Inasmuch as Poser has not been around for 18 years, and Vicki and Mike for just a couple, all the models are under the age of 18. Better remove all the nude renders ;)

Yeah that's sarcastic and stupid, but its the same kind of insanity as pulling a nude fairy because you think it "looks" young. Fairies are mythical magical creatures with commonly accepted standards of their appearance...small, slender, and delicately featured. That doesn't make them children. They could be 500 years old and look the exact same. Hell, its part of their appeal.

IMHO this demonstrates the problem with trying to prevent any form of nudity that "might appear" to be someone of a certain age. I submit that trying to write that into the TOS and enforce it in any kind of fair and reasonable manner is impossible. It leaves far too much open to interpretation, and depends too much on the bias and attitude of the individual viewer.

Tonight, I had a dramatic demonstration that nudity of small children is neither offensive nor pornographic. Primetime did another special about the Dilly Six Pack (the first sextuplets born in the US for those of you who don't know). During the lead-in then again in one of the segments, they showed all six children (boys and girls) taking a bath together. Even the penis was shown in these segments, and there weren't any censor bars. We're talking US network television here folks...the most repressed mass media outlet we have. If ABC can show it to millions over broadcast airwaves, I sure don't see any reason for Renderosity to freak out about it.

Right now, the TOS prohibits:

• Depictions of physical arousal or sexual acts.
• Genital contact with ANY object, other than sitting or clothing.

Why is this not sufficient? It doesn't say "adult physical arousal" or "human sexual acts". So why do children, fairies, etc. have to be specifically named? Is there some reason this can't simply be applied equally to all images?