Gab, I really enjoy work, you're one of my favorite artists here, but you and I have both, in fact, been in violation of the TOS several times: The TOS states: 1)No Rape. 2)No Torture. 3)No Sexual acts. 4)No Physical arousal. 5)No Genital contact with ANY object, other than sitting or clothing. 6)No depictions of young humanoid characters in erotic, seductive, provocative poses or context. 7)No character attacks, which could be interpreted as defamation of character, slander, and libelious. (I think they meant libelous - to my knowledge libelous is not a word) Anyway, take Nia for example. Someone could easily say that she looks like a 14-16 year old (young humanoid). Of course, I don't see it and obviously you don't, but once we begin stating what we deem is acceptable we enter difficult territory. Such judgments are always based on personal bias and, therefore always open to a gaping field of interpretation. Here's an example from my own gallery: http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=404367&Start=1&Artist=Omadar&ByArtist=Yes Is she in violation of the TOS? To some perhaps, by the definitions set by the TOS she: 1) Could be aroused. 2) Could be making contact with her genitals (whether it's visible or not - one could look at the image and claim why else would her hand be in the vicinity). I'm not knocking you at all, but I am trying to prove a point. We cannot possibly follow the TOS as it is written. The TOS is, simply, far too vague. Renderosity needs to clearly define what is and what is not acceptable on their site. That said, you have to consider that every other image in the Poser gallery is an expressionless, stock V3 showing her breasts to the world. Is there really a point to having a TOS on this site? A few people were discussing what is and what is not considered pornography. For the record, here is the correct definition: Webster's defines pornography as: 1) writings, pictures etc., intended to primarily arouse sexual desire. 2) the production of such writings, pictures etc. That's the simple definition. There is nothing profound or complicated about it. You could be looking at photo of a fully clothed woman/man and if you are the least bit aroused it becomes pornography; this too is a matter of choice. I get turned by looking a woman's feet; most people would not find this the least but pornographic - but according to the correct definition it is. I, in fact, made it pornographic. People often confuse pornography with what they find personally find sexually offensive or distasteful - the two couldn't be further apart. Anyway back to your post. I personally blame DAZ for this mess. I cannot fathom why they did not include female genitalia in their products; it's beyond absurd. Many people use Victoria for purposes other than creating pin-up's. Medical illustrators rely on such products to expedite their work. I'm sure all them are wondering why Michael comes with all his parts, but Victoria is somewhat sexless. Alas, consumers have little choice but to buy the extra parts. Certainly they have a right to see what the product looks like before they purchase it. Cheers

Thanks all, Some great suggestions - thanks a lot. Ghost let me know the moment you release your Warhammer pak :)

Woot, thanks :)