Rob, The only difference is that instead of using Eve, or Traveler's morphs, or jumping through hoops to get replacement hip sections to take the same texture map alignments an artist who needed a full female figure will simply pose the standard female. If realistic anatomy was important before, it will continue to be so, it is just less of a hurdle and less discriminating. :: Why should the art in the galleries be any different? I would hope for more variety, but whether it is a nude male or a nude female, any suggestive thoughts are in the mind of the beholder. Are you familiar with the statue called "Venus of the Beautiful Buttocks"? Basically, she's lifted her robes to gaze at her reflection from behind and below. The look on her face is one of satisfaction, but it is a charming one, not arrogant at all. Should something like that be classed as pornography when there is nothing titillating about it? She could be any mature woman happy that she is keeping an attractive figure... and that simple pleasure is the source of her appeal, rather than lustful thoughts. We might be seeing a few more images in the classical mode of women washing their feet or dressing (especially with the new cloth)... and if this reveals a bit more of her anatomy than the tippty-toe-in-the-temple scene, I'm not going to complain. I'm not prudish. In a long history of art classes, I've had 3 1/2 years of life drawing: dancers, pregnant women, old men, the works, everybody except children. The human body is pretty interesting, and pretty nifty for what it does. Science has yet to develop a synthetic "skin" which works half so well. My taboos concern violence. You guys go blech at the idea of underarm hair, whereas I flinch from the thought of exit wounds. At least hair is natural. So is what women have and what men have. I'm just glad that we finally have equal treatment. :) Carolly