Use it!

I'm sick and tired of having to pop a new window over this site when my kids are in the room or I'm at work. The flag doesn't censor you as an "artist" and you do have a responsibility to flag anything with nudity! It's bad enough some of the banner ads are questionable. For myself, I don't care but when my kids are in the room or I'm at work I shouldn't have to worry about it when the safeguard is an option.

< /rant >

...... Kendra

Well I did when I last posted a nude image in the Poser Gallery - but it had no effect. I had to add 'nudity' to the header myself instead. This may be why? Also, looking at stuff like this at work is no argument - don't look at it while you're at work. Unless you work with graphics and have a reason to be in R'osity, then your work mates wouldn't mind would they? :o) My kids can quite happily see nudity - hell, it's not porn. So what's you argument? Are your kids particualrly fragile? But as I said, I did flag - for sensitive people. :] Fish

"Well I did when I last posted a nude image in the Poser Gallery - but it had no effect. I had to add 'nudity' to the header myself instead.
This may be why?"

I think there is a problem with the flag then because there are plenty of thumbnails that don't show up and have the "nudity" text instead. Other thumbs either don't have the flag in place or it's not taking effect.

"Also, looking at stuff like this at work is no argument - don't look at it while you're at work."

With the flag in place, I should be able to. THAT'S THE POINT. I don't have a boss looking over my shoulder. I am the boss. When I'm able to surf at work it's when things are slow enough. I'm considerate of what other people may or may not wish to view. When it's just me it's no big deal.

"My kids can quite happily see nudity - hell, it's not porn.
So what's you argument? Are your kids particualrly fragile?
But as I said, I did flag - for sensitive people"

The point is it's there and it's not being used as much as it should be OR it needs fixing. I don't care what anyone here thinks of my parenting (and I won't even go into that argument) so anyone else who wants to get on their soap box about it, don't bother. If you have a problem with my not wanting my kids to see the soft porn on this site, deal with it.

...... Kendra

FishNose, it probably didn't seem to make any difference to you because you have 'Show nudity in the galleries' set to 'Yes' in your profile. Only if you set this to 'No' are images with the nudity flag filtered out. I just checked, and the nudity filter is working for me.

heyas; i thought kendra meant the nudity flag on the posts, not the galleries. i've seen dozens of threads with nude humans that have forgotten to have that turned on. and i agree. USE IT! :)

Attached Link: http://www.artchive.com/

so sad, that many classic artists would fall under the definition of *porn* as defined by the more vocal segment of the R'osity forums. I always use the nudity tag on my artwork containing nudity, but brick and mortar museums have no such filters. Children go to the Louvre everyday, and I have never heard of a child being harmed by viewing the breasts of the Venus de Milo. should there be a nudity filter in the Louvre... heaven forbid if anyone's children see Botticelli's Venus or one of my favourites, the Death of Sardanapal by Eugene Delacroix! Indeed, go to this link and you can see lots of soft porn by famous artists through the ages! :-) Make sure you click on 'Romanticism' or 'Renaissance' you'll be sure to see more grossly nude people there... pornographers such as Michelangelo, or Augustus Rodin... (he's under sculptors) There's plenty of porn in the classic and ancient Greek and Roman art too. Perhaps it helps you make even better soft porn with poser ;-)

We have several art books in our home and my children have looked through them. There is a difference in what you will find in the works of the Impressionists and what you will find in the Poser Gallery.

The discussion wasn't about whether or not children should see nudity, it's about THIS SITE and the nudity flag which isn't being used as much as it should be. I don't recall telling anyone they shouldn't create nudes, I'm working on a Victoria Secret image myself. I am telling people to use the nudity flag.

Stick to the topic.

...... Kendra

and this gem of a story came in my mail yesterday ;-) -- NEW YORK -- For some people at Salomon Smith Barney, it seems that no nudes is good nudes. Last year, an employee of the Citigroup unit was offended by a piece of artwork portraying images of female nudes that adorned an elevator vestibule in one of the firm's downtown Manhattan offices. So he asked that it be taken down. The artwork, titled "Two Newds," was removed, but a few months later, it reappeared. This time, more workers asked that it be taken down again. It was -- then again put back up. And again it was taken down. The owners of the office building, a pair of septuagenarian brothers, strongly disagree that the artwork is offensive or that their tenants have a right to take it down. Melvyn and Robert Kaufman, who built the 26-story office tower just off Wall Street more than 30 years ago, believe it's a matter of principle that the artwork stay. They vow to reinstall it. "What is going to be left if we give in every time somebody makes one of these ridiculous complaints?" fumes Robert Kaufman, 75 years old. Melvyn Kaufman, 78, commissioned the black-and-white silhouettes when the building opened back in 1970. Two semi-circular plexiglass panels, each about five feet tall, are attached to two exit doors at the back of a hall of elevators that serves as a building entrance. To a casual observer, the two semicircles form what looks like a big round Rorschach inkblot whose inner edges are abstract swirls. But closer scrutiny reveals that each of the mirror images is really the shadowy figure of a nude female. Many viewers don't see the nude bodies, and the brothers say they've never received a complaint about it until now. Today, the naked ladies are pitting an old-time family real-estate firm against a pair of Wall Street titans: Goldman Sachs Group, which leases the building, and Salomon Smith Barney, which sublets four floors from Goldman and has allied with its rival for this feud. Of the "Two Newds" dispute, Susan Thomson, a Salomon Smith Barney spokeswoman, says it's not a judgment about art. "It's about our commitment to creating a respectful and comfortable work environment for all employees. We regret the building owner fails to understand and respect that right." For its part, Goldman says it just wants to meet its tenant's request. "Art is very much a matter of taste and people clearly have strong opinions," says Lucas van Praag, a bank spokesman. "I think that whenever possible, we like to keep our tenants happy." The latest ruckus started when a unit of Salomon moved to the building, which the Kaufmans now co-own, in October 2001. Before the staff arrived, Eugene Clark, an attorney at the firm, toured the building. When he saw "Two Newds," he thought it might offend women in the office and asked the building's management company, Jones Lang LaSalle, to remove it. By the time the employees moved in, the piece was gone. This spring, a Kaufman engineer noticed the nudes were missing. When he reported it to the brothers, they ordered Jones Lang to put the piece back up, citing a clause in Goldman's lease that prevents the tenant from changing "the basic design of the ground floor of the building." With the reappearance of the nudes, Mr. Clark started getting complaints from women workers. "It was the talk of the office," recalls Cindy Heller, a 51-year-old vice president of accounting in Salomon's legal department. "It was inappropriate for corporate America. It was embarrassing." Mr. Clark complained to managers at Jones Lang, who removed the artwork five days later. This time, the Kaufmans were steaming. Melvyn Kaufman called Goldman, demanding that the piece be reinstated. Goldman initially resisted, but a few days later, it ordered the building managers to put "Two Newds" back up. When Salomon's Mr. Clark complained again to Jones Lang, this time he was told the artwork couldn't come down because Goldman's lease prevented it. At that point, Mr. Clark called an attorney at Goldman Sachs directly. Two days later, the piece came down again. Source: Wall Street Journal

Attached Link: http://www.artchive.com/artchive/D/delacroix/sardanpl.jpg.html

Its on topic. Because I've been through enough of the 'soft porn' protestors galleries to see their protests and its more than on topic. And looking at Monet's flowers or Degas' Ballerinas isn't nude people. Would you show your kids the Death of Sardanapal? It features violence (a woman getting her throat slashed) and lots of nudity. Its also hanging in the Louvre, and a classic piece of art. But I think the WSJ article is even more telling of the trend in our day here. I'd be the first to say much of the Poser gallery is repetitive, but lumping all nude artwork as soft porn is the beginnings of censoring the gallery completely. This is what I object to. And quite a lot of erotic artwork is not pornography. To be pornography, it has to be lacking all artistic value, and I don't think you can logically make that case. Yes, I use the nudity flag, because its the rules here. I have never ever forgotten it.

Hmmm. I didn't read where Kendra called nudity porn...

Before they made me they broke the mold!
http://home.roadrunner.com/~kflach/

I think what Kendra is railing against isn;t so much the nudity in general, but images like, say, a recent one fo two days ago, where a woman is perched in a squat right over a spiked dildo. Images like that are clearly softcore porn. Before any fool in here points a finger and shouts "prude!", let it be known that erotica is cool with me... Hell, I love it, and have quite the collection. In short, I got nothing at all against it. OTOH, I also respect the rights of others in not having to see something of that nature. I also would never show any of my children any of the aforementioned collection. This isn't Aldous Huxley's world (though it gets closer each day, don't it?), and I myself would prefer that my children become mature adults before being bombarded with erotic imagery... they would get too much of it in advertisements and on so-called "televised entertainment" as it is. The Death of Sardanapal isn't gratuitous sex (or even gratuitous violence. It was commissioned to prove a point and to show a historical event if memory serves.) I mean, let's face facts: If it were a Poser render, Sardanapal would most likely have her legs spread wide, she's carry a come-hither (and slightly cross-eyed) look on her face even at the moment of death, a fountain of blood would be gushing out of her wide-open chest, and her killer would have a raging hard-on and would wear leather chaps with his heavily-postworked ass-crack showing through. That, and the rest of the Harem would prolly be engaged in a lesbian free-for-all orgy, but with just enough daylight seperating their genitalia to avoid an outright TOS violation. As for the historical painting itself? My kids would not only see it, but I'd fill 'em in on the history as soon as I could get the proper information. But remember - Sardanapal is a complete galaxy's worth of difference from the recently-posted render of a tattooed chick squatting over a dildo and looks just about to ram it home.

Have you considered trying a different delivery? I've noticed that when a "request" is presented in a less dictating way,it is usually better received. For example "Use it" or "I'm sick and tired of having to...." "deal with it." and "I am telling people to use the nudity flag" We've all been around long enough to know that this will usually result in folks challenging your request because of the way it's presented.(and thus straying from the original topic) Many times doing the exact opposite just out of spite. If your objective is to really get folks to use the tags,perhaps a gentle reminder or in the form of a request will yield better results,than coming across as demanding people do what you want. Just an observation. Tom <~~~ also agrees that tags should be used.

“The fact that no one understands you…Doesn’t make you an artist.”

Fishnose: My kids can quite happily see nudity - hell, it's not porn.

What Poser gallery have you been browsing through?

"but lumping all nude artwork as soft porn is the beginnings of censoring the gallery completely." She didn't say a thing about porn. She said the nudity tag should be used.

"If you have a problem with my not wanting my kids to see the soft porn on this site, deal with it."

Here's where I mentioned porn. A reaction to the first reaction I received. Now I didn't say that the entire Poser gallery was porn or that all nudes were porn. But Peng is right. There is soft/borderline porn in the Poser gallery. I don't have a problem with nudes at all. I simply want to be able to choose when I view them and when my kids are in the house I'd like to trust that people are using the nudity flag for what it's there for.
This has been building up with me for a few days and the last straw was having my daughter walk up just as a poser gallery came up with two nude thumbnails not flagged. Kneejerk reaction is to yell "Use the Flag!".
If people took offense to my tone and responded to it and not the content, I'll take the blame for that.
I won't however, deal with the 'is nudity art' issue because that was never the point.
If it bothers someone that I'm careful what my kids see, that's not my problem. I won't discuss whether nudity is art or whatever bijou is going on about.
I haven't pointed anyone in particular out so if you use the nudity flag, this post has nothing to do with you. If you don't then it does.

...... Kendra

oh i totally agree with you Kendra. I just can't figure out how Bijouchat took " use the nudity flag" and went to the louvre- to an email (s)he got, to the lecturing and pontificating on "soft porn //nudity is art" deal shrug I do not want nudity shoved in my face, so - i use the nudity filter.

I have to agree with Kendra here. Heck, half my stuff involves nudes but I Always Respect My Fellow Site Members. I too browse at work, where I seem to be most of the time, and my boss Allows us to Provided we don't surf sites of nudity. Which is why I seldom get to visit the gallery. Not all 3Ders live in Euope, some of us live in Prude-Land (USA) and are surrounded by others who think differently. Heck, when my boss made me remove my render '"Halloween Wake Up' from my desktop because the vampi "has her legs spread too wide" I had to tell him "damn, I could never take you guys to the museum, you'd try to paint clothes on all the Michael Angelo's".. This is an Inernational site and we should all be adults and use the tools (and rules) that are there. It's not a matter of being censored, it's a matter of being polite to others and showing that you are as responsible and artist as you are a good artist. (however my Christmas Greeting post got pulled and there was NO nudity; but you didn't hear me whine did you? whimper, whimper)

bijouchat: "one of my favourites, the Death of Sardanapal by Eugene Delacroix" Really? I'd prefer "woman with a Parrot" myself. But I'd have to say one of my favorite pieces is "Origin of the Harp" by Daniel Maclise As for the nudity flag - yes it should be used. Personally my kids see the art here if they are hanging around my desk - but they are 9, 13 and 15 (all will age in February) and the oldest is a talented artist himself, so I certainly won't hide any art form from him. As for work - well if you are the boss that's different I suppose - as long as you don't get on the case of employees who do the same thing BG Ultimately many forget the nudity tag, it isn't intentional - and frankly treating them like children themselves won't help. It would be nice if we had the ability to edit our posts, then those who forget could quickly fix the post. Maybe a nice bold reminder at the top of the forum?

3-D Arena | Instagram | Facebook

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.
-Galileo

I guess any excuse is a good excuse to get up on the old soapbox, eh? A concerned parent and employer mentions that she wishes more people would use the nudity flag, which according to this site's rules is supposed to be used anyway, and for her concern gets the privilage of having her parenting choices questioned and getting figuatively tarred-and-feathered for her views. Sweet.

I'm agreeing with her, for one. If there is any sight of an exposed boob in my images I always flag nudity.

I agree there should be a flag for nudity and there should be no nudity in the thumbnails...sometimes people forget but I just surfed the gallery and there was 5 images with nudity in the thumb let alone flagged for nudity in the image....thats the first two pages of the gallery by the way...maybe the moderators should be able to delete the thumbs and warn the people to fix their post and resubmit...by the way the nudity thing doesnt bother me...I know better than to browse the gallery when kids or people that may be offended are within eyesight

To some people's credit Jet, I did come on strong. Although I do feel strongly about it. I'd much rather see people be responsible than have to bug the mods for each and every 'forgetful person'.

Here's a question though. Should you flag the image even though the thumbnail doesn't show the nudity? Because plenty of times I've clicked a thumb only to have a nude pop up in the full version.
I think if there's nudity in the final image but not necessarily in the thumb, those images should be flagged as well. That way if nudes are a no-no wherever you are, you know which thumbnails you're safe to click and so on.

...... Kendra

I disagree, do they have a nudity flag in the Tate or any other realworld gallery? No! There's been nudity in art for as long as there has been art & only now on the web do we feel the need to put a flag on it or cover it up. By censoring or flagging nudity we are likely to end up with a generation of young people who think the naked human body is something that should not be seen at any time just like the victorians. I'd rather have well adjusted kids who don't feel the need to resort to pornography, so for me & my kids Poser & most poser related sites are uncensored.

Just curious - and no offense ment ,but, doesn't the responsibility come "before" you come to asite that contains artwork that contains nudity? Just asking, because if what you are saying is that this site and these people and these 15,000 artists and everyone that comes here are now resposible for what your kids might see or did see because you choose to put on your computor screen at a site you choose to come to, that you knew before hand contained nudity that your kids which you knew where around and could see what you put on your screen? - does this mean we have to start making child support payments or something?

Cheryle says "I do not want nudity shoved in my face" - must be difficult to find a magazine to read, given the amount of nudity in general advertising these days. I always liked the cartoon showing a mother and child visiting an art gallery. They come to a sculpture labelled "Female Nude", and the mother covers her child's eyes. The sculpture is completely abstract!

Kendra they are supposed to use the nudity flag regardless of the thumbnail showing nudity or not. I thought if the image was flagged for nudity then the thumbnail wouldn't show either, is this not the case?

3-D Arena | Instagram | Facebook

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.
-Galileo

c1rcle: I disagree, do they have a nudity flag in the Tate or any other realworld gallery? No!That's because in the real world galleries you're not surrounded and being bombarded by thousands of images of naked women playing with their nipples, or in some suggestive pose to suggest their a loose women or whore.

:) There's the difference. Would you show your children porn?

ah Empress we aren't talking about porn here, We're talking about artistic nudity. But you're right there is a point I won't go beyond even though my oldest has seen far worse images thanks to having access to the internet at school, don't you just love Cybersitter :)

"We're talking about artistic nudity"

In the poser gallery? Look again. Some are artisticly nude. Others are soft porn.

And we are not in some "real world gallery" C1rcle. That's a strawman argument that makes no sense.
And Saie_Tahnn, I am not asking or telling anyone not to render nudes. I would not expect to be able to brows Renderotica with my kids in the room. A complaint like this over there would warrent the comments you posted above. Here there is a nudity flag and a TOS that says you must use it.

Therefore by setting my preferences to 'no-nudity' I am taking the "responsibility "before" (I) come to asite that contains artwork that contains nudity".
Argue that point if you will. If this site had no nudity flag this discussion would have never begun and I would not complain about people not using something that didn't exist.

...... Kendra

Just had a look at the TOS, maybe it's because I have a bad head cold at present but I couldn't find anything to say nude images must be flagged. I did find this on the gallerries page though; "All Galleries Warning The images contained in this gallery may contain subjects that are unsuitable for younger viewers. These images are the work of talented artists who present their graphic/photo work in a variety of media, and there may be content of a mature nature included. It is hoped that all such content be done in a manner that can be considered artistic and tasteful. You have been warned, please do not proceed if you feel that you may be offended. " So I guess that puts the ball in the viewer's court. Jack

Bringing this back on topic ... We have a resource center at my worksite. We have public computers for surfing. WE have a No NUDE or offensive viewing restriction. I don't wnat to accidently bring up a dude image becuase I like to chech out R'osity on my breaks. Is that simple enough? That is the basics. Boni

Boni

---

"Be Hero to Yourself" -- Peter Tork

Therefore by setting my preferences to 'no-nudity' I am taking the "responsibility "before" (I) No you are pushing the responsibility on rendorosity and the artists involved. you ccan't set preferances till after you come to the site. "Here there is a nudity flag and a TOS that says you must use it. If this site had no nudity flag this discussion would have never begun and I would not complain." You're defeating yourself Kendra - then what diference does it make whether they work or not?

"and no offense ment ,but, doesn't the responsibility come "before" you come to asite that contains artwork that contains nudity? " - Saih_tahnn No offense taken, Saih. When a viewer elects to check the "no nudity" preffernce, they are excercising their responsibility for their viewing choices. One of the first thing s in the upload screen, wether it's in the TOS or not is a section for uploading guidelines with: "Nudity If this image contains nudity of any type, you must check the "Nudity" checkbox, or your image may be deleted. If we receive complaints about the image, and the Nudity flag is not set, it will be deleted. So, if you think someone might be offended by your image, be safe and hit the "Nudity" checkbox. " That puts some of the personal responsibility on the artist, not just the viewer. If I ignore that, and upload an image with nudity in the pic or the thumbnail and choose to not check the nudity box so the filter can do it's job, them I'm abdicating my responsibility in the situation. Goes both ways... if I choose to ignore my responsibility in setting the falg, i've got no room to bitch if a mod or admin IM's me and tells me they deleted my image. And no real room to bitch if someone like Kendra calls me on it - I chose to ignore the upload screen, she didn't. ;]

"I am a good person now and it feels... well, pretty much the same as I felt before (except that the headaches have gone away now that I'm not wearing control top pantyhose on my head anymore)"

• Monkeysmell

Thank you Ironbear. :)
And Saie_Tahnn, the preference stays until I uncheck it. Like this week for instance. Knowing that the kids are home on vacation it's stayed on. When school starts again, I can change it back.

"You're defeating yourself Kendra - then what diference does it make whether they work or not? "

Because this site does have the option. That's the point. And to repeat Ironbears quote:

"Nudity
If this image contains nudity of any type, you must check the "Nudity" checkbox, or your image may be deleted."

...... Kendra

Point taken Ironbear, always happy to stand corrected (never thought to look on the upload page). I also agree that it is the responsibility of the artist to check the nudity box if appropriate. But it is also for the viewer to realise that, for whatever reason - be it accident, ignorance or sheer bloody-mindedness on the part of the artist - the nudity box will not always be checked. Therefore the final responsibility must lay with the viewer if their boss/child sees something the viewer would rather they did not see. Jack

"I always use the nudity tag on my artwork containing nudity, but brick and mortar museums have no such filters. Children go to the Louvre everyday, and I have never heard of a child being harmed by viewing the breasts of the Venus de Milo." Bijouchat, you have my standing ovation on this point! I personally think that all these exaggerated worries about nudity are exactly THE thing that can make children grow sexuophobic and possibly even become perverted adults. There is a BIG difference between art and pornography and those who ban art (at whatever level it is) for the sake of avoiding pornography are performing exactly the kind of wrong education that will make those children excessively attracted by, and look for, pornography and morbidity when they grow up. On the contrary, teaching children to look at nudity as a NORMAL aspect of life, of which one must not be ashamed of, an aspect that co-exists with the other aspects of life... teaching them that nudity is NOT a dirty thing that one has to HIDE in a closet in order to stay "respectable", but something to live honestly and openly, helps them grow up to become well balanced and mature adult individuals. My two cents of course.

srug Joint responsibility, I agree. Including mods/admins catching stuff. But if it's not flagged, there's not a lot the viewer can do once they've excercised their filter options except IM a mod - or just not browse the galleries, which really isn't an acceptable alternative. Accident happens. We all have "brain fart moments' and forget to check flags etc. I've done it. That's why when I was working here, rule of thumb was to just toggle the flag and send whoever a polite IM reminding them to check the nudity box next time. "sheer bloody-mindedness on the part of the artist" - Happens also, but they're not leaving the mods one hell of a lot of choice but to delete the image when that's the case. Heya... unlike a lot of things we can argue about around here, the nudity flag isn't something that got handed down from on high by the admins to the members. It's in place solely because after something like a year of debates, arguments, discussions, multiple threads, and even a poll, the members here at the time decided they wanted one, and even the majority of the members who didn't [or like me who just didn't care either way] decided they could live with it. I remeber all of that controversy pretty well, because I was one of several people, along with Russ, Tim, JeffH, MikeJ, Rimrunner and a few others who had to go through a database of some 48,000+ images toggling flags and getting it into place initially. So... when I upload a pic or a freebie, I may be a bit more persnickety on making sure I toggle so some other schmuck doesn't have to come along behind me and do it. ;]

"I am a good person now and it feels... well, pretty much the same as I felt before (except that the headaches have gone away now that I'm not wearing control top pantyhose on my head anymore)"

• Monkeysmell

"((P.S. HI Ironbear...long time no talk to! How's tricks?))" Hey! Long time, Illusions! Man oh man... how goes? Pretty good on this end: relaxing from XMass and getting ready for new years. Heh heh... Illusions is a good check on my veracity on that one: IIRC, he was involved in most of that years worth of discussion on "should we have a nudity flag or shouldn't we?" in the forums. ;]

"I am a good person now and it feels... well, pretty much the same as I felt before (except that the headaches have gone away now that I'm not wearing control top pantyhose on my head anymore)"

• Monkeysmell

"must be difficult to find a magazine to read, given the amount of nudity in general advertising these days. " Yup - but- there i have a choice- i can CHOOSE which magazine i am reading. Here- even with my nudity filter checked on- it still gets shoved in my face- i have lost that choice.

No - you haven't lost a choice - you failed, by oversite or other, to include probability and possibility into the equation.

Yup. We even had a multiday weenie roast with a sixpac during that one. ;]

"I am a good person now and it feels... well, pretty much the same as I felt before (except that the headaches have gone away now that I'm not wearing control top pantyhose on my head anymore)"

• Monkeysmell

"...but brick and mortar museums have no such filters. Children go to the Louvre everyday, and I have never heard of a child being harmed by viewing the breasts of the Venus de Milo."

"teaching them that nudity is NOT a dirty thing that one has to HIDE in a closet in order to stay "respectable", but something to live honestly and openly,helps them grow up to become well balanced and mature adult individuals"

I wonder what makes some of you people think you have a God-given right to tell others how to raise their children? Who died and appointed you the official authority for all parenting information? Are ya'll banding together to become a composite 'Doctor Benjamin Spock for the new generation' or some such? If anyone chooses to let their children view or not view nudity, artistic, porongraphic or otherwise, what right is it of yours to same a damn thing about it? Until I see a Doctorate in Child Psychology, Pediatrics, Early Developmental Behaviour or a related field from the "Here's-how-to-raise-your-kids" chorus, their advice is going straight into the oval file in the corner of my studio...exactly where it belongs.

I'd agree no one can dictae the viewing of nudes or what have you to someone els's kids. But it's really quite simple math. Three barrels one contains milk one contains beer and one contains milk and beer seperatly and equally The chances of your kid getting beer from barrel one is 0% the chances of getting beer from the second barrl are 100% But the possibiltity and probability of getting tainted milk is much greater if you as a parent go to drink from the third barrel, even separated and filtered. It's your choice which barrel you drink from.

JettBoy: Kendra can complain about nudity showing up unexpected at her work place. When I'm at my work place, I usually work, I have not the luxury to be able to browse Renderosity, but if people is so lucky to be able to browse Renderosity at work, they surely have the right to complain about what they might see. Although it is very clearly stated, BEFORE entering the galleries here, that galleries might contain nudity. So viewers are warned. As much as Kendra has the right to speak her opinion, complaints and wishes, I do have the right to speak mine. I do not pretend to impose anyone how to raise their children. Nowhere in my post you can read a "you must do that". It's always my opinion, and I have stated clearly, that it's "my two cents". Hardly a statement that one would associate with the pretention of giving lessons to anyone, M.r Jettboy. And, I have the right to speak my opinion about the topics that show up here, yes mr. Jettboy, that's how democracy work. You have the right to trash anyone's opinion if you like, but you can not speak against anyone expressing their opinion. If you like to live in an environment where you only listen to the opinions that you agree with, or where you see only the things that you approve, then I'm afraid that the Internet is not the right place for you. You should frequent an environment where you can apply a strict control on other people's thoughts.

Let's not get the thread locked, ok?

It's a simple request based on the function of the site. If people would rather turn this into a nude-vs-artistic-vs-parenting-whatever-it-is-you-think you all go right ahead. I don't think I need to explain my childrens ages, what I do/don't let them view, or the ages I feel they might be ready.

The function of this site however is such that a nudity flag is available and I ask that people remember to use it. I'm not the only one who wants to use it on occasion and it only blocks your image for those who use the option. Not for everyone.
It's plain and simple respect.

...... Kendra

Chill out everybody! Mostly using the nudity tag is about being respectful of other people. I know that's an odd concept in this day and age but there you are. All the flag does is mark the image in the system - people who don't want to/cannot view nudes then don't have to worry about it. Since I often check in here on my lunchbreak I have the same problem. One of the responsibilities of the moderators is to put the flag on if it isn't, but unfortunately there are only two of us and there are literally hundreds of images posted every day. I understand entirely how frustrating it is, and we're doing what we can to help the problem. Lyrra the Overworked

I always put the nudity flag on ALL my pictures showing significant parts of a human body naked. I do that precisely to respect the options of those who are disturbed by human nudity, although I do not really understand such a thing, since I make (or better said I try to make) some ART, not pornography. I would not even PUBLISH a picture that I'd feel a child would be hurted to see. No, actually I would not even MAKE such a picture. It would go against what I feel. Having that said, I can't help being worried when I see that nudity is preventively banned from artistic expression. With the emphasis on "preventively". Most of the western art, of the greater western art, relies -I would say- heavily on the representation of what would fall under the so-called "nudity flag" here. Images that would certainly raise, and not lower, the educational level of young people. Such as Michelangelo's. Such as many Greek statues. And I could go on and on. If these masterpieces were preventively banned by a prudish society, we would not be able to know, and learn from, those artworks. The whole history of art would be different. And surely not for the better. Now, I would surely not dare to compare Renderosity galleries output with such masters. That comes without saying. Yet, it's not just the matter, but also the concept, that counts. The mentality behind all this. And it's precisely the concept and mentality that are worrying me. Much more than the occasional nude picture escaping the net of the nudity flag.

You should see the looks I get from people when I show them what I make using Poser. I open the library to load one of my dinosaurs, monsters, characters, etc... And on the way there I have to first close the "People" library that's loaded with naked figures that opens by default. I try to do it fast so they don't see them. But it's pretty hard to move from library to library without getting a glimpse of one of them. They look at me like I'm some kind of pervert.

"I can't help being worried when I see that nudity is preventively banned from artistic expression."

It's not. Nothing is preventing you from posting nude images. The flag simply flags the image only for people who choose the option. Unless you feel that something so small as the occasional person occasionally using the flag is such a form of censorship to you, there is no reason to feel your form of artistic expression is being surpressed in any way. Your use of the word "banned" is way out of context. No one is "banning" anything.

...... Kendra

orio - "I would surely not dare to compare Renderosity galleries output with such masters" Have you seen some of the woek that is here - what about bloodsong's "bathing " render or some of the others work... personelly I think you could safely compare a lot of these artists to such masters - the median has just changed not the artistry. Nor the mastery of its creation. Wouldn't you agree?

Illusions: I am not a flamer. I wrote my thoughts, which were not related to the original post of Kendra, but to what was written in the follow-ups. I was accused of wanting to impose my vision on other people, which is not. So I defended myself, politely. That's all. With regards to the original post of Kendra, I already said, that I respect the nudity flag rule. I would also like to be able to say that I do not like the mentality that leads to such rules, without being accused of wanting to flame or not understanding a thing. It's my opinion. It's my way to see the world. I do not want to impose it on the others, yet, I do want to be able to speak it without being attacked for that. I did not insult anyone in expressing my opinion. And my opinion has the same right of being here than yours or Kendra's has. This is all. You are amazed at how the discussions about nudity "degenerate". I don't think it has degenerated, only that it probably touches a sensible point where people has different opinions. I on my hand, am amazed at how someone can not handle a discussion politely and always have to invite people "taking a dollar to buy the key to understand"... well you can keep your dollar, man. I do not need it. I respect your opinion and I'd like you could respect mine. And here's where my partecipation to this thread stops.

and thank you.

And what about the "suggestive" banners at the top of each page? There is one that starts "SEX" and then changes to something else... at least I hope so... I scroll down before seeing the rest of the banner. And what about all the lingerie banners? Or the "suggestive pose" banners? The figures may not be nude, but children can ask questions about those things also.

I don't know which are the insults you are referring to. I do not, and did not use, any insulting word. And when I wrote about the mentality that leads to the conception of the "nudity flags", firstly, I cant' see where the insult would be, and secondly, I did not refer to any individual specifically, but to the general concept, which I find aberrating. And I do not think I am insulting anyone if I say this. One thing must be very clear (and that's why I am back on writing on this thread): we are NOT talking about pornography. This is something everyone agrees we do not want to be shown to our children. We are talking about NUDITY IN ART. To me, the nudity flag concept is exaclty like prohibiting a child to see the David of Donatello, or to put a hand to cover a child's eyes when entering the Cappella Sistina in Rome. Aberrating. Because there is no contradiction between the nudity and the artistic beauty. I say: let the NetNanny and similar software filter out the pornography. Here at Renderosity there is already a strict rule for posting images that prohibits depiction of any contact of sexual parts with other sexual parts or objects, or any violence or rape scene etc. I think these are good enough rules to ensure that Renderosity galleries are a safe enough place. To get mad because female tits are visible in an artwork is, in my opinion, much farther from normal and due porn protection, and much closer to putting hands on the eyes of children in front of the Botticelli Naissance of Venus, or of the Venus of Milo, and so on. All the above, as always, in my OWN opinion. Which is my own opinion, and can be right or can be wrong, but it's my own opinion anyway, and I don't need anyone's dollars to change it.

I think the real issue here is not over nudity/non-nudity but over whether the galleries contain artistic nudity or soft porn. There are much better places than Renderosity to post soft porn. It shouldn't be a big deal to follow these simple rules: 1) If an image contains artistic nudity, check that flag. It keeps the prudes happy, and it's not a big deal to do. 2) If it's really soft porn, or could be construed as such, take it to one of the adult Poser sites instead. That just leaves the problem of those banner ads ...

"One thing must be very clear (and that's why I am back on writing on this thread): we are NOT talking about pornography. This is something everyone agrees we do not want to be shown to our children. We are talking about NUDITY IN ART. To me, the nudity flag concept is exaclty like prohibiting a child to see the David of Donatello, or to put a hand to cover a child's eyes when entering the Cappella Sistina in Rome. Aberrating. Because there is no contradiction between the nudity and the artistic beauty."

Orio, I would not have a problem taking my kids into any major museum. My kids enjoyed the Guggenheim in Vegas.

But the differences in the places you mention and the Poser gallery are that while there are some beautifully done nudes in the poser gallery there is also the type of work Peng mentioned above and two I came across the other day which involved the mutilation of a nude female. So since there is no way to separate the artistically beautiful renders with (forgive me but my opinion) the crap renders I, for one, will take advantage of the nudity flag.

You are absolutely entitled to your opinion. But the topic did go way off from the original. I take exception to the attitudes of Bijou, Fishnose and Saie_Tahnn though when they attempted to move into the parenting issue on this. My kids aren't the only reason I mentioned. But, when I see a 9 year old relative bring over his R rated movies to watch as he spends the night with us (no way!), or hear about the grade school kids who knew how to access porn on the internet at school... I'm quite happy with my choices as a parent. :)

I'll end my rant with that and suggest that people consider that you don't have all the facts to make assumptions about people based on a couple of paragraphs of their words.

...... Kendra

Attached Link: Bloodsong's nude

Kendra, I think that if there was a picture depicting the mutilation of a female, the fault was *before* the nudity flag point. I mean that according to the Renderosity rules, that picture shouldn't have been there any way, regardless of the nudity flag. Can you see my point? The picture should have been removed alltogether and the author warned. You make meaningful points, but when you point out that you can't accept a kid bringing adult rated movies, or learn about kids accessing porno sites... well you too can't but make examples of porno... not art. See what I mean? I first never justify accessibility of porno to the minors. My point is that a "naked Vicky in a temple" is NOT a pornographic image. It may be a bad taste image... might be bad art... might be tacky... but it's NOT porno! And if you require a nudity flag only because that naked Vicky shows a tit, then you may miss beautiful artistic nudes that you'll never see because of the nudity flag! I would like you to please see the linkedpicture and evaluate it? It's a nude by Bloodsong. Do you think it can be obscene to a child? Do you think it depicts the human body in an irrespectful way? I think not. I think it's a beautiful piece of art, that shows the harmony of the human body and how the human shapes can create artistic forms. I find this picture educative to the eye. To train the eye to recognize the beautiful in the things. Such beautiful pictures, will all be missed with the nudity flag. Unless your purpose is to simply remove ALL nudity from artworks... just because it's nudity... then your position and mine would be absolutely impossible to co-exist, because not only as an artist, but also as an art viewer, I claim the right of nudity to be used artistically, and I claim the right of children to be educated to see and consider the body nudity not as something sinful to be ashamed of, but as the trademark of the divine creation, the beauty of the human body being a direct representation and symbol of the beauty of the created things and of the universe all together. I think that artistic nudity can and should be part of a complete and balanced youth education. Learning to appreciate the beauty of a human body means learning to develop respect for it. I may be wrong, but I think that if the young people was taught not to be ashamed of the body, but to admire and respect it, we would have a lot less adolescents practicing body piercing and that kind of stuff... obviously their own way to protest by offending that body that they've been taught to be ashamed of. While it's the gift of God, what they carry their sould within.

"naked Vicky in a temple" is NOT a pornographic image. It may be a bad taste image... might be bad art... might be tacky... but it's NOT porno! And if you require a nudity flag only because that naked Vicky shows a tit, then you may miss beautiful artistic nudes that you'll never see because of the nudity flag! " So what? It's not your loss- you can still see it if you want. why does it bother you so much that some people really really do not want to see that?

Illusions: your sophisms like " I did not address it to you, so I can say whatever I want, while you did adress that to me, so you are insulting me"... sorry I don't buy that. You were not respectful in the first place, with what you said about that dollar. So what are you talking about now... I have not insulted anyone. Please quote precisely the insults that I would have said in your opinion. Please stop repeating that I have insulted someone. Either you can PROVE it, or STOP accusing me, or maybe even better, let's the moderator decide and either ban me for having said insults, or you for accusing me falsely. And... about the fact that one man's art is another man's porno, as you said... No, sorry, if someone thinks that Michelangelo's paintings are porno, this does NOT make Michelangelo a porno artist. Sorry. Michelangelo's art is a bit bigger than that person's narrow and prudish vision of it. And finally... like it or not, nudity flag IS censorship. Sorry. I like to call things for what they are. Cheryle: When people talk on a subject, it's not necessarily because it is regarding someone. Sometimes people talk about principles. There was a discussion going on, on this thread. I joined in and said what I think. If I see a man killing another man, should I just go on and walk because it does not regard me directly? If I see someone starving on the street, should I ignore that because my very own stomach is full? It would be very narrow thinking, to speak only about things that regard us directly, and ignore the rest.

I don't believe I questioned your parenting choicesand am sorry you got that impression however I do feel that you relied too heavily upon a mechanical device, the irreputable flag, too much. Visitors cling to it as a parenting savure from all unwanted art. Which you have stated and others, that, for whatever reason, has it's failicies. Be it human err or just mechanical failure. I don't think Orio strayed so far from the issue, Kendra brought up to the platenot only the flag and it's use or lack there of. Nudity and her children and work. And others seeing what Kendra deemed unappropriate for whatever reason. Oroh smiply stated Oroh's views pertaining to to those very things. I inturn stated the resposibility falls back on the viewer- where it began. I'm sure that when the 9 year old brought the R rated tape into your house you took and made your appropriate parenting decision. But what if 'you' bringing in the R rated tape? is the blame on someone else still? Of course not. In your opening statement, you state, 'you' brought in and open the Renderosity site. Knowing full well that it contains nudity. You did, not some 9 yr old or the gardener or someone else. And for what ever reason the flag was not in place or didn't work. Dispite the rules that we all understand by now of this site, it was or did not work. Yet you quicky push all blame on the "flag" filter and or artist. Which has been stated is a "curtisy" not a life saver. You expected obviously too much from this filter flag thing. Which I personelly could care less about. One way or the other. Do I think they're nessasary - no. infalliable - no. Nor am I ready to blame them if I happen to see something i thought would be filtered out. knowing I came to asite that containes the very thing I'm trying to filter. The viewer should expect or allow for the possiblity and probability that at one time or another it, the flag, is bound to fail. Dispite the reasons. And knowing full well there are no filters on the banners contained in this site, and that this site does contain nudity which "you" had to log into to get within this sites boundries. You, the viewer brought it into your home at your own risk for whom ever to see. Whether you find the art offensive or not. There fore final responsibility falls on ....the dog?...the cat?...the artist? When there is nobody or no-thing to point the finger of blame ....who's left?

Ps - Hello everyone - how I do love being made an exception of. lol hey kendra how was your day? (smile)you do make me feel exceptional.

.... sigh... :( Shame lies here.

thou and I, my friend, can, in the most flunkey world, make, each of us, one non-flunkey, one hero, if we like: that will be two heroes to begin with. (Carlyle)

You should keep in mind that there are other places Renderosity is viewed--it's not just a home/work thing at all. A patron viewing Renderosity nudes (even accidently) could get banned from a public library should a parent complain. You may stamp your feet all you like that the parent is being prudish and up tight, but the parent has a right to expect other adults will respect his or her restrictions for his or her child. He or she can choose whether or not to take a child into a museum, but the Internet sits inside of public and private buildings...it is a very invasive thing. Placing a nudity/violence tag does not censor the picture from being viewed...it simply is a way of respecting the rights of others NOT to view works that feature nudity or violence. You still have the right to create and view whatever you want within certain restrictions of the TOS...all Kendra is asking (and properly so) is the right not to have it shoved in her child's face. It is such a modest request. I don't understand why such a big deal is being made of it. Some people seemed so threatened by the idea that it is possible other people might want to have a choice of what to view in their own homes or at work or in school or at the library. It isn't meant to restrict you but to restrict what the child (or even the adult) views. It is simply having respect for the rights of others. You lose no rights in return.

"If this image contains nudity of any type, you must check the "Nudity" checkbox..." The last time I checked, MUST means you're obligated to do so. conceded point... Ironbear- since your up on these things -is there any where in the rules or TOS whatever, that states the 'flag' is to be used as a parental control of any sort? Or to be relied on as such? is 100% gauranteed not to fail? That no human err will ever acure? If not, then I rest my side of the "who's responsibile in the end"

Umm... no idea on current guidelines or how it's view, Saie. Keep in mind, I haven't worked on the "other side of the wall" here in a long time since that was put in place. To the best of my awareness, nothing stated that it's to be used for either parental control, guranteed to not fail. Human err is implied if you have humans. ;] But that doesn't rest your case any unless you studied logic in vastly different classes than I did: responsibility in the end rests equal on poster, viewer, and site admins/mods to see that it's used as designed. Responsibility for making sure the feature works on a technical basis rests on the site programmers and techs. shrug Doesn't matter what you or I think about artistic nudity in general. I've been a member of Renderotica since 2000, so I'm obviously pretty libertine on the subject, or at least you can hazard a reasonable guess that I am. Regardless of how I feel about it, a part of that responsibility rests on me everytime I upload a pic to gallery or forum here. If I take care of my responsibility to set flags when available, then what Kendra chooses to set in her options for viewing or not is her business. I did my end.

"I am a good person now and it feels... well, pretty much the same as I felt before (except that the headaches have gone away now that I'm not wearing control top pantyhose on my head anymore)"

• Monkeysmell

We must've been typoing at the same time, Illusions. Post crosted. ;]

"I am a good person now and it feels... well, pretty much the same as I felt before (except that the headaches have gone away now that I'm not wearing control top pantyhose on my head anymore)"

• Monkeysmell

I agree to the spirit and as mentioned what ever Ren recquires us to is fine with me - but in regards to the statement - Kendra 1st post -"I don't care but when my kids are in the room or I'm at work I shouldn't have to worry about it when the safeguard is an option." to this statement I rest my point

Heh. Ko.. so can we argue about Big Tits in the Gallery, Pro or Con now? ;]

"I am a good person now and it feels... well, pretty much the same as I felt before (except that the headaches have gone away now that I'm not wearing control top pantyhose on my head anymore)"

• Monkeysmell

"I think that if there was a picture depicting the mutilation of a female, the fault was before the nudity flag point. I mean that according to the Renderosity rules, that picture shouldn't have been there any way, regardless of the nudity flag. Can you see my point? The picture should have been removed alltogether and the author warned."

Should have yes, what happened was the person put a censor box over the most offending part and left the mutilation. That person "should have" realized how inappropriate it was in the first place. Since he didn't and didn't bother to check the nudity flag this is exactly the reason it's needed.

"And if you require a nudity flag only because that naked Vicky shows a tit, then you may miss beautiful artistic nudes that you'll never see because of the nudity flag!"

Orio, this proves you haven't read what I've written. I never said I never wanted to see nudes. I never said there was anything wrong with nudes. I did say I even work on nude renders.
What I did say was that there were CERTAIN TIMES in which I need the nudity flag on. It is during those times that I ask people to use it and not render it useless for those who need it.
And I am not about to discuss or evaluate anything with you because that was never the point.

"Such beautiful pictures, will all be missed with the nudity flag. Unless your purpose is to simply remove ALL nudity from artworks... just because it's nudity... then your position and mine would be absolutely impossible to co-exist, because not only as an artist, but also as an art viewer, I claim the right of nudity to be used artistically"

As do I. I also claim the right to view it at my choice of time, not yours.

"and I claim the right of children to be educated to see and consider the body nudity not as something sinful to be ashamed of"

You are not the parent to anyone elses child. YOU cannot claim any of those rights. If I want my children to wait till a certain age or maturity before I let them watch certain movies or visit certain sites it's MY decision. It's not for someone else to take it upon themselves to "claim" that "right".

You also do not know what I've allowed my child to see and not see and so YOU do not have the right to make any assumptions on my part. Which is why I said:

"I'll end my rant with that and suggest that people consider that you don't have all the facts to make assumptions about people based on a couple of paragraphs of their words."

I'm simply asking that the nudity flag be used. My reasons included the work place and my children seeing those images that get by the mods or are simply too graphic for their ages. No not all nudes are porn (I never said that) but not all nudes are artistic either!

Saie Tahnn, my day has been fine :) thank you for asking. How's yours?
"I do feel that you relied too heavily upon a mechanical device, the irreputable flag, too much. Visitors cling to it as a parenting savure from all unwanted art."

Some "unwanted art" is not good for developing children. The images I mentioned above are a very good example. The poser gallery is too diverse right now for me to trust it. And I'll remind you too that I never said I wanted the nudity flag on all the time. I simply wish for it to work under certain situations. As far as children are concerned, every parent has different ideas of what should and should not be acceptable for their children and it's not anyone else's place to decide that for them. (which is why I did not want to bring up the parenting issue) When a child is at the point where you are trying to teach them that their body is their own and not for anyone else to see or touch, what they see can affect that. It's not a time period that lasts forever but they don't understand the difference between real and digital. Like I said- and this is the point I don't thing people are getting- I would not consider that I could brows Renderotica with the kids at home or at work. That site is for that sort of imagery and there is no safeguard in place for it, this arguement would be ridiculous there. Here, however, there is. If people don't use it, it renders it useless. And if it bothers anyone else that some people do make use of it, that's just something they'll have to get over. I can't force everyone to listen to Opera can I? If someone can't handle it in my car, I'll gladly turn it down, off or give them the headphones to listen to something else. :) If I were in charge of this site and did the geocities style auto-start music thing and set it to play "La Donna E Mobile" over and over, it would be offensive to some. It's beautiful, artistic and thought provoking but not everyone likes it and those reasons aren't reason enough for me to push someone else to deal with it.

Anyway I said I wasn't going to get into the parenting issue and there I did anyway. I don't like feeling like I need to defend my stance but comments like "prude", "sensitive" and suggestions that I might cover my childs eyes at the sight of the Venus Di Milo did push me. I didn't give anyone enough information for them to start making judgements.

And yes, I know the flag fails sometimes. But 6 nude thumbs in the first 5 or 6 pages of the gallery (yesterday)to me suggests a lack of using it. Not failure.

~jeez I'm long winded tonight. I'm going to make dinner. :)

...... Kendra

Lol - I'm with you Ironbear - you bring the titties, I'll bring the Beer

"it's not necessarily because it is regarding someone. Sometimes people talk about principles. " That does not apply here in this situation. This site states specifically in no uncertain terms. If there is nudity in your image- you MUST check the nudity button. This is Not about some high minded ideals not about museums not about any of the other smoke that is being blown around here. It's about the artists responsibility when using this site to use the nudity button. Its about the veiwerwho comes to this site and who chooses to not veiw nudity to make sure the no nudity button is checked in their profile. It's about this site's responsability to uphold the said terms of this site. Nothing else applies, no matter how much smoke you try to blow at it.

"this arguement would be ridiculous there. [renderotica]" - Kendra. True on the observation that there's no nudity flag to discuss. But I'll bet that bringing up "nudity in images, artists responsibility, and appropriateness of nudity" [for example, just to distill out a few themes froom in this thread] in Renderotica's Adult Graphics forum or at Thralldom would get you a pretty thoughtful and reasoned discussion for the most part. Natch, you'd get the usual joking around and inanity, but that's part of the fun. Flaming someone on their views there would get flames back, of course - hell, you'd have me and Legume to deal with in flames. But a reasoned discussion would probably get a mostly reasoned response in return. From a couple of people... an over reasoned and analytical response. ;] *************************** Comparative forum analysis aside, I think Cheryle just summed it up best, so I'll leave her to it. ;]

"I am a good person now and it feels... well, pretty much the same as I felt before (except that the headaches have gone away now that I'm not wearing control top pantyhose on my head anymore)"

• Monkeysmell

(shrug) I dunno... they could really use a "violence" flag over at 'rotica to weed out the violent and sadistic images from the gentler displays of erotica. I'll have to crank out an e-mail to Diane 'bout that sometime, but I've never really thought about it until now... /P

Do. Put it up as a suggestion for the new software. It's not a bad idea as a feature.

"I am a good person now and it feels... well, pretty much the same as I felt before (except that the headaches have gone away now that I'm not wearing control top pantyhose on my head anymore)"

• Monkeysmell

Why do i feel we should all be humming Onward Christien Soldeirs in the background...? Ironbear why stop there... we should catagorize the white nudes, the black nudes and the ones containing asian people as well...the members of the KKK and bigots from round the glode would certainly be more receptable to the site and be able to filter out those pics especially when there kids are around. And why stop there even we could seperate the ones with black rubber suits from the ones with white rubber suits - the good and evil thing. I sure ther are people that would appriciate that. Personally I like to see afilter for the ones with landscape in them, I only want to see ones from the city scape....where does it end folks?? I don't people ...I always thought this site was meant for artists of all kinds...and with that came the responsibility to protect the artist and free thinking. With out cencership - catagorizing sure - filtering - no. I would understand and be more receptive to an organized site which had catagories for art work but not the filtering thing. Chyrle - I'd have to refer back to Hawkfyr and say it's not what you, it's how you say it - if I have his point right. Not that I'm the most versed person in the world mind you. but I believe the issue of making sure the box was checked is a given at this point. And this has now developed into the related issues there of brought up with-in this thread. Which all corralates back to the original post. Art will always or hopefully be contravertal, at times appealing and at times disturbing. The masters tend to push the boundries of not only the media of choice but the boundries of what's socially exceptable. What your talking about with the 'Use' of the nudity button thether it's intent or not - is censorship.

Wouldn't you all agree that catagorizing would be better than 'filtering'? Kendra - if you came here and on the front page there was a list of all the catagories - Scenery - sci-fi, nudesand the sub catagories, sci-fi nudes, etc and no nude banners on the scenery sci-fi etc would that solve your issue to your satisfaction?

"And this has now developed into the related issues there of brought up with-in this thread. Which all corralates back to the original post." No -the issue always was and still is- use the nudity flag. Anything else is a separate issue and should be addressed in a separate thread. The rest is just hyperbole. This never was about principles etc. It has always been about the site's nudity flag, the responsibility of the artist posting, the veiwer and the sites responsibility for upholding the terms. Nothing else.

"I'd have to refer back to Hawkfyr and say it's not what you, it's how you say it " Why should i pontificate, lecture, hold forth and speel 12 paragraphs of drivial when i can say what i mean clearly and succinctly in 1?

hey! i was eating those! ( chex mix) That was my breakfast!!!

I can already hear the rebut coming so i answer - kids will be kids and granted with out a filter they risk getting into things they shouldn't or we would rathr them not get into as parents. playing with matches or knifes and not getting run over by a car things of that nature. Since we must preserve the rights of all - to have all availiable - wouldn't you agree as parents it's up to you as a parent to teach your kids to look both ways before crossing a street - Then this falls under the same cinario -you as a parent will have to teach your kids - whether you want them to see nudes or not, and which nudes or when you feel it's the appropriate time in life to view them. And learn to trust your kids a little as to what you as a parent have taught them. And sure they may get into the nudes or matches - but that's part of being a parent, you learn to deal with those situations just as they will as kids. heck i remember the first time i saw a playboy and snuck over to the tracks with my new to me, girlfriend - but those arn't bad memories heck i was laughing at the pictures and had no clue what a girlfiend was - they where still carrying kudies at that age.(though in a couple years I learned other wise:)heh heh give me them kudies girl I'm sure the girls remember there first kiss or the first time they saw that thang or had a drink. I'm sure your parents at the time or at some time did not approve, did you turn out to be mass murders or rapists? Are you bad people? Well I wish everyone a happy day and or night - I have work to do. Memories....aaaaahhhhhh

What part of- some of us have NO INTEREST in seeing nudes and use the filter as we are SUPPOSED TO do you not understand? Why is it such a big deal that some people have NO INTEREST in seeing nudes and do not wish to?

by catagorizing - you can still elect "not" to see them "so what differnce does it make"? to quote you. a filter removes - cencorship is just that the 'removal' of said items

lol! THX! ;) munches breakfast happily

"a filter removes - cencorship is just that the 'removal' of said items " No -the items are still there- the people who want to see them(have the see nudes in gallery option turned on) still can see them-nothing is removed.

censorship - defininiton - a system of censoring ie the prevention of according to my dictionary Why is it such a big deal that some people have NO INTEREST in seeing nudes and do not wish to? how is this accomplished - by placing a filter or system of cencoring

It would be censorship if people who wanted to view nudity were prevented from seeing it. This isn't the case. The nudity flag is to allow people who have zero interest in T&A from having it thrust willy nilly into their faces. This is not a hard concept.

correction - that's Websters new world dictionary

my point can only be realized if we agree on terms - do agree to the definition of cencorship according to Websters dictionary?

Saie do you even know how the profile options work? i am getting the feeling you don't. Here on this site- there are 3 things in place that accomplish the goal of allowing those who want to upload and view nudes to do so and to allow those who do not want to view them to not view them. To NOT view the nudes- one has to physically go into ones OWN profile and click a button. That only prevents THAT USER fromm viewing something they do not wish to see. THAT IS ALL> the rest who wish to view that item can. NOTHING IS REMOVED. It's all set by USER PREFERENCE! IN NO WAY DOES THIS FALL UNDER YOUR DEFINITION OF CENSORSHIP! Now, again- what is the diff between redesigning the site into nudes non nudes and one using the system in place? This system actually works when artists, veiwers and Admins//mods each uphold their end of the terms.

Is that the true concern here? - the desire or non-desire as to redesigning the site? I though we where having a simple discusion amongst members that was simply an interesting topic. it was brought up about nude banners and concerns of cencorship from not only the viewers side but the artists side as well,it was also brought up about the use of the 'filter' as a parenting control device. all related to the initially posted statement. an yes - I do know how to use the profile page - thats been stated umteen times

Lol, so in the name of "censorship" you think I should have tits and crotches shoved in my viewing sight whether I want them there or not? It's called a choice. And on the other end of my choice is someone elses respect for that.
Someone turning on the nudity filter censors no one but themselves. It's not censoring you, or anyone else here. It's simply a warning to me that I may not want to open the image if I'm at work or there is someone else near the computer that might be offended.

And example. My Grandmother would be highly offended by the nude images here including mine. She likes the cute ones though. Should I disrespect her wishes and email her one of my nude renders? If she doesn't look at it it's "censorship" in your mind. Is she censoring me by not wishing to see them?
A resounding NO.

Oh my GOSH! I just realized that I'm "CENSORING" Playboy by not buying their magazing or watching their channel. Someone sue me.

:)

...... Kendra

• meanders through the smoke to get the bowl of thorazine laced chex* Ok for the remedial part of the class. The topic is Nudity flag- use it. This site states specifically in no uncertain terms. If there is nudity in your image- you MUST check the nudity button. It's about the artists responsibility when using this site to use the nudity button. Its about the veiwerwho comes to this site and who chooses to not veiw nudity to make sure the no nudity button is checked in their profile. It's about this site's responsability to uphold the said terms of this site. That's all this is about- the rest is smoke. I really don't know how to make this any clearer. It really is just that simple.

"Why do i feel we should all be humming Onward Christien Soldeirs in the background...?" I dunno... tell us why. These flags are used to react with filtering devices that the view sets on his or her browser. you wanna see BDSM porn and decapitated chicks getting ass-raped by a demon then set your own filter so that you can see 'em. (Renderotica has a real wide variety of imagery, and I mean real wide...) Otherwise, if you just want to see girls kissing or a couple going at it in the usual ways, set your filter for that and the blood magically never arrives on your browser. Of course, you could just take the time to read what you're reacting to which would save me from having to explain what I wrote for a second time. Ironbear why stop there... we should catagorize the white nudes, the black nudes and the ones containing asian people as well... Cool - Asian nudes are the cutest IMHO, which allows this Ozark hillbilly to get to 'em faster >:) the members of the KKK and bigots from round the glode would certainly be more receptable to the site and be able to filter out those pics especially when there kids are around. Having lived in and around a few Kluxers (Northern Arkansas, but they're a dying breed and rightfully so), I can tell you that most of 'em couldn't even spell "modem" with any certainty, let alone use one. However, that fact aside, most Kluxers avoid artistic sites in the first place. They tend to hate culture and arts in general (or anything else that requires more thought than the average television sitcom), since they're too consumed with their particular animosities to bother with the arts. Even as a guy who is NOT a Kluxer, I wouldn't want any kids to see half of the nudes in Renderosity's galleries... not due to skin color, but due to the fact that I would have to answer questions that no kid should ask, like: "Daddy, what is that girl on the computer about to stick up her butt and why?" /P

"I though we where having a simple discusion amongst members that was simply an interesting topic." No- We were talking about members not abiding by this sites rule that when one is uploading a nude image- one MUST use the nudity flag. Hence the topic name of "Nudity flag is there for a reason." "it was brought up about nude banners and concerns of cencorship from not only the viewers side but the artists side as well,it was also brought up about the use of the 'filter' as a parenting control device. " All which were brought up in a feeble attempt to sidetrack from the original topic of- "nudity tag is there for a reason" and has absolutely nothing to do with the original topic, which revolves around the artists responsibility when using this site to use the nudity button,the veiwer who comes to this site and who chooses to not veiw nudity to make sure the no nudity button is checked in their profile and this site's responsability to uphold the said terms of this site. Hey Illusions- uh who was the thorazine for? oh never mind- i ate half of it already- so it doesn't matter anymore! I always did want to do the Thorazine Shuffle"..

If we don't agree on the definition of cencorship as stated the point that I'm trying to make here will not be seen. perhaps you've eaten from the blue bowl and not the red by mistake. Just as, if you misinterprete my words or exlude the ending on which I validated my meaning. My point is that if used in conjucntion with a filter, as you so attamently insist is not a "system of censorship", or at least at this point this point we haven't agreed to, (whether it can be turned on or off is a mute point and irrelavent to the deffinition of a system of cencorship - a lght bulb can be turned on and off but it's still a light bulb.) just as pop-up stoppers are a form of censorship, so true is the nudity button or an orange button or a green button if it filters out those colors or whatever it might filter out. Arkansa is not the only place the KKK live and I too have known members, whether I agree with their statements or not is irrelavent, but I never under estimate their intellegance nor their desire for culture. They have their rights as well.

If the nudity/violence/etc filter is voluntary and is set or unset by the user at their whim, then it is not censorship. If the artist is required to set those filter flags as a condition of posting their imagery, it is still not the form of censorship you have railed on about, because those users who want to see the kind of art the artist produces can still see it in spite of the flags, and no one else is forced to. In short, everyone can still see or not see whatever artwork they desire. How much simpler does the explanation have to get? And yeah, the Kluxers are in a lot of places... they are stronger North of the Mason-Dixon line these days than south of it (esp. in places like rural Illinois and Indiana.) I also know that the vast majority of Kluxers I have seen or spoken to live by a narrowly defined set of "ideals". Most white supremacist groups absolutely hate the US gov't, and see technology as a means by which the government can intrude upon their lives even further...) Now, if you would be so kind as to get off of your soapbox long enough to see what everyone here is trying to get through to you, and read it with an open mind, you would see that there is no problem with the filtering that Renderosity has here. Last mention I'm making on the subject. /P

And all of this has what to do with this site's rules which state use the nudity button when uploading a nude image?

Frankly, I've got a hangover headache before I've had a chance to party. I think Saie_Tahn wants (a) attention and (b) to promote an agenda and (c) has no interest in the rights of anyone but Saie_Tahn, ignoring the fact that none of Saie_Tahn's rights are threatened by the judicious use of the checkbox, so I can't figure out what the argument is. It is not because Saie_Tahn's graphics are in danger of not being viewed because none are posted in the gallery, and Saie_Tahn can view anything without restriction. It makes no sense. sigh. So much of what goes on makes no sense. Happy New Year to you all. I am spending mine at my house. I hope you all have a safe and happy entry into 2003.

Some people make sense...some people make nonsense...some people don't make any sense at all LOL! The new motto for Renderosity????

Happy new year to you too Dialyn- hope your doggie is feeling ok and hanging in there too! And i am pretty happy- i just finished scarfing down the rest of Illusions thorazine chex mix LOL ;D and yep that would be a good tag line LOL!

Illusions actually- i haven't figured out how to get html working properly in here so i end up resorting to caps and asterixes a lot for emphasis. Yah i know caps is yelling but i am too uncoordinated to do html in forums! LOL

Actually you can use the same html coding you'd use anywhere, but you don't need to indicate head or body,

so

<i>this</i>

gives you this
and this

gives you this
and this

gives you this
as a starter kit.

:)

Apologies for the spacing....the forum throws in the

<br></br><br></br>

spaces where I don't want them and I sometimes delete them in the wrong place.

My bugaboo.

Thank you- you just told me where i went wrong i was including the header and body tag! i will have to find a slow forum and practice! again thank you!

illusions - if you'll indulge yourself and look up the definition of censorship I don't believe you'll find the use of whether it's forced or elected of any sort assosiated with it. then using an 'open mind' you might understand my point. I'm sure I don't stand alone in that view.

Penguinisto- my post below yours (post 114) was not refering to you but the post above yours. We cross posted. Just thought i would clear that up.

OK that's it! Drop the mouse! Put your hands in the air and back away Slowly from the computer! Again- what does any of that have to do with this site's rules? nothing.

Fun, isn't it?

Thanks from me too dialyn. I'd been wondering. It appears that Saie_Tahnn may be playing Devils' Advocate. I appreciate the pun in his screen name! I often play devils' advocate. He and I (unfortunately) have a lot in common!

Before they made me they broke the mold!
http://home.roadrunner.com/~kflach/

OOOoooOOOOoHHH!

Illusions- the only part where i think you went too far is here, when you state
*"It would appear you do not understand the basics of censorship or parenting "
*Sait hasn't gotten past the concept of some people having no interest in viewing nudity.

Attached Link: http://www.angelfire.com/linux/gopalfamily/colorwheel.html

neat little color picker here- scroll to the bottom of the page and run your mouse over the color wheel and it gives the web color reference number. It also converts web colors to cmyk and other neat stuff. Just thought i would go off on a tangent here ;)

i know LOL ;) the rest of it is neat ;) i am supposed to be working but the html stuff looked like fun ;) Ah well- I did 3 jobs already so i guess i am done for the day.

I kinda like this color...

LOL!!!!! hey i like that! LOL

I guess I should have had them look up the definition of 'artist' as well Bobasaur. 3rd ref. in my websters dictionary - but I'm sure you'll know which ref. I'm refering to. I would have had them if they agreed to the definition. But alas it was fun :)

All right you guys back on Topic! Knock off all of that damned irrelevant fun. This is a learning forum, dagnabbit! Oh wait - you were learning HTML. Nebber mind. ;] Better luck next time, Saie_Tahnn. Sometimes it works. grin Happy new years.

"I am a good person now and it feels... well, pretty much the same as I felt before (except that the headaches have gone away now that I'm not wearing control top pantyhose on my head anymore)"

• Monkeysmell

Happy New Year everyone. Talk at you next yr.

Sai it would have never worked- i don't own a websters dictionary ;P

happy new year to you too.

Happy New Years!

Before they made me they broke the mold!
http://home.roadrunner.com/~kflach/