The problem I have with the vendor credits is having to "choose" what products you have from the vendor which are currently on sale.  I like giving the vendors credit for the products I use.  Unfortunately, I have to in the image description most of the time because I (shudder) use stuff I've bought or obtained freely over the years.  I'd prefer they do away with the "second" drop down for "specific" items.  For example, my character, Christine, uses Jartz's Body Gear based on V3.  Now, with Poser Pro 2014's fitting room, my V4 and Miki based characters can use it too.  Having a bear of a time with V4 though.  I'd like to give Jartz credit, but... the vendor control doesn't read the description, only what's listed in the drop down.  If it's no longer there...Oh Well! 

Indi makes a good point as does Sam.  I like the advisories because, parents read in DAZ's intro it informs their "safe" type of characters are without genitalia "like a Barbie doll."  Without a truthful advisory, how will they "trust" what their family will see when they visit the site?  It can turn them off from presenting their children to an exciting career in art.  

For the sake of "realism," and there is a place for that, but the originator of the thread wanted to know why so many renders are beginning to show up emphasizing outer vaginal detail.  Simply use the proper advisories for the proper content.   

lmckenzie also made an excellent additional point.  I work on a major AF Base as the base webmaster and every site not a dot mil or dot gov has to be categorized which means it has to be reviewed at higher network management levels.  Actually, when I tried Renderosity, it came back denied access for "art and self improvement."  :o)  Hmmm, can't self improve I guess.

Myself, (along with a few other military webmasters and artist) have actually received permission to use Poser, Lightwave, Bryce and Maya on our dot mil computers for creating multimedia presentations.  But consider, how quickly that will change if, a Colonel or General, not in an artistic mode, wants to see a "gallery" of our work and they're met with an eyefull of realistic, non-advisoried genitalia (because we can't post our galleries on a military owned machine and can't use a "personal" laptop at work)?  I can see all that banned and our drives reimaged.  I mean, some of us (especially me) are relative babies compared to most of you and we're just learning.  But, very inspired by some of the renders in all categories. 
     
I've been a member for just about a year, and the originator is right, I've seen a LOT of emphasis on that part of the female anatomy the last few months, yet that's only a part (an important part) of our second greatest gift God gave us men.

It's kind of a double standard though.  The nudity standards don't allow an erection, yet engourged pubis mons and labia is okay because (unless you flunked biology in high school), you know these are visual effects of a woman's arousal (along with the enlarged, erect nipples [unless it's really really cold in the virtual studio] ;o)  ), thus, since it's not "listed" in the standards a few feel they can (pardon the pun), let it show.

Oh, I found the "report" button.  It was right there, I just ignored it evidently.  Too interested in the renders I suppose.  'o)

I'm personally glad this is being discussed.  I live in the proverbial "Bible Belt" that's being maligned and it is a "blanket stereotype (profiling?)" to say only those here are adverse to nudity.   There are countries I have visited where nudity (even what we here in America consider our Sunday best) would bring a death sentence from those who don't believe in the Bible.  Don't think it's only the American "Bible Belt."  As a "full bible" Christian (there's more Can's in the Bible than Can'ts [another stereotype but brought on by the early American Puritanical standards]).  Nudity is a part of life.  Pastor's I have worked with say, "God has seen you naked, don't worry about it, He's not worried what's on the outside, but what's on the inside."  We don't care if you show up in fishnet stockings, mini skirt and heels as long as you're truthful in wanting to worship.  I'll get off that soapbox for now.  lol

Now, with that out of the way.....

Thanks, LaurieA for reposting the "standards."  I was caught last week without an advisory and JenX was absolutely correct and "all" I had was a woman's buttocks showing under an umbrella.  BUT, I made a mistake, it was corrected and everyone was nice and cooperative, in the process.  It's the rules, follow them.  Which brings up the next item.

**"What constitutes nudity?" **

I've seen everything here with advisorys for nudity from full nudity (which I feel should have an advisory for it), to a truck without tires (which shouldn't).  I didn't know you had a report button for that (still learning Renderosity).  Cool!  But, again, how much "skin" broaches the limit to need an advisory?  I (again personally) don't feel bikini's, boxer shorts, cleavage, need an advisory, but understand others may.  Sure I'm disappointed to see an advisory, for less skin than what I'd see in my wife's school (middle school) in the hallways.   Then, I see one with the subject leaning back, hands (close but not touching genitals) with no advisory.  The rules posted leave don't really leave room for suggestive license.  But come on people, a truck without tires with a nudity advisory?   

On the other hand, Renderosity does what it can.  For some reason, my "cookie" didn't catch this morning and I was logged on as "guest" and when I tried to get to "our" artist's galleries, it required me to log in.   You still have to be a member to see most galleries.

As a professional webmaster and learning graphic arts, I open EVERY item, with or without an Advisory.   I'm an adult and respect my "spirit within" as to what's appropriate and what's not for my own inspirations.  I don't linger, but it doesn't shock (okay, a couple has shocked, but still...) and move on. 

The opinion expressed is purely my own, if I offended anyone, forgive me it wasn't the intent.