasts as well. What about boys? Do you find images of naked boys swimming in a "watering hole" wrong as well? I'm not picking on you, I really want to know where the line is drawn. I don't do images of nude children or childlike fairies, as well I own/operate MAMBA - Mothers Against Man Boy Abuse (http://mambaonline.org), an anti pedophile site (currently in need of some updates - in a good way!) so it is safe to say that neither do I condone pedophilia or images that are used to convince children sexual behaviour at their age is normal. I am however also not an extremist - that is a dangerous road to take imho as eventually it becomes a witch hunt. Chuck, in regards to sales and purchasing, no comapny may ship goods that are illegal to the place where it is banned, that occurs in the USA as well where some things are banned in some states and not in others. That is the price of business. In regards to online viewing of an image however the company falls under the regulation of the state/country where the busines resides. In this case if naked fairies were illegal in britain (just an example EG) and a brit could view naked fairies on sites that were american or german based nothing could be done. However if the same company were to ship that same naked fairy image to Britain as a poster - that would be illegal. In this case I mentioned that 'rosity would fall under american law as a comment that the US is so much more uptight about sexuality and therefore american sites must meet those stricter guidelines. Although all countries outlaw child pornography. Kbades comment of "The purpose of the law is to prevent pedophiles from using realistic CGI as a tool to convince their prospective victims that the conduct shown in the "photographs" are acceptable." is also correct, but I did not address that, because if a child molestor used an image found here of a little naked fairy and printed it up to convince a child to get naked - the pedophile and not the artist would be cited. However if the artist IS the pedophile that would be different as the law would make an "assumption" of intent and the material would be considered child pornography. It is the assumption of intent on which pornography laws are based.

On a side note: do you realize that if you post images of your children on your website that you may actually be aiding a child molestor? Often times pedophiles distribute child porn across the internet via email - special boards etc. unfortunately they often times use the faces/heads of children from those sites which post images of their children. By putting those heads on their images they hide the identity of the actual victim - making it almost impossible for law enforcement to find the victim and therefore the pedophile. In at least one case a family was investigated, but it was discovered the face had been lifted of their website where they were showing images of their children. Furthermore, I have frequented the boards of these pedophiles as part of an online watchdog group, they will refer each other to links of family sites where there are photos of small children playing nude together. But never have I seen a post referring to a cgi image. I have further managed to convince several schools to not post pictures and names of children on their webpages when giving news about awards. Pedophiles get the name, the school and grade adn therefore the general vicinity of where the child lives. They become obsessed with children from image more often than you'd think, and if they become obsessed with one form a school page they know where to find that child and they tell other pedophiles to go there to look at the "natural" pictures of the kids. So while this concern is helpful to a degree, there are dangers on the web to our children that are far more serious and common and the true enablers are the parents (who post pictures and addresses or photos of their homes and state the city and state where they live) and grandparents and the schools with their bragging images that give out far more information than they shold. after all the number one rule that children are taught in regards to netsafety is to never ever give out personal information - but then their parents and schools do it for them....

This issue seems to come up every few months. It's always interesting to see what people's views are. The reference to David Hamilton reminds me of the case a few years ago, where Barnes & Noble was hauled into court for selling Hamilton's photography books. Ironically, the Rev. Jerry Falwell was also burned when it turned out that the student bookstore at his Liberty University was selling the same books. Hamilton, Barnes & Noble and Falwell were all free at last report. While guidelines seem good in theory, I find it difficult to see how they could be formulated without being subjective. As has been pointed out, even 'carding' real people is problematic. How on earth can one determine if a Poser figure is 18 or 15 years of age? Obviously in the case of the figures which were designed as children, it's easy, but a morphed Vicky? Practically speaking, I think the that only thing that could be done is banning any "sexual" (if you can define that) image of any kind regardless of "age." A merely nude image of any figure isn't in my opinion pornographic or obscene. Unfortunately, for anyone trying to make these calls, some people will consider any nude image offensive. Some will find bare breasts OK but the pubic area off limits. One person's cute fairie is another's pre-teen sex object and on it goes. Frankly, what I find a little disturbing is the idea of self-censorship based on trying to divine what some hypothetical pervert might see in an image. Sexuality is perhaps the most diverse aspect of human nature, and someone will be turned on by just about anything imaginable. I certainly understand wanting to err on the side of caution, but it still seems like this whole thing has become just a little insane and I'm not sure who's running the asylum. Then again, people used to think their kids were safe in church.

"(B) such visual depiction is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;" Re: Hiram's post of a (proposed) law... For all those thinking of proposing rules/guidelines, here is one being considered now. This one supposedly being created with the help of legal experts. I submit to the audience of this thread: YOU tell me if item (B) will be appicable to a Poser character...the keywords seeming to be, "or appears to be". Secondly, for enthusiastic readers of this thread (trans: those who have had enough interest to respond), please tell me, without any room to "wiggle" just exactly what "sexually explicit conduct" means. I'm asking because I can't figure it out myself. The word I "trip" on most is "conduct". Which one might think infers some sort of activity or action. Clinton denied having had sexual activity with Monica though many others believed what he did WAS sexual activity (read: conduct). Of course, maybe Clinton's view was that the cigar was the one involved in the activity ;-) On a side note, one thing seems to be apparent in this thread...no name-calling and otherwise personally insulting remarks to those who have disagreed with others remarks. Nice to see it that way.

The Supreme Court is not likely to support a ban on computer generated porn, adult or otherwise, as no real children have been involved. Ultimately the courts will not support a ban on crimes based on the possession of porn or any other form of expression. The only basis upon which any form of expresion (aka speech) can be made illegal is through the consequences of an utterance (speech, picture) such as some one dying as a result of yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. Libel and slander are subject to legal recourse but only after the utterance has been made and with proof that it had an actual effect. The receipt of a utterance , i.e. listening to a banned broadcast, or possession of a banned document, is not likely to be held illegal ... in the long run. But not before some artists and some civilians have their lives ruined or are incarcerated in the meantime. If I'm all wrong on this, then maybe we ought to look as some really dangerous stuff .... the Bible, Koran, and Torah are clearly resulting in the deaths of millions. Certainly the principle of banning the possession of material for which a nasty outcome is thought to be associated carries to all forms of speech.

Sorry if I missed a similar comment in the above, as this thread is getting pretty big, but where does "sexually explicit conduct" = nudity? To me, entire different things, aside from the fact you can perform "sexually explicit conduct" fully clothed. I do know how to read, I have a pretty good grasp of the english language (even if I can't spell it!), why do I think people read more into this than really exists? Tracy Lord's videos were banned becaused she was doing you-know-what, not because she wasn't wearing any clothing. Yes, I think the county is going insane.

Just to throw something else into the mix: We need to take a step back and look at the media we are using: it is a graphics application on a computer. Yes, it can produce "photo-realistic" images, but that fact it this: it is NOT a picture. NOT people (especially children) were "harmed" (or even used) to make the images. These are geometric meshes with coloring applied to it. When fully rendered, it appears to be a person. But, it appears to be- it has never been (and will never be) an actual person. No photographs were used in the product of the final render. (Well, maybe a photo was used as reference, but it's not part of the end result.) Technically, these characters are 2 or 3 years old. Vicky and Mike are around a year old (roughly). Stephanie is a few months old. Going by their "age", does that mean there should be NO nudes of them for the next 17 years (until they are "legal adults" in USA)? And for that matter, do we have the "right" to make nude images of them? After all, if they're "under age", how can they give "legal consent" to have their likeness posted on the Internet? Can anyone see how absurd the whole "computer generated models" as child porn" can get? --John

On a side note, one thing seems to be apparent in this thread...no name-calling and otherwise personally insulting remarks to those who have disagreed with others remarks. Nice to see it that way. ChuckEvans, you inconsiderate slut. There. The thread's back to normal. :) To Jim: I don't think the issue is nudity per se. I think everyone on the thread here agrees that nudity itself is no big deal. The issue comes when you see an image that is purposely borderline pornographic and the subject happens to be a little too young-looking for comfort. Am I right in this assessment of the thread, folks?

Can anyone see how absurd the whole "computer generated models" as child porn" can get? In Vancouver recently, there was public outrage over the trial of a man who was writing child porn stories involving bondage and S&M scenarios. His lawyer argued that these were works with literary merit, and the judge -- incomprehensibly -- agreed. The guy got off free. Now, maybe they were his entries into the Hemingway Competition, but I kinda doubt it. They were posted to a board that was a known haven for child pornographers, not a literary magazine. Still, no children were actually harmed in their writing. Does that make it okay? Sorry, not in my books. If anything, this case is an excellent example of just how insane it truly is sometimes.

Whoa, back up... "Re: Hiram's post of a (proposed) law..." This is not the proposed law. You missed the line: "Title 18 of the United States Code governs child pornography. See Chapter 110, Sexual Exploitation and Other Abuse of Children. 18 U.S.C. 2256 defines "Child pornography" as: "

Hiram: My mistake. Guess I should have gone back and read the portion I used as the basis for my remark (to wit: "The portion of the child-porn law pertaining to computer-generated images that Hiram quotes is currently under review by the U.S. supreme court, after having been overturned in a lower court as being unconstitutionally vague.") I mistakenly remembered it being proposed instead of under review. VirtualSite: Hey, at least I'm not an underaged inconsiderate slut !

Hi this is just a thought (perhaps to put the cat amongst the virtual pigeons) and I'm not agreeing with what may be described a devient behavior............. but perhaps people creating images such as the ones mentioned may help some to get rid of or help their problems. perhaps someone with a bit more psychology than me could answer. btw I come from the uk so perhaps I'm repressed anyway:-) but seriously tho I like the discussion Dave