Hi, I see that since we have a paragon of diplomacy as a forum mod, it will be very easy to debate and discuss the latest wish from some of the users :-) Could we please have a galelry addition for soft porn/erotica ? Less bitching in the galleries, and more hits from the crowd with an interest in them. Not everyone wants to post at 'rotica anymore, it seems. ~S

~smacking spinner's fingers~ while I can see your point spinner, the idea raises a hot subject for debate over every image that would be posted, is this soft / erotic or is it hard core / explicit. it is always a touchy subject, that can cause no end of headaches for all that wander into the gallery. then there is the sensitive issue of keeping monirs out of the gallery to the best of the site's ability. sorry, but not everyone that is an adult had a credit card so the most common and effective methods would lock out anyone without a credit card, but if mommy or daddy has credit card, any child can get the number and get past the protection. even casual nudity is a problem if there are children accessing the site, and Renderosity's current format allows children to legally be here.

Same goes for rotica, though... anyone can lie on the ToS and get access...As for credit cards as ID, I see your point. I also see your point re: minors. Again, I'd oppose hardcore, but with the almost weekly nagging going on about nudes in the gallery, maybe this could be a way to go ? A pretty damned strict ToS/gallery guideline would have to be in place, and i am also not advocating things get hotter/steamier than they are now. ~S

The only reason there IS a Renderotica was because Renderosity couldn't be associated with "adult content". One of Renderosity's functions is (or was, as I'm not current on EdgeNet's view of this subject) to showcase the Bondware software as a successful way of reaching your tagret audience, and at the time it was decided that adult stuff was better off on a site of it's own, as potential Bondware customers might be offended at seeing Vicky take a stiff one up the pooper. Also, considering that several 'respectable' companies help sponsor this site, they may have something to say regarding their association with a site that contains "Poser Porn".

How come it's called "adult content" when only kids want to look at it?

If we were to have a nekkid gallery, would we have to take our clothes off to look at it?

I've just checked out Renderotica (so that I could give a well balanced opinion - honest!!) and all I can say is please keep poorly produced so-called 'erotic' art off Renderosity. I'm not a prude or a religious fanatic, but I look at Renderosity images for good 'art'.....if people need cheap porn images for titillation then there are plenty of other places available for them.

There are folks who find "adult" content objectionable. While I don't share their opinions, I do respect their opinions. Personally, I'd like to see 'rosity stay a kid/prude friendly place. Seems to me there are plenty of folks posting at 'rotica. Frankly, I find it to be a better (more fairly) managed site. I can't remember the last time I saw a thread locked in their forums.

"I see that since we have a paragon of diplomacy as a forum mod" Who? Where? Since when?

Why is it the responsibility of artists posting in Renderosity to censor their artistic expression for the sake of protecting children who have been brought up in such a lax manner as to steal their parents Credit Card numbers to gain access to potentially Harmful images? Kids can see deeply corrupting stuff on TV anytime they wish and that's just the news programs! Parents are responsible for their children and what their children see, not Renderosity! The tone of the above outburst is mild and enquiring.

Personally, I don't want this to become a place I can't send my folks to because of cheap nudity renders. Rotica is alright, and I -am- a non-posting member, but let's face it... some of the pictures are less then good and just for the sake of showing pussy! Never mind the kids... think of your other family! I have problems enough explaining why I paint a man in the nude.

"Why is it the responsibility of artists posting in Renderosity to censor their artistic expression for the sake of protecting children...." It's the same responsibility that keeps a convenience store from mixing "Penthouse" in with kid's coloring books. It's the same responsibility that keeps "Toys-R-Us" from selling dildos. It's the same responsibility that keeps Nickelodeon from playing "The Red Shoe Diaries." As a parent, I am responsible for what my child sees, but if a web site or TV channel has a "PG-13" type rating, I shouldn't have to be constantly supervising that child. There's a place for everything, but I doubt the majority of 'rosity members want 'rosity to be the place for porn.

spinner, ignoring the rabid posts, even if the majority of the members were to say "artistic nudity / erotic content" is wanted, with Renderosity being a "Showcase" for bondware, and the fact that legally Renderosity is liable for the content if a child sees "adult" content, I doubt that the requested gallery will ever come into being. may be unfair to make the site's liable, but that is the way it is online, and we have to live with it. as far a Renderotica's ease of joining even as an "Adult" site, they have enough coding that the content watch in ie that a lot of parents have enabled will lock the children out of their site. again, not a perfect solution, and it is only ie that has this filter ( at least I haven't seen it in opera or netscape )

.

Yup, the ultimate decision/responsibility on content lies with the owners of the site.

When I refer friends who are deeply interested in 3D art, programs, design, etc. and want to learn, I spend at least five minutes explaining to them most of what they see will be cheap, tasteless, tacky images/attempts at soft core porn - porn enough to evade the TOS.

No - is my vote. It's bad enough that if I want to surf here at work, I have to constantly keep a page on top of Renderosity because of the borderline banner ads. As it is, I can't surf the gallery's if my kids are in the room and I'm not moving my computer into the bedroom.
I personally am getting tired of nudes for the sake of nudity. There is little enough creativity in the gallery as it is. (show me an image that conveys a reason for then nudity for a change) Imagine the extra work of trying to keep soft porn allowed in one gallery out of the poser gallery.
Not to mention the nudity in Marketplace items, I mean really, why does an ad for an Airplane Ejection seat need a nude?

1. I do the same as Kendra at work, I often keep a page on top of 'rosity - people HAVE been wondering - it's great fun to have the CEO walk in and you have to explain all these thumbnails of nekkid wimmin ;-) 2) I really want a straight, non-heated/flamey debate on this, I am getting a tad tired of the amount of skin in the galleries, and would very much like that to be in a gallery of it's own - People who like to draw and look at nudes hang there, and I dont have to wade through them to see other stuff in the poser gallery. 3) A lot of the stuff currently IN the galleries already qualifies as softporn/erotica - It's the stuff I'd like to see moved. Why would this be a bondware showcase issue ? it's -already- there ? 4) Due to point 3, the argument about children is a bit moot, as they already can click on it. 5) This could also be turned upside down, allow -less- skin in the galleries. I'm assuming people understand now that a)I'm not a member of Moral majority, and that b) I don't want a 'rotica gallery in the galleries - Just one for the stuff that we're already seeing, and that I'd like to see where the debate took us. It does of course raise the question where Legume would have to put his naked Armadilloes, Ponies and vicki/Pony hybrids... ~S Jaqui - ab. Opera & adult filter, I"ll check that out, send you an IM. (Unless you virtually smack my fingers one more time..Then I"ll have to get nasty back at you ;-) )

I don't visit 'osity at work. Too much nudity as it is and that just can't occur on a workstation at the office. Personally, I think there's enough nudity on osity. The occasional nude figure in art is one thing, the senseless posting of "help me with this parameter dial" and a nude image is another. People post nude images when they don't have to and I don't really appreciate that.

From what I read here, spinner's suggestion would actually take care of the problems that have been raised as objections to it. Putting the nudes into one gallery would make them easier to avoid if you don't want to see them. That would make R'osity more work-safe - you wouldn't see any nudes if you didn't click on the gallery. As she says, the nudes are already here.

The site owners have the right to set a TOS and if you join you agree to it. It is very simple and since it is a privately owned site open to public membership the membership can't vote a change and expect it to happen. The site owners have gone as far as they are interested in going and that's fine for me. As to trying to put all nudes into a separate well guarded gallery, what a mess that gallery would be since it would probably have to include nudes fom all the other galleries mixed together. Actually, it would end up looking like a mini prn site within Renderosity. I think that would be more disturbing. Also a well done nude from say, 2D would now be thrown in with the Nekkid temple Vickys. most of us would never go there because we won't want to go to the mini porn site. Renderosity does it's best to stay in the middle, allowing that nudes are art, but limiting the the content of the nudes. The only suggestion I can make is that the thumbnails be cropped alittle and the nudity flags be more strictly adheared to. Otherwise, you have what you signed up for as per TOS.

BY the way, if you really want to avoid the nudes, couldn't you change your membership to pre 13?

I rarely do nudes, but if I do I doubt if I would ever post them in a softporn/erotica gallery. Mostly because they are never intended to be either soft porn or erotic; I try to use nudity in a symbolic manner and its part of the story that has to be told. Whenever such a softporn/erotica measure should be implemented, I presume I would choose not to post at Renderosity at all, period. An alternative solution could be that R'osity implements some sort of a system where images containing nudity are flagged and each user could decide for him/herself whether they want to see nudity or not. Oh,... wait a minute,... OOPS!! :-)

roobol, problem is, that the artist has to check the box for the current system to be effective. ~wink~ then the banners that have nudity ( not many but some do ) don't get that same check box. so the banners are exempted from the tos re nudity.

I would suggest as an addendum to the labeling of nudity in pictures to including no nudity in the thumbs as well. Some try to be creative about it, but far too few to make it effective. Not to mention the amount of people who forget (deliberately or not) to flag their art as nude. I'm all for placing all nudes in a single seperate gallery, and I am firmly against including soft porn/erotica. What we have here now is enough I think and opening it up will make the situation worse. Just because we can download porn in fifty bazillion places in the world, does not mean we should stoop to that level as well. IMHO

But how do you define "soft porn" vs "nudity?"

Attached Link: http://www.icra.org/_en/community/affiliates/

Just out of curiosity: where are all the softporn images in the galleries? I haven't come across a single image that my nine year old daughter couldn't see. She often stands beside me when I browse the gallery and if there is a nude Mike or Vicky why is that something that a child can't see? But then I live in germany and nudity is something normal over here, nothing to hide the children from. They even run naked at the beaches and in the swimbath - so what is there to worry about?
Don't get me wrong, I just don't understand it, that's all and that's why I ask.

well its got alot to do with this being a U.S. company probably and the U.S. rating system on Movies and litature (spelling) Puntomaus: G - Gerenral Audiences, al ages permitted PG - Prental Guidance Suggested - Some adult material such as foul language. PG-13 = Partents strongly cautioned - Adult language, Mild Nudity PG-17 - Adult situations, Adult language, Full Nudity. Extream Violence (i.e. a good example of extreme voilence would be those popular first person shooter games) R - Adult situations, Adult Language, Full Nudity, Mild Sexual Acts (lotta full body contact, and impression of), etc, etc. from there it just keeps going down hill in the ratings (more Adult themed). There's also a rating system on video games as well, but I doubt that one would apply to Imagery here. Most likely, softporn is considered pg-17 (no one under 17) and if its litaure you usually have to be 18 in the U.S. to purchase it. I'm still not sure how the whole litature bit works, I have some comic books that only 18yr olds can buy but I couldn't figure out what made them different from the other comic books, The story line is a bit more complex, a couple cuss words here and there, but that was about it. I do have to admit though, alot of how other countries rate there material tward the children is alot different. even the canadian Rating sytem is alot different.

Thanks for the info, caleb. We do have ratings on video games and movies too, not sure about literature and comics.

to be honest about it, this country needs to rethink there rating system, expecially when releasing movies, sometimes they release ones that fall into 'Not Rated' and if its a porn flick a 10 year old can rent/buy it because its not rated. The whole rating system in the US is screwed up anyhow, I've seen movies that should of been rated PG that were rated PG-17 because there was some 'bare back' shown in the movie, though it didn't even show anything that you wouldn't see at the beach. And other movies that were rated pg13 that should of been rated R because of the extreame nature of the adult situations. same goes with there litature and photography, books teens shouldn't be able to get they can and ones they should be able to they can't. giggle its about as messed up as our governments politics heh...

There's not supposed to be any nudity in the banner ads. I agree with post 20, a separate erotic art gallery is more of a sollution. The reason I don't browse Renderotica is not that I don't like erotic images, those are fine by me, it's that I don't like violent images (though I'd always defend people's right to make whatever kind of art.) and they get lumped in with erotica like they are the same thing. Those two things give me very different reactions, one I like and one I don't. Separating stuff just means we can all see what we want to see, right? Otherwise you've got a lot of people avoiding your galleries for various reasons and/or trying to censor the stuff they don't like. I can see why this site is not wanting to go further towards adult content but having a separate gallery with the same posting limits as now might be good for a lot of viewers. Easier to find or avoid whatever.

Erotic is in the mind of the beholder. Legume's naked blond viking with the plastic breasts are about as erotic as twin zucchinis to me (apologies to those who get a rise out of squash--this is an aversion of mine and not a reflection on your vegetable fantasies). Personally I don't think nudity automatically equals erotic anymore than violence (threatened or actual) to men or women automatically equals erotic, but some people do while other people get turned on by the sight of an unexpected bulge in clothing. So what is erotic...it is different for different people. I don't think adding "erotic" as a gallery would result in anything but an endless debate about definitions. And we have enough of those kinds of threads as it is. For example, are semi-naked fairies / elves erotic? I suspect some amount of those who created fantasy pictures would object to be thrown into the same group as the S&M crowd. And at what point is someone nude? At the neck? At the shoulders? At the chest? At the waist? At the hips? Full figured? Frontal? Rear? Implied or actual? Shadowed or full light? What is provocative to me may be subtle and unrevealing to you. You get into deep trenches here. And since it would probably be the members making the decisions about where to put their own art, their would be inconsistences of taste. My viewpoint and not worth 2 cents today.

Yeah, I s'pose that's a good point too.

Don't mean to sound mean about the whole thing. I know what the idea is. I just think it would be difficult to put into practice. :(

.O OK I had to post ...one I take great offense to the empress {When I refer friends who are deeply interested in 3D art, programs, design, etc. and want to learn, I spend at least five minutes explaining to them most of what they see will be cheap, tasteless, tacky images/attempts at soft core porn - porn enough to evade the TOS. } I am sorry but in my time here I have seen some truely wonderful and talented work. I rarely see just plain ill done renders or renders that are just for a cheep giggle. I do nudes. and in no way do I consider them soft porn. They are an expression of human form and of the texture maps I worked on or setting. I have looked around Renderosity and rarely do I see anything that would make me offended. {saw one with grotesquely huge breast one time but hey they were coverd.} Renderosity is not just some site with bad posts and cheap attempts at porn. As far as the nudity setting...well as it has been said. one you have to use that nudity banner box on your pic..two you have to realize that there is nudity and most fantasy work contains it {god knows why I know if I was rushing into battle with a dragon I would NOT have my thighs and buttocks not to mention my breast bare but hey it seems to work for the woman} Three, It is not actually that some parents are lax it is that some kids are geniuses when it comes to the puter trust me I can show you a 13yrold that can crack any system out there. I send people here all the time and never have I had the feeling I have had to apologize for the site or content. Quite the contrary. It is someplace I send people when they ask me about 3D art. I tell them...."there are examples there of everything you think it ..it is there" that way they know that is it not all one style or subject matter. They know that not every render will be a monet. But they do appreciate that it is diverse. Ok enough of the rant. No more caffine for me today :)

Why is showing nudity considered "Foul" or "Porn"? The people who consider it as such are more so children than the ones they deem themselves the protectors off. As a freind stated to me a few minitues ago, if someone is going to sit and laugh like Beavis and ButtHead fair enough, keep them away. Otherwise anyone has the right to view "Works of Art". Luis Royo, almost every picture he makes depicts the magnificence and beauty of the human body, usually the female. He is to put simpley a genious, yet I have never once heard anyone call his work porn. Naked Art is all around us, we go in the streets and see statues, huge, ancient... magnificient peices of stone which have withstood the tests of time. They depict nakedness, but you don't see people covering there childrens eyes to hide them. You don't see a big box with a door way covering them, with a sign saying, "Over 18's only". Famous art gallerys the world over, filled with work that spans hundreds of years. Work once more depicting naked scenes. People wish to capture the beauty of mankind it its naturall state, we put clothes on ourselves. Please don't try to clothe other peoples minds and opinions. Art is Art, there is a large gap between Art and Porn; I find it sad that so few today can see this. Anyhow, that's me done for now.

I agree fully with Noctra. I, myself, do not like censorship placed upon my artwork. I for one, don't think that the human body being displayed in a work of art is pornography. I simply think of it as art. As stated above by many others. I will continue to make artwork that contains or exposes the human body in its natural state, as it pleases me to do so. I don't work for others pleasure. I work mainly for my own pleasure. After all, isn't that how we all became artists in the first place? Because of our love for the finer arts, or a love for an ability we all share? Why should one censor that ability to suit others? I don't think that is the answer.

Attached Link: http://www.dailytexanonline.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2002/02/01/3c5ac698be309

I know of a similar incident when a woman protested the statue of venus and david being naked and they clothed them!!! how insane. Naked doesnt have to be porn and naked doesnt have to be disgusting. I see nothing wrong with posting of nudes ..and flaging them. as some do not wish to view it. I my self note when a piece of mine does have nudity. that way if for some reason they do not have the nudity flag thinggy on they can still see that it may be offensive to some. When did being naked start to equal something bad? I mean it has its place and time.

Strangely, though few consider me normal, that story/headline reminds me of a movie I watched a few years ago, I can't remember the name but let me give you a low-down of the story. The goverment, decided to brainwash the population, they showed unintelligent TV shows constantly, ones with no offensive material. Almost everything was cencored and hidden, even the game chess was made illegal. In the film the leaders of the country sought out new talent, new people to be a part of their organisation by having a place almost like a brothel. People went in, they where asked what they wanted to do, some chose to have intelligent debates, some wished a game of skill, chess for one, as I for-mentioned. Now, this may seem a little over the top, but the point over all is... the way people where ruled etc in the movie was utterly rediculous. Everyone "had" to be equal in the world. It was pathetic. When I read that headline, and much of this post I think the same thing. I am subjected to think that peoples minds are so dergoitory... Maybe this isn't too that extream, but the simple minded thinking from some, the brain washing petty ideals you force on your children, and ultimately stunt their mental growth can be compared. Nudity is not porn, and those offended by it live sheltered lives indeed. Some may think I'm rambling, but there is thought to what I've said. Humanity is being damaged by foolish single minded idiots who believe such things as nudity being pornography. What is next? Someone with an over average IQ should be downgraded as not to offend the less intelligent people in his class? It's all pathetically rediculous.