I realize this discussion is somewhat academic without having the rendering in view to discuss. I am curious to see how folks react once I have a chance to distribute the image to them. If I can attempt this without much difficulty, let me try to encapsulate the problem as I see it. In the pose set used, one man is reclining on the ground, knees bent with his feet flat on the ground, legs parted. The other man is kneeling between the lower man's legs, leaning over him as if to kiss him. Both men are reaching to touch one another's torso. Although I made very slight adjustments to head angles to accentuate the impending kiss and changed facial expressions, the poses were used unaltered. Now, until you see the image, you'll have to take some of this on faith for now. But although the upper man is leaned over his partner in what at first appears like missionary position, there is no visible contact taking place. You can see a gap that separates the pair between their torsos. You can clearly see that the man in the above position has his hips at a position that is simply unable to engage any point of entry given the pose of the man below. As I said before, neither man has his genital models included, but even if one supposed that either or both were erect, you cannot assert that any body contact is being made. One man is leaning over the other to kiss him. Since there is no torso contact, you cannot reasonably claim that they are engaged in any kind of sexual contact. They are certainly not positioned for intercourse and the gap between them would prevent any kind of simulated contact (a la frottage). Given the angle and shadows associated with the pair in the rendering, you cannot see either's groin or butt. But it is apparent that they are not engaged in intercourse, real or simulated. They are two naked men preparing to kiss. One happens to be leaning over the other in what only superficially looks like missionary position. But gay men cannot have sex in missionary position while the lower man's legs are not substantially elevated above their given position. I can easily understand how someone might, given only a cursory glance, suspect intercourse. But any reasonable study of the image quickly shows that this is simply not the case. The assertion that they are engaged in a simulated sex act is a stretch. I would like to know given these facts how any astute observer can say otherwise. Perhaps the moderators might want to share the reasoning by which they reached their conclusion. The pose came from one of the male-male sets sold here by rax. This is one of several such pose sets that he and others have for sale here. The only fundamental difference between the thumbnails in his store and my image is his thumbnails shows the two men in underwear. And as anybody knows, the wearing of underwear or the lack thereof is really irrelevant in deciding if a "simulated" sexual contact is being attempted.

As a point of fact, I did reply to the person who emailed me initially about the deletion. I made my post to the forum not long after replying directly to that person. To be clear, and in contrary to what ScottA suggested, I did not open this thread to rally supporters in the hopes of generating any collective pressure. And for the record, I have yet to get any reply from the moderator to whom I did directly reply initially, although I have heard from SndCastie (to whom I thank for that). My intent was to create discussion on the matter based on the merits of the situation. In my view, staying on the right side of a boundary is allowed, no matter how close to that boundary I might elect to get. I realize the disagreement is whether or not I crossed over that boundary. I maintain that I did not. But to the extent that there is room to consider the boundary itself, I felt the matter warranted some public discussion. I am quite mindful of the boundary in this case. I have previously created images that I know are easily on the other side of it. I post those images elsewhere. But when I feel that I am on the right side of the boundary, I object to being censored. The fact that a vote was taken indicates to me that there was enough ambiguity to merit discussion and possible debate among the moderators. Given that case, I feel my work deserved the benefit of the doubt in this case. Clearly, others disagree. And while I agree with Jackson's analogy, I wonder if it's apt enough in this case. Artists are encouraged to list credits for all Renderosity products purchased that were used in the artwork. This is more akin to selling someone lingerie, inviting them to model it for marketing purposes, then calling the cops for doing so. As soon as I am back at my home computer, I will forward copies of the image to those who have asked to see it. Whether or not you agree with me on this particular question, the appropriate interpretation of the TOS rules is a subject worthy of conversation.

I am going to seek appeal from Spike about the matter. I will also email a copy of the image in question to anybody who wishes to evaluate it for themselves. I am curious about your post, though, SndCastie. There is an implication that the rules are more permissive for merchants who are helping the site to make money than for the customers who actually purchase their products and thereby give money to this site. I am genuinely curious about why the rules would be different if this is not the case. If this is the case, it seems a poor way to reward loyal customers.

ScottA I take exception to the charge that I am somehow doing something inappropriate by voicing my concerns in the forum. While you may not like the fact that I disagree with action that I consider heavy-handed, your rather unprofessional response to my original post in no way deals with the substance of my concerns on the merits. Instead, a former "employee" elects to try and turn this into a personal attack. The fact remains unrebutted that there is no genital arousal shown. The fact remains unrebutted that the character pose objected to is one provided by this website for sale. The image is not sexual but romantic. It may well display pre-coital intimacy, but it does not show intercourse. Without getting graphic, I suggest you look at the image again. Since I know something from personal experience about male-male intercourse, let me assure you that given their positions relative to one another, it is not anatomically possible for this couple to be having sex. The parts required do not align correctly with the one man's feet still on the ground. This is theater of the absurd and homophobic. And to suggest that I am not permitted to publically voice my concerns about censorship to which I object is far more unprofessional that the objection itself. It would appear that it's okay for the moderators to take action when they feel my art crosses a line but not okay for me to respond when I feel they have done the same. Censorship is an entirely appropriate subject for discussion in our community. Unless by community you mean the "rah-rah fan club."