Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/index.ez?viewLink=193

We have made a change to our TOS regarding young images posted on Renderosity. "No depictions of young humanoid characters/children giving the appearance of being under the age of 18 where genitals are displayed and/or in erotic, seductive, provocative poses or context. Since age is difficult to identify with 3D images, this will be at the discretion of the Renderosity team." Images posted before this change in the TOS, we are asking members to help. We will take care of them when brought to our attention or when we find them. We will communicate with the artist and give them a couple of days to change the image out with an appropriate one before deleting it. If the image is uploaded after the TOS, we will delete them and communicate with the artists. If you are unsure about an image, please feel free to ask us. Any of the team can respond. thanks Renderosity Team

Thanks Tammy :O)

Sandy
An imagination can create wonderful things

SndCastie's Little Haven

I suspect I know which image sparked this change. This looks like just a clarification rather than a big change. Is there any change on the 'crucifixion' restriction? That is, it's against the TOS, but when it's a religious (Christian) image, it seems to be allowed. Perhaps a minor change to the TOS would be in order there, too. And that is NOT a complaint, merely a suggestion based on recent controversies I've seen around R'sity. ;-) bonni

"When a man gives his opinion, he's a man. When a woman gives her opinion, she's a bitch." - Bette Davis

There is a clause in the TOS that deals with that; "Conversely there may be some images which, whilst in apparent violation of the rules, will be permitted to stay in the interests of free speech and religious tolerance. In such cases the artist may be asked to furnish reasons why the image should be permitted to stay and the decision of the Renderosity staff will be final." AgentSmith

Contact Me | Gallery | Freestuff | IMDB Credits | Personal Site
"I want to be what I was when I wanted to be what I am now"

Thanks Tammy

If the end goal of learning is genius...why are most geniuses failures at learning?

I'm glad.

Thank you for the link Tammy.

Nancy Deer With Horns
Deer With Horns Native American Indian Site

This is an excellent addition to the TOS.

Well thank God it's only in regard to humanoid-like creatures. I was getting ready to start my exposon young, angst-ridden pre-pubescent monkeys hanging from branches.

But glad to see some clarification. A few here tend to compete with good taste.

So... Christians really are more equal than anybody else? I doubt if you'll allow any depiction of Tantrism to remain no matter what excuse the artist delivered. And a frolicsome mermaid will get you banned as a child pronographer. But death and torture and mutilation are ok if there are rosy sunbeams dancing over the gore? I can't say that I'm the least bit surprised. This is a battle which the application of logic and the doctrine of fairness will not win. Carolly

I would ask that such images that apply to the new TOS addition be a depiction of a scene from some sort of recorded history, meaning we wish to allow pictures that are of an inspirational/religious nature, but to try and avoid abuse of this new addition to the TOS...a reference to a recorded event would be best. And, this new addition applies for any religion. I am not sure about Tantrism, since we are really adding this due to the nature of some blood, violence, etc, in some of the religious pictures. Tantrism has to do with female-centered sex-worship (originaly) That is an over-simplification of Tantrism, but I do realize the point you are making. AgentSmith

Contact Me | Gallery | Freestuff | IMDB Credits | Personal Site
"I want to be what I was when I wanted to be what I am now"

Do breasts count as 'genitals' ? I mean in terms of the TOS of course. Topless 17 year old - is that verboten? :] Fish

"Topless 17 year old - is that verboten?" Only if enough people think she "looks young". ;-) bonni

"When a man gives his opinion, he's a man. When a woman gives her opinion, she's a bitch." - Bette Davis

"Do breasts count as 'genitals' ?" No, they don't. Mons pubis, labia, vaginal opening, penis, testes are what we refer to as genitals. "Topless 17 year old - is that verboten?" Not automatically, no. It would depend entirely on the image. If it was, say, a beach scene then it would almost certainly be fine. If she was in a sexy, provocative, erotic scene then it would almost certainly be removed. Kev.

That wasn't already in the TOS?? Well, good addition, then.

Carolly: "So... Christians really are more equal than anybody else?"

Does that surprise you? Here in America the Christian president is trying to amend the Constitution to fit his "more equal" vision of this country. Don't get me started, my friend. :-(

-Heidi

One goes into the house of eleven eleven times, but always comes out one. -River Tam

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

You are FREE... to do what we tell you.

HEY! I got "access denied!" I couldn't get a quote for my soul! :-/ Figures. I feel like Charlie Brown. "I got a rock." -H

One goes into the house of eleven eleven times, but always comes out one. -River Tam

Dratskies! And here I thought could sell them nothing for something, and be on the other end of the equation for once. ;^)

excellent addition, but shouldn't this rule have been here alot earlier?

Getting old and still making "art" without soiling myself, now that's success.

It's been there in one form or another for a long time. This is just a rewording to hopefully make things a little clearer. Kev.

It's a sad world we live in. We are truely a brainwashed, controlling species. We are the only one that does it. Who am I to stand in the way of dislogical attitudes. Best of luck.

Ants do it.

thanks, considering how many pictures of the "fae" depicted in child form and in a sexual format. and with sex toys nearby were being posted on the site, and that includes the adult site that renderosity had for a time being. that was thinly disguised child porn. even though they the artists taht created them claimed that they were fae and not kids. if it looks like a kid even with fae ears and was in sexual poses, it still was child porn. and a good portion of those pics had various forms of sex toys, including bondage it was sickening. only aperverted mind would do stuff like that, then claim it was art.

I'd say that logic has won the day.

Good move.

Something To Do At 3:00AM 

Btw, the TOS is ok for me and has been before.

Every organisation rests upon a mountain of secrets ~ Julian Assange

A laudable idea but one which I'm glad I don't have to enforce..especially with the 3D sexy schoolgirl outfit products that are sold as well as breast reduction morphs etc. As has been mentioned there are those who do fairies/faes and, one could argue, that they are in contravention of TOS..I don't think so myself. By the way Bees do it..even educated fleas do it

Well, since the Supremes have (so far) refused to condone Mr. Ass- oops, there I go again -ASHcroft's fatwa against virtual kiddie porn, it's legal in the US if not everyone's cuppa. However, who knows when the Forces for Good will, perhaps retroactively, be able to enforce the ban. So I believe the TOS are both reasonable and prudent; but at this juncture, it's a matter of taste and the Staff has a perfect right to enforce theirs. I DO find it interesting that so many nekkid kiddie characters, textures and mats are on offer, all with the "important parts" tastefully obscured in the demo images. Does anyone really believe these are all going to end up as forest sprites or skirt-and-panty clad cheerleaders?

i dont think so that most of them will end up as sprites. most of the materials most likely will end up as virtual child porn. to me IMHO, pedophiles are the lowest and should be put to death

Well frankly, I think the death penalty is barbaric, and I'm glad you don't run the world.

One goes into the house of eleven eleven times, but always comes out one. -River Tam

The death penalty IS barbaric, and should be reserved only for people who behave in a barbaric fashion. Like anyone who hurts kids. That being said.. It's a gray area. We live in a world dominated by a repressed christian state, and the rest of the world has to play along, Or Suffer The Wrath of God(tm). As right now American repressed Chistian Politicians think that anyone younger than 18 being naked/sexually active is evil, well, it's evil. I personally reserve that label for people who lust after kids who haven't hit puberty, or those that seek commercially to exploit that lust. This is just 'osity covering their butts, and it's smart to do so; I just hope that they keep that spark of free thought they occasionally show, and continue to allow things that are controversial to appear here.

The death penalty should be abolished. Period. Just my opinion. And before I get flamed with a bunch of "wait until it happens to you..." I am the mother of a victim. So yes, it has happened to me, and completely torn my family apart. And to quote Ghandi (I think it was Ghandi, anyway) "an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind." -H

One goes into the house of eleven eleven times, but always comes out one. -River Tam

Thank you Renderosity Team.... And I ditto Firekath.

There are 10 kinds of people: Those who know binary, and those who don't. 

A whiner is about as useful as a one-legged man at an arse kicking contest.

Good words but not Ghandi - Martin Luther King. As for reserving barbaric punishment for barbaric acts, two wrongs don't make a right! Because another does something evil, doesn't make it OK for us to commit evil! We are supposed to be better!

My last word on this subject. Child pornography is bad because it hurts children. "Virtual" Child pornography hurts NO ONE. They are not people. They are not even AI's. Banning Virtual Child porn HURTS CHILDREN! If there is some one with what ever mental problem causes them to sexually arounsed by thoughts and images of having sex with children, then in the United States we ALL know they are not going to get any help because we have a profit based medical system that frequetly tosses the violent mentally ill back on streets rather than spend a dim on caring for them, so some who hasn't hurt some one will go compleatly untreated. Without any way to get help, and with no "virtual" outlet for their sickness, eventually... IT MUST MANIFEST. That means that eventually this degenerate who might have spent the rest of his life quitely waking off in private WILL go after a real child, and when he does, his fustration and commitment will MORE than likely result in his doing anything necceassy to cover up his act. That means KILLING the child to keep them quiet. Conversly, does ANYONE truely belive some one would actually do such a thing BECAUSE they saw a 3D picture? No... the next step would be to get pictures of REAL children, not an actual child. That a line we can police and catch them at. Think about that the next time you see an Amber alert. A picture may be worth a thousand words, but one banned picture could be worth a child's life.

I am not interested in condemning Brian Froud or Arthur Rackham, Gil Elvgren, Alberto Vargas, among others for their innovative imaginations. I approach this realm with these classics in mind, as have many others who now have the means to follow that artistic path using the digital world's new creative outlets. There are many imitators or inspired new artists obviously following. It's also obvious that the underground of such inspiration runs right along side due to freedom of expression. It always has. I agree with the TOS but I am more than reluctant to post any future Fae. It seems it's the government's sense of incriminating evidence which comes back to scare everyone. Yes I am paranoid.

"Freedom" in a group society only works when you are able to consider the group rather than your own ambitions. "Freedom" is currently not obtainable by the human race. And won't be for quite some time. -ScottA

they have found cases where the folks that had the virtual child porn went for the real stuff http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=15252 http://www.pcanswer.com/articles/synd_virtualporn.htm The other side could argue that allowing virtual porn will open the floodgates to real porn by creating the impression that images of children engaged in sex is somehow acceptable. What's to stop production companies from churning out child porn films for our local video stores? And how are we to really know whether all that child porn is really virtual or really real? child porn is child porn, be it of of real children or virtual children

philebus: "Good words but not Ghandi - Martin Luther King" OK, well I knew it was somebody good. :-) And I totally agree with what you're saying. -Heidi

One goes into the house of eleven eleven times, but always comes out one. -River Tam

hmmm....touchy subject.... as a father of 3 daughters, i have to applaud this move, and hope that it extends to MP products such as various "young" Vic/Steph packs......there are a number available, and I for one, would happily see them gone in an instant.

 "That which doesn't kill you is probably re-loading"

Rattler, by law, be it virtual or real, child porn is illegal. and both harm kids

As a matter of legislative principle, I agree with Ratteler - I don't believe in legislating against victimless crimes, and I can't think of a good argument that CGI child porn directly victimizes any actual person.

However, I feel I should point out, it's not quite as simple as saying it provides a ""virtual" outlet for their sickness". Intuitively, it seems to make sense, but IIRC, without digging out my old Human Sexuality textbook, there is some evidence that "quietly wanking off in private" to child porn reinforces and strengthens the pedophilic tendancies of the person doing it (and this presumably applies to virtual as well as real images). Rather than relieve the urge, it may actually make it stronger. Of course, there's not very much good evidence either way, since it's hard to put together a random sample of pedophiles, for obvious reasons (most of the studies I'm aware of were used prisoners as their population base, most/all of whom were actual molesters, so the sample is inherently biased).

Last I heard, btw, it was still potentially up in the air whether virtual child porn actually is illegal. Congress passed a law against it, but the Supreme Court declared at least part of it unconstitutional. I think Congress may have revised the statute, but that the revised version hasn't yet been ruled on by the Supreme Court.

But of course, what may not be illegal, or even what Ratteler or I or anyone else think ought not to be illegal, has little or no relevance to what Renderosity may decide to disallow in their privately-owned online galleries (except for the fact that if they allowed illegal material to be posted, their galleries would be forcibly shut down before long).

To say that someone waking off in private will not manifest those desires in publc, is false. All things that grow including emotions/desires, when nurtured have consequences or 'bear fruit'. To deny that is to have no understanding of human emotional dynamics or potential. emotions tend to behave simular to the laws of physics.."a body in motion tends to stay in motion unless acted on by an outside force. Isaac Newton". Ergo, emotions/desires unless acted on by an outside force or emotion, continue to develop to they're natural conclusion. This is not to say that one doesn't have free will, but to say that desires harbored in private, will come out... Regardless, if not sincerly altered by that individual, with help. Everyone has flaws, and there a lot of people in the mental health field, who are truly out to help people..and if you must know i am a group therapist. It just seems to me that renderosity is trying not to participate in the growing tide of child pornograpy on the net, and that's ok by me.

The fact that a millionair who was sent through a popularity contest paid for by billionairs, makes a rule for a group of special interests, or based on his own moral judgment, does not make that "Rule of Law" right. Claiming that Virtual Child Porn harms kids has no basis in fact. There has been NO study on kids who weren't hurt because pedofiles looked at virtual porn, and there for no numbers by wich to judge the non-detrimental effects. "If they expose themselves to pictures of <<>> it tends to create the impression that such activity is somehow "normal" and maybe even acceptable." This has been the excuse for a "moral" minority to force their will over groups for ages. Almost the exact same wording was used to condem Rock and Roll, Liberalism and Conservitism, and just about every religion, or lifestyle ever created. There is a very fine line between prtotection and persicusion. This is just the latest in a pattern of trying to censor the free speech of Americans. If a childs picture is "Morphed" to make it appear that child is in a sexual situation a CHILD is still used for the picture. In my opinion that is STILL hurting a child. If an adult is morphed to look like a child, it's still a consenting adult. No one thinks Andy Serkis is actually an evil creature who eat's fish and is obsessed with a ring because he was MORPHED into Golum. If the content is ALL 3D, the only person insvolved is the artist. No one was harmed in the creation of the art in any way. It's STILL not illegal have thoughts. Even bad ones. It's action that should be illegal. One of the links you posted mentions the "Slippery Slope", and points out that it exists on both sides of the issue. However it misses one important part of the argument. While every child has 2 parents somewhere who should be protecting them, we have no protection FROM the Law. As is stands now there are so many laws that it is immpossible to enforce them all. When law in any way becomes selectable enforcable, it becomes unjust. This "LAW" has tried, convicted and sentanced all of us because something we MIGHT do, might be misused. It's all fine and good to claim that you're protecting children, but are you? And at what cost? We might very well live long safe lives if we were rendered incapable of having bad thoughts, but would it be a life worth living? All these modern laws to "Protect Children" are making a world where ALL OF US only have the rights afforded to children. "Protect the Children" is the new sound bite to make anything they want to shove down your throat sound acceptable. After who (besides possibly me) would take the side of "NOT protecting the children?" Politic has become a game of social engeneering disguised as "democracy", and the law is the tool used by the government to control the people they should be "by, of, and for." In R'osity's defence, I can see why they would have no choice but implement such a rule. THey simply can't afford to be attacked even if they were opposed to it. It's our fault this happened for letting elitist bastard run our lives and make these irresponsible laws in the first place.

one of the reasons virtual child porn is also considered to be illegal. is at times it is harder to tell that it is virtual. that it isnt a real child that has been abused. plus alot of those who have the viritual child porn, tend to go for the stuff with the real children, that or molest children as well

Andy Serkis isn't an evil creature who eats fish and is obsessed with a ring??? Oh, man, my world view is shattered! ;-P

One goes into the house of eleven eleven times, but always comes out one. -River Tam

Yu said' All these modern laws to "Protect Children" are making a world where ALL OF US only have the rights afforded to children" It is interesting that you said that, bear with me a sec.. Now i saw a documatary on this modern civilization that has virually no crime. The amazing thing was that 100 yrs ago it was the most violent place on earth. and now governments all over the world go there to try to study and learn how they acomplished it. the only answer that they gave was that they, as a group decided to put the safety and security of they're children above their own rights. i sat in aweand watched as young men from 7-16 roamed in packs through the city (much like in america) playing and laughing. You are correct. Actions should be punished. NOT thoughts. and government should not try to regulate them. Least we end up with thought police. but with a hyper-sensitive society such as ours, and lax enforcement of the laws what do you expect? the best One can do is work on oneself and try to pass those qualities on, and teach them to others who will listen.

Hate to disallusion any of you whom do not agree, but some thoughts are just not acceptable as being 'normal' on the human front, and 'child porn' happens to be one of those. It's good to see the TOS finally addressing a real problem that has been developing for some time under the disguise of 'just' being 3D or virtual art; the 'thought' is still there and it's a sick one and there's just no excuse for it in any way shape or form, including 'anime' which unfortunatly is already running rampant on the net and everywhere else one can get away with having blatant or symbolic 'underage' frolic and fun.

I did not say some thoughts are not unexceptable, what i said is that they are private. the only one who should judge you for your thoughts is god, or your higher power. We as humans only have the ability to judge actions. Whatever inner conflicts we all have is personal.

"Hate to disallusion any of you whom do not agree, but some thoughts are just not acceptable as being 'normal' on the human front..." That is quite possibly the scariest statment I've ever heard. You can't even evaluate right and wrong if you can't think of "wrong". And who decides "NORMAL"? A few thousand years ago it was normal to take your first born to tample and watch a "preist" jab a dagger into their heart. Everyone did it and if you protested you weren't "NORMAL". In some countries a person reaches the "Age of Consent" at 13. Pretty sick my personal book, but "NORMAL" there. If we can't even reach a world wide agreement on "normal", how do you expect enforce your version of it. Even if it was possible to wipe out every image of child pornography, you won't end the cause. You'll just drive the afflicted into hiding making them harder to weed out. You're effectivly training every child sexual preditor on stealth. How do you think so many of them ended up as Catholic Preists? I say give them something that causes no one harm, and let them identify them selves by going after it. You don't get rid of "abnormaility" by trying to hide it. If anything, Zero tolerance to this level will cause people who MIGHT have gotten help to NOT to. In the mean team time, you're crippled any artist/storyteller from even creating cautionary tales that might give children a real advantage at avoiding these preditors, because the very subject matter is taboo. It a formular that can ONLY result in making super preditors and the perfect victums for them.

Some interesting views on an often debated [but never solved] issue. I am not going to repeat the remarks I have posted elsewhere on the subject...but will say that as usual nudity and pornography get confused when the issue is discussed. They do not mean the same thing to most 'healthy' minds.

Ah, Mondox, I agree, but who says Mr. Ashcroft and his accomplices have 'healthy' minds? Myself, I think they're right up there with the Gedankenpolizei and other puritains who, to paraphrase Mencken, are afraid that some people, somewhere, are enloying themselves. And how many K-Porn aficionados have found it easier to create their own pix than to take the chance of detection by mail order or trolling the net? Perhaps vrtual K-P will decrease the market in the real stuff and spare kiddies from (at least) photographic abuse. After all, you can pose the little buggers any way you like; so why go to the trouble and danger of sharing someone else's sick fantasy when you can depict your very own?

Rattler your arguements on the child porn is the same ones that Men4boys were using. they are a group of pedophiles who tried to get pedophilia made legal. they also claimed that molesting children did no harm to the children as well.

"That is quite possibly the scariest statment I've ever heard." A child viewed as something 'sexual' or 'erotic' by anyone is a very scary thought indeed. "A few thousand years ago.." We are here and now, not in the past. A few thousand years ago we didn't have toilets either, in fact, they were just invented in this century; almost a strange thought if you think of how far we have come along in such a short while, and yet we would have so far yet to go it would seem. I suppose we should think the world is flat with monsters waiting for us at the edge too. There are those even in today's age that would stab their victims with daggers and shoot other humans with guns for whatever moves them at the moment, and I guess if humans did not have laws and TOS's decided upon by the many, there's lots more few that would decide their sickness and needs are normalcy, and the world would be a free for all anarchy. Think of the possibilities. "In some countries a person reaches the "Age of Consent" at 13." In some countries cows are more sacred than humans, in others women are still less than mere slaves living only for one purpose, to do a man's bidding, or suffer dire consequences. Children are abducted at very young ages every day to serve as hookers in far away countries. The people that do all this tell themselves they are normal while they count the money they make from those that seek pleasure from these very young ages; who then must also think they are normal or such young ages would not be available for them to seek. Ironically, due to many various diversions, mankind is still quite confused in many ways, or we would not need laws, TOS's or a definition of 'normalcy'. 'Thoughts' alone, that are considered sick, are not something that hurts others until they are brought to life and/or imposed upon others; which they obviously are far too often, or our various laws or this TOS update would not be needed. You know what's scary? The fact this TOS clause is even needed here, that is very scary.

<softly sings a few bars of "The Freaks Come Out at Night" and walks away chuckling>

well i guess this ring the death bell and a witchhunt/inquisition to ban most anime or asiate pictures :( i mean in anime, characters has a very special look, japanese/asiates too have a specific morphology.. now for most anime picture featuring atypical asiate context.. well i hope i am wrong but what i see/fear is just a blind slaugther and hunt. btw which picture caused the controversy ?

Not to add fuel to the fire, but I spoke with a sex offender tonight. He said that a place like Renderosity should certainly have this in their TOS. He told me that virtual or real, it does, in fact, "normalize" the act. It makes it seem like "everybody is doing it." He told me that people who have this sexual addiction need to keep ANY images of child pornography as far away from them as possible, as it exacerbates their problem. He also said that he applauds Renderosity for this measure.

-H

One goes into the house of eleven eleven times, but always comes out one. -River Tam

Firekath... NO. My arguments are about free speech and expression. I REALLY resent being compared to a child molester because I think it's important to be able to talk about that subject matter. Talking about something is not doing it. The problem all you people who seem SO eager to restrict everyone elses right to expression have is the sick and unatural belief is that you can assign YOUR responsibility to some one else. People need to be responsible for THEIR OWN actions. When our "civilization" finnaly get's THAT through it collective thick heads then maybe it can reverse the decline it's been in.

RAttler You are correct.

Rattler You are correct. AS much as I hate to say so. This is not about defending the right of pedifiles it's about free Speach. But renderosity has the right to not participate in that if they chose.

I totally understand R'osity positition. They can be sued out of existance or have other legal action that would basically wipe them off the fast of the Earth. I can tell you I'm taking flack for taking a small stand, and I can't really be held accountable for anything.

Rattler read Butterfly fish, and what that one found outby talking to a actual molester. it was my room mate who noticed the simularities between your speach and the ones that men4boys used to explain why virtual child porn is ok. i followed up and found out that Mrrlyn is correct on it

when creating art, it is hopefully tasteful. if nude adults, if done tastefully is art, otherwise it is porn. nude children is child porn. no matter what poses, and or objects are in it. let me remind you that 3 and more is illegal. i definately can see why Renderosity has to impose this. they at least need to stay on the good side of the law in order to provide the community with stuff the artists here can use. otherwise they might be shut down and we lose a great place to be. plus, it is not only the children that get hurt by child porn, it is also the adults. as for age of consent. well those countries that have such supposedly low age for it. also have the highest mortality rates for kids. and they are also the thrid world countries, not a supposedly cilvilized one. to decent folks. free speach does not include the sickening thing of child porn.

The thing that is slighty scarey is the attitude of 'if it's suspected kiddie porn then we can ignore basic human rights' that a lot of authorities seem to have. I see the new bogeyman, the dreaded paedo looming large everywhere and it's worrying. Everyone loudly proclaiming their loathing of kiddie porn and yet it still goes on. We, as a society, sell tube tops, lingerie and mini-skirts for under 10s, have under 10s dancing in overtly sexual ways, have under 10s wearing make-up and yet we say 'Oh, these perverts, what makes them be so beastly?' We're dangling carrots in front of them every day. I don't know what the solution is. When I hear what some poor kids go through I want to take an 'chop the paedophile's balls off' approach to justice but I know that that way is not the way to go but I don't think that an image hunt will solve very much either. The best action I've seen is the FBI 'sting' website where they are still tracking down the pervs and knocking on their doors to arrest them all over the Western world.

Nude children is NOT automatically child porn! What none of you have the prerequisite baby pictures/video of you playing in the tub, or tearing off your diaper and rampaging through your house, etc? ;) Through Classical art and history Baby Angels/Cherubs are usually nude with wings. Of course 'rosity can enforce whatever rules it wishes to, and of course they need to stay within the boundaries of the law. But there is something a bit twisted in automatically equating a nude child with porn. Who really has the dirty mind? ;)

Calypso Dreams... My Art- http://www.calypso-dreams.com

Renderosity Gallery

Hmmm...my kids weren't allowed to rip that diaper off and run rampant thru the house... And Cherubs aren't 'baby angels'..as many percieve them..actually cherubs are angels who constantly worship the Lord....who really knows if they are 'actually' nude?....Ive never seen one,...so I couldn't say. BUT! Anyone who thinks nude children in sexual situations is 'normal' needs to have thier head examined.

~Jani

Renderosity Community Admin
---------------------------------------

i read most of this, and i must say, first of all: Virtual child pron is a victimless crime, and although sick, still does not directly hurt anyone. Making it an outlet for whoever makes such images... However, whoever makes such images, actually, who ever floods the poser gallery with massive amounts of porn, period, should be at r'otica, or in the private of their own homes. Good addition to the TOS

Firekath - "3 or more" what? Years of age, number of images, number of participants, or what? And, where is it so stated? (Not arguing the point, just looking for information!)

3 or more images. it is in the laws against child porn http://usgovinfo.miningco.com/library/weekly/aa041602a.htm this one is the one that states: The PROTECT Act also expands the criminal definition of "child pornography" under U.S. law by including digital images, computer images or computer-generated images that are "indistinguishable from" minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct, even if no minors were involved the creation of the images. : http://www.gigalaw.com/articles/2003-all/isenberg-2003-05-all.html how i know about the laws against it. i was harmed by child porn by being married to a pedophile. i keep track of laws. i lat least believe in protedting children from being harmed in such manners. plus Mrrlyn had a job trying to find a child. he found the child a week too late after the child had been used in a child porn film. the ones that make those movies tend to murder the kids to hide their tracks. the reason they kill them. is that the kids are witnesses to the atrocities that they have been put thru

This whole thread is not really about PORN it's about Free Speach! I think kiddie porn is discusting. I also think an artist should be able to create any images in any meidum they want. The government of the USA is trying to become the "thought Police" of the world. We all have g W bush and johnny ashcroft to thank for this!!

"I also think an artist should be able to create any images in any meidum they want."

Agreed, to a point, but remember, Renderosity doesn't have to display them. That is their right. You can make images praising Hitler, bashing gay people, or hating people of specific racial groups, too, but they aren't going to put those up, either. I believe that also violates the TOS. The point of the TOS change is not to restrict your rights, it's to say, "find somewhere else to display it."

And yes, the conservative US government wants to be the thought police. Big Brother really is watching. I'm definitely not a fan of GW.

Actually, you know, we're all on more or less the same side here. No one here is supporting child pornography. At least, as far as I can tell, they're not. Here in the US we do have to look out for infringements to our right to free speech, as there are plenty of people who want to play moral majority and threaten it. However, that's not the case here. No one is trying to change laws or stop you from making any images you want. Renderosity just doesn't want to display anything that they deem inappropriate. It's their site.

Firekath: I feel your pain, as I have been in the same situation. I'm sorry you had to go through that. :-(

-Heidi

One goes into the house of eleven eleven times, but always comes out one. -River Tam

I've repeatedly supported R'osity. I know they have no real choice. It's like what's going on with Howard Stern right now, or the RIAA vs. the public. The new loophole in the Justice system is that when ever you want to destroy some one who doesn't agree with you, you attack them legally with the court system untill they HAVE to cave because they can't afford to fight back. It's really just a passive form of terrorism. They are using fear to control us all. Even if R'osity WANTED to fight against this, they simply can't afford too. Personal Responsibility. We have to make them take it, and we have to start by taking in on ourself. It's all our fault that our free speech is in danger, and it your fault is you've ever stood by while you thought a child was in danger. We let them take control. We let the billionairs tell us which millionairs we could vote for. Look at the recent California Recall Election. Did any one BOTHER to see who was the best person for the job? Nope. They voted for who they saw on TV. Since our free speech is going out the window anyway... I have a free speech restriction I want to see. NO POLITICAL ADD'S ON TV. NO COMMENTARY ON SPEECHES. Make people SEEK out their political news instead of being fed what some one deicides is right and wrong in soundbites. Maybe then it will start to be about issues and not about personaility.

Ratteler: You know what restriction I'd like to add to yours? The Boston Globe doesn't get to say "We are endorsing Shannon O'Brien for governor." The last gubernatorial race here didn't seem to have a clear Democrat frontrunner until The Globe told us who it was going to be. Well, surprise, Mitt Romney (the Republican) won. -Heidi

One goes into the house of eleven eleven times, but always comes out one. -River Tam

Renderosity has every right not to display works that they find offensive. I support them 100%. Its the stupid law I have an issue with. They are prosucuting a man in Ohio just for writing a story containing "kiddie porn". I would never buy, support or read his writings but I would fight to my last breath defending his RIGHT to write about what he wants. Art is supposed to create emotions in it's viewers, they can be bad, ugly, good or just plain indifference. I think that's the whole idea of doing art.

child porn be it virtual or real is not art, it is perverted. and those who partake in it are also perverted, in fact they are so mentally sick there is no hope for them.

This was the banner ad on the top of page as I came here to read your responce. By the TOS and your narrow minded definitions... it's Child Porn! Even if it's not it still might be against the TOS. I realize your point of view is from some one who has had personal experience with this, but I think that may be biasing your opinion. It a little like trying to ban hammers because some murdered a member of your family with one. It's not the Hammers fault it was misused. It's not the manufacturers fault. It the fault of the person who lost control and abused the item. Same thing with this sweeping definition of "Child Porn".

"By the TOS and your narrow minded definitions... it's Child Porn!" Not according to our TOS it isn't, and we wouldn't remove it if it were an image in a member's gallery. Kevin.

Technicly, it is.

"they are so mentally sick there is no hope for them"

I'm going to have to seriously disagree with this. Sorry. The reason IMO that there has been no hope for these people is that others would much rather write them off and say "execute the SOB" than even bother to TRY & help them. There have been changes and improvements to the therapy these people get, but there simply aren't enough therapists willing to try. I got this from a therapist, BTW.

Actually, it has been my experience that an awful lot of therapists don't even want to take any kind of controversial case. After I had my personal experience with such a situation, I was directed to a counseling center. I was told later that all the therapists there stood around and said, "no way, I'm not taking her case!" simply because the offender had been in the newspaper. I don't know what I would have done if someone hadn't finally volunteered. And I am the victim's mother, NOT the offender!

It makes me wonder. What kind of a difference might there be in the world, and how many irreplaceable children might still be alive and/or unharmed if someone bothered to help these seriously disturbed people? Helping the offenders is ultimately helping ourselves.

Kevin:
Banner Ad and Front Page Thumbnail/Wording Guidelines

No nudity. This implies no clothes, clothes that are transparent or blurring of nude images.
Minimal cleavage exposure. The majority of the female breast must be clothed (at least 80%).
No exposed buttocks.
No suggestive or sexual positioning.
No placement of the hands in genital areas including female breasts.
No child nudity.
No Sexually Suggestive Language or "Censored" language/images.
No bondage type ads.
Flash (.SWF) banner ads cannot include embedded sounds, links to anything other than your store or a product in the MarketPlace, scripts or pop-up windows. Any embedded scripts or hostile code located in a Flash banner ad will result in one of the following: membership ban or suspension.

I would say that "No placement of the hands in genital areas including female breasts." has been violated in the above image. It might not violate the TOS for gallery images, but I'm just curious as to why it is allowed in a banner ad.

-Heidi

One goes into the house of eleven eleven times, but always comes out one. -River Tam

Well, I beg to differ Heidi :) My interpretation of that particular banner is that her hands are crossed in front of her chest. No breasts are visible, and no hands touching breasts are visible. Clint and the MP team spend a good deal of time going over banner ads, and though they're human and inevitably the occasional banner will slip by, my own opinion on this one is that it is okay. Kev.

"No depictions of young humanoid characters/children giving the appearance of being under the age of 18 ... in erotic, seductive, provocative poses or context." You must be able to see how one could worry about it. She "gives the appearance of being under the age of 18", and she in topless in an "erotic, seductive, provocative pose". The only reason it would not be against the TOS is, "...this will be at the discretion of the Renderosity team." Even though the first part of that stamenet infers that the image still appear to be over 18 years old, to be considered for R'osity teams discression. I have no problem with the image, it's a perfect example of the free expression what I've been talking about all along. But I'm sure some one, some where, would cosider it child porn. goldtassel and R'osity could both be criminally libel for breaking the child porn Law is some attracts the attention of the New all seeing Eye or Mordor that the "moral" right has installed with this law. The perceptions of the people who run R'osity are in charge, unless some from the government decides she's a depiction of a girl under 18 when it becomes Child Porn. How many years will R'osity be shut down before a jury even GET'S to decide if it is or isn't. Do you think the "Farie" defence will fly with the Religious Right Extremests? "Oh... so she not a child, she's representation of a magical creature that exist outside God's law?" When it's R'osity deciding it Ok. This is their private club and if I don't like their rules I can get out. But when this CAN even be a court issue, it means something has gone terrible wrong in our country.

Well, she "gives the appearance of being under the age of 18" certainly, but I can't see anything "erotic, seductive, provocative" about the pose.

Attached Link: http://market.renderosity.com/softgood.ez?ViewSoftgood=25998

kbennett, OK this thread is getting a bit long-winded, but I do have a question concerning the TOS. I've made a living for over thirty years as a photographer. I've photographed all age groups from a child being born, to Marjorie Stoneman Douglas on her 101 year birthday. I have a pretty good grip on what people look like in REAL LIFE...but it is these 3D meshes that throw me. Take the "standard" adult figure of Vicky2... Her face has more of a hard masculine look to it than a real female. The size,shape,and proportions of the body are very far from a normal human female.....but yet in the world of Poser she is regarded as a "normal" adult. For aesthetic reasons I have found the Preteen mill Girl mesh is a better base to work with. I reshape the mesh in different modeling programs to give it a very adult look and featuresbut compared to Vickys (unrealistic) face it does look much younger (face wise). As I am still installing my files and programs on my new computer I dont have my personal work to show you,but Thorns Lisha in the MP is a close example. There is no way in hell someone could say that figure is of an underage girl,but the face (BY POSER STANDARDS) does look young. So..what standards do you guys use to determine the age of a character? I know it cant be easy or cut and dry for youbut do you have any basic guide lines? Thanks,SWAMP

"No breasts are visible, and no hands touching breasts are visible." So that's OK, then? I don't personally have any problem with the image. I just always took the guideline to mean, "put a shirt on her." :-) Thanks for clearing that up, Kevin. -Heidi

One goes into the house of eleven eleven times, but always comes out one. -River Tam

kbennett. That is kind of my point. I don't have a problem with the age, but DO consider the pose seductive. You don't. I'll repeat again, that I'm not really concerned with R'osity's position on this, but the with LAW that forced the update in the TOS. If it was an acutal photograph of a girl of the age that you think that figure is, would you still allow it in the gallery and marketplace? The spirit of this new Law is says that if you would say "no" to a real girl of that age, in that pose, then you should also no to the virtual one. Firekath seems to insists there is no differance. In order for law to be just, it must be absolute and universal. There can be no grey area and no room for subjective "human" leeway. When there is, as in our current society, there is no justice. Our LAWS have become nothing but another way to oppress people. That is my main point.

Indeed we must protect children. But at what price? Total lack of freedom, complete oppression. Wake up people, that is where it's heading fast. When there is no freedom, we will complain and it's too late then. Swamp also has made valid points about the look of poser models

"All-seeing Eye of Mordor" - I like that one. I sincerely hope Sauron's gall bladder and pancreas are giving him absolute HELL! (Maybe he'll become a prescription pain-killer addict, . One can hope...) And, Ratteler - would you prefer laws that are absolute, or laws that are humane? As J.C. of current cinematic fame once said, "The Law was made for man, not man for the Law".

Pay ATTENTION People!!!!!!!!!!!!! No More topless faeries using Thorne's, Sarsa/s, of Handspan Studios figures!!! That is what it boils down to. More garbage caused by new laws and the FCC starting their crap over Janet Jackson's fiasco. It seems that the etherial, and eternally young fairy are no longer allowed? Sorry Admin, but things are starting to get very irritating everywhere, shame it has to start here as well. Thanks for the freedom to voice my feelings on the subject.

Absolute Law means a clear and stable line that should not be crossed. That means that those who live within the Law have nothing fear. Grey area's where there is no real rule except what judge you get and what jury you get just make the something to be avioded. Don't EVEN get me started on Corprate Vs. Private law! The thing that amazes me most about our world today is we seem to want to forcably dumb down and simplify anything and everything so the least common denominator can have access to it, EXCEPT the law. That has to be so complex and convoluted that no one save a trained professional with a good upbrining and Ivy legue education, can possibly understand it. Like a crashing computer needs to be reset because to many programs have fragmented an overwritten each other, our NATION needs a reset. We need to STOP everything, then start it over right, maybe with some debugging to the "source code" of society. Otherwise it will crash completely and the only users will be the Virus and Trojans.

Janet Jackson Fiasco. You know why they are called "boobs"? They are named after the people the people who pay the most attention to them. So who are the biggest "boobs" in the country? The people spending millions of tax payer dollars to figure out how to keep one kind of "boob" from seeing the other.

simple, child porn be it real or virtual is NOT art, but filth

True, Firekath, but child nudity isn't porn. It's the air of hysteria that's beginning to disturb me, the 'we must protect the children at all costs' philosophy. To think that by banning some images that a safer world will be born is naive. The media hath decreed that all men(and women) will despiseth those that view perverted imagery..but only the perverted imagery that we decide is perverted...and so it came to pass that the lowest common denominator became the standard on which society was based and it was bloody awful.
I have to say, and I wouldn't want anyone to get too offended, that I consider Renderosity to be too selective about the advert imagery that they show and, frankly, too glib in their responses when questioned. The schoolgirl fantasy costume was a prime example. Oh...but that's a fantasy costume so it's ok.....bulls..pit. If, as will no doubt be posited, it is a fantasy costume then the fantasy that it is encouraging is schoolgirl sex. So, when did a tacit approval of peadophilliac fantasy become acceptable?
Sorry to bang on about this but I stayed late last night in work to help find a kid who'd gone missing and the parents were hysterical..(the kid was 20 minutes late and was playing in the park with her mates) This whole incident made me think about the fear that we're generating with our concerns. I'm not saying parents shouldn't be concerned for the safety of their kids, nor am I saying that we shouldn't deal severely with child abusers but I do believe that we need to keep a sense of perspective Mon

Tricky one, but I'll answer as best I can. If an image is brought to our attention (either by a concerned member or by one of the team) as possibly being in violation of the 'underage' part of the TOS the sort of things we look at are: Does your first glance at the image tell you it's a youngster or an adult. Head size in proportion to body, what age does the face look, overall frame of body, width of hips, length of legs, size/shape of breasts, hairyness in the pubic region (yes, I have heard of razors;)), shape of hands. Basically we try to look at the image as both a whole and as elements, but if something stands out as being 'wrong' (to give an example: if you just took the milgirl mesh and gave her huge boobs and said 'look, she can't be under 18, she has big boobs') then it might sway the decision. I ought to add that it's almost always a group decision on the removal of images. If it's clear-cut then an image will just be removed, but if there's even the smallest doubt it goes before the whole team for discussion, at the end of which we usually reach a concensus on whether the image is okay or not. Given that the co-ord/mod/admin team here is geographically and culturally quite diverse we reckon that we usually come to the right conclusion (but then I would say that, wouldn't I ;) ) Not a perfect answer I'm afraid, but the best I can come up with. Kev.

Wow, I just stumbled onto this discussion. Very interesting stuff. Lots of people are making some very valid points; and several people are making some pretty asinine ones as well.

"nude children is child porn. no matter what poses, and or objects are in it." Firekath

Needless to say, by your narrow definition I guess that counts for photography, as well. When we gave our now four-month-old baby his first bath, my wife and I, as parents have done since cameras got cheap enough for the average Joe and Jane to afford, took photos of the event (I also took pictures moments after his birth; oops, he was naked then, too). When we went to get the digital photos output, the pimply-faced shithead kid at WalMart gave us a bunch of static because in one of the baby's bath photos, if you looked reallllly close, you could see his wee lil' dingus right there near the water's surface. The kid refused to allow us to keep the print; said he was going to keep it, bring it to his supervisor's attention and call the proper authorities. At that point the situation got really ugly...I snarled and yelled, other customers were solicited for their support (which, oddly enough, all of them within earshot were happy to lend), my wife cried, it was insisted by myself that the store manager be called immediately, it was insisted to the store manager by my wife that the police be called immediately, the store manager was told by myself that he was to have his employee release ALL of my photographs or I would "have my attorney so deep in your ass that his yarmulke will be hanging out of your mouth". Finally the store manager relented, returned our photos of our beautiful boy, in his controversial 'nude' state of being, and sheepishly apologized, saying that "with all of the obscenity laws in place, the company had to be very careful to protect itself from liability."

What's the purpose of the JettBoy's long-winded tale? The Aseops Fables-like moral of the story? Pretty simple; contrary to what some may believe, not ALL representations of nude children are pornographic in nature. If someone honestly believes that, I would have to go out on a limb and say that they know very little about art, very little about children and very little about pornography. I hear WalMart is always hiring...

"Putting on my wading boots and joining in the fun..." We completely understand how all of you are feeling. The team here at Renderosity shares your concerns, on both sides of this issue. Our debates prior to making the TOS clarifications and updates sounded very similar to this thread. As kbennett said, our team is a very diverse group. So, rest assured if there is a controversial image, it will go before the team for a vote. Because the team is comprised of folks with differing opinions, our decisions truly are not one-sided. I would like to clarify something. I noticed a post that read "...No More topless faeries..." Please understand that breasts (and toplessness) are not classified as genitals and are not against the TOS. It is when the genitals are exposed AND the character appears to be under 18, that we run into the TOS enforcement. We truly do not wish to censor artistic expression. Most of us are artists as well. We know how very precious naked babies are (babies getting a bath, bear-skin rugs and such ;-). However, as a business Renderosity made a decision not to run the risk of having to legally pay for the right of individual artists to display children's genitals, regardless of the setting of the image. This protects us all to continue to utilize this site. I trust you will all understand that this was a necessary decision, for the good of the whole community overall. Best wishes, LillianH Marketing & Promotions

Lillian Hawkins
Marketing Manager
By serving each other, we are free.

Oh..using reason with us are you?!! :)

Hehehe...the gig is up. You found me out! Honesty and reason...yup...that's my style and I'm sticking to it :-) All the best, LillianH

Lillian Hawkins
Marketing Manager
By serving each other, we are free.

kbennett, Thanks,I appreciate your response to my question. SWAMP

The issue in regards to cg nudity often comes down to the meshes...forgive me,but I have yet to find a way to "extract a mesh" from an image created by one!What is a paint brush if not wood and horse hair,a camera but plastic and glass,a pencil but...my point is that all including cg meshes are tools and its not the tools at issue but the images created by them!!!

People say its harmless...so why ban "any" image created using meshes and if you ban one-why did you make that choice?Was the choice to ban sex or images of male erections based on the fact that they were cg meshes...no,they were decisions based on the fact that the images represented "living beings"!!!

I spoke with a "European" who had this view that we Americans are too prudish about child nudity...I asked him if children were willingly posing for these images,if they had the maturity to make such a decision and who other than adults were benefitting from these images!He agreed on all points that it wasn't the childs decision,that they weren't old enough to decide and that only the adults benefitted-but it wasn't their decision to make he said and that their parents had every right to force them to do this if they didn't want to because it was a parents right!!If that makes me a prude...then thank god I'm an American!!!

People love to point at classic art without realising how much of this is actually a "result" of censorship!The imagery we see from Rome and Greece is only a fraction of what is known...and much of it is never promoted as art because of its erotic or pornographic nature.Erect phalluses were common everywhere in the imagery of ancient Rome as was pornography of all types...what we see today as representing ancient artisans is only what has been dubbed "suitable" by previous generations.Nor do people who speak of classic European artists point out that most of those we know were commissioned by wealthy/powerful people who protected them...what of the rest who were imprisoned,tortured or made pariahs because they lacked such support when they did controversial images!!?

To argue that some images should be banned for a specified reason and that others shouldn't when the exact same reason applys to them is ridiculous...you don't have to be a moralist,a christian or even a victim of child molestation to see a contradiction!!I for one wanted "standards" on rosity to clearly define a difference between images deemed acceptible for adult nude imagery and child nude imagery...yet,some people think thats wrong?

Somehow I think the view here revolves around what makes the image...or maybe a skewed view of art over the centuries!Its not what makes the image...its the image itself and what it represents!As for art from the past...heard the exact same arguments from photographers trying to justify bestiality,pornography and yes...even child nudity!Same argument...different means of creating it is all!

I can sum this up in one question...how many people would consider an image featuring a nude 30 year old cg man holding a nude three year old cg child "provocatively posed"
wrong?Then to take it one step further...its only a 3d mesh,so why not have an image of these same two characters engaged in sex???You can argue that pornographic cg images of adults should be banned because our "standards" in society for such imagery won't allow it...yet,those same standards say that nude images of children are also unacceptible and its not the same thing because its not real-the reason porn images are banned isn't that they are real,its because they represent something real and images of nude children are no different!!!

If the end goal of learning is genius...why are most geniuses failures at learning?

PS...I wholly agree with Lillian as this decision shouldn't prevent artistic expression and I myself don't wish to see that happen.The area they drew a line at was the genitals and provocative posing...that will not impact the vast majority of images as most fall within those guidelines anyway.As for anime and faerys...if you don't apply the same rule to them then you're ignoring the fact that many images claiming to be anime or faerys don't include the trademark elements that make them such-that leaves only the child base and the term "humanoid" basically says "don't go there as we don't play that game".

Artistic expression is the ultimate freedom and I don't want to see it lost...I just don't like contradiction or hypocrisy and if you apply some standards regarding morals we hold in society,you must be as willing to apply others when circumstances demand.To anyone who disagrees...you're always free to create your own site and allow whatever artistic freedoms you wish to express be shown.Rosity is a community site and this has been a problem for them for some time now...they took a stand and should be applauded for it rather than questioned.Haven't found a cg site that specialises just in nude cg children though...even rotica banned nude children on their site-so,if you're extremely miffed and feel others agree-here's an opportunity for you to do something no one else is doing;P

If the end goal of learning is genius...why are most geniuses failures at learning?

Armor, Last things firts. Most of us are questioning the Law, not R'osity's compliance with it. I look at R'osity as a victum here as much as we are. In a worst case cenario, they would be shut down for YEARS before they ever got a day in court to decide if they did anything wrong. They have been given the effective choice of comply or go out of business. What we are questioning is the Law. A photograph of a man in a sexualy suggest pose with a three year old involves putting a 3 year old in a sexually suggestive position. That's harmful in my book, and it harming a REAL 3 year old. If if it's "photoshoped" to put the 3 yeard in the position out of context, it's still harmfull to the childs reputation, and self image if/when that photo is seen by him. But in the case of 3D meshes... NO ONE WAS HARMED iN THEIR Creation. This Law is as stupid as saying 3D meshes shouldn't be allowed to seen in violent situatations. That would end the video game industry pretty fast. Also a good part of the movie industry. If creating the image hurts no one, there should be no law against creating it. How bout making a law that makes it illegal to lure a child with pornography or nude images of any kind? That would pretty much be targeted ONLY at the pedophile who missuses the art we created. It would just as effective as any other law, which means great for punishing the offender after the fact. Think about this, I can do an infinate number of 3D pictures of children being killed, and the law is irrelevent because it won't be sexual.

I agree about the point on violence...but we are not arguing the law as the law didn't force this decision-images being posted on rosity depicting young people in suggestive poses and complaints about them caused this decision.At no time was any pressure applied to rosity regarding the law here...at no time was there a threat...in fact,I may have been one of those involved in making them think about this decision as Elizabyte and others may verify. So,rethink your pov...you argue that it isn't real and thus anything goes-no restrictions and no censorship!!If you argue there should be censorship of any kind then you have just destroyed the very heart of your own argument!!!And if you stand by your argument...do a controversial image as I suggest and see if even those who agree with you won't turn on you in a heartbeat!If thats the case...then there are limits and if there are limits there must be limitations!!! We are not discussing the law here,we are discussing a private decision by rosity to follow what other sites are doing because most people don't view art as just a lifeless hobby...they see it as a reflection of life and seek to find meaning in what they see. Part of a successful ad campaign is to find the right image or combination of images to inspire a desire in consumers for what is being offered...in the ad biz there is no seperation of pencil,cg,airbrush or photo-they are all viewed the same as the images are designed solely to entice the viewer into desiring what they see!! You see this as an intrusion on peoples rights...I agree that there is way too much violence in what we see (have seen some images on rosity that about made me puke),but the way to address that isn't to just give in and try to strike down any successful attempt to limit something others find harmful or simply wrong.I'm not sure...but bet you don't do images of nude children in your work do you-if not,maybe that shows that even you draw a line you choose not to cross? Either prove its not real and means nothing or back off...I do understand where you're coming from as part of what I was saying is that you cannot ban images of male erections and x-rated sex without addressing the issue of child nudity in exactly the same way-they banned male erections and explicit sex because it reflected real life and standards being employed to real life images were applied to them!! I ask you this...do an image of a group of klansmen lynching a black man in cg,a woman being gang raped by a group of black men or a child being molested by an adult white male.Post those images right here to prove your point... You are wrong in one key respect and I sadly think you will never see it...its not how the image is made,its what the image represents!Its not that there is a victim...its the depiction of the crime that counts!As a society,we allow images of violence and even revel in them...until that changes there's not much that can be done as its within society itself that change must happen!!What you ignore is that such a change has occurred in regards to child nudity and the change in rositys TOS reflects this... When you keep pointing out that they aren't real so no harm done...you are actually defeating your own argument!!Ask yourself this,why did the artist choose the child for their nude image?Could have chosen the adult characters couldn't they...but for some reason they went for the child.Was it the innocence we see in children,was it how cute they are...they chose the child mesh for a reason!Whatever reason for choosing the child mesh...it was for the characteristics that real children possess!!The very fact that people find these images offensive is proof of this...no my friend,you are the one in error as the artist chose the child mesh to represent a child and the viewer sees this representation-at no point does anyone see just a mesh except for those trying to justify a stand that cannot be justified!Paint is just paint until you create an image...and film is just film til you take a picture-its the image created that is at issue! At times there must be censorship and you were given examples of such reasons...its not a matter of freedom,its a matter of those abusing such freedom and how those abuses reflect upon those like yourself who act on their own moral fiber to exercise restraint!You shouldn't be angry that there was a change in the TOS or at those who wanted it...you should be angry at those who push the limits and caused this decision to take place.For all the complaints...if there weren't excesses and abuses of the freedom you speak of,then there would be no need for decisions such as this! You say the images aren't real and they do no harm because they aren't real...no one ever said they were real,they don't have to be to portray reality!But I don't think nude child photos of Brooke Shields did her any harm...in fact,it may be the only reason she had any celebrity status at all!!People who want to view real images of nude children are making many of your own arguments in their cause...and most of them say that "NO ONE WAS HARMED IN THEIR CREATION"!Reflect on what you're saying,apply your own arguments in defence of cg child nudity to the real thing...go to some of the sites mentioned above and take a look,don't be surprised if many of your observations aren't spoken word for word by people trying to legalise images of real child nudity!Does it matter that the images aren't real?No...because cg children were selected to represent real children even if set in whimsical or fantasy setting (ala' Hollywood).Summed up...you're wrong!It does matter and if you have an issue with violence in society...then take that argument to society itself and try to make change as thats why we see images of child nudity as being wrong in the first place-society sees it as wrong save for a minority of outspoken critics who don't even argue this issue in as much as being "anti-censorship"!

If the end goal of learning is genius...why are most geniuses failures at learning?

"66. Re: TOS update by seansan2 on 3/8/04 12:00 ...However, whoever makes such images, actually, who ever floods the poser gallery with massive amounts of porn, period, should be at r'otica,..." I beg your pardon? Ok, porn yes, definitely, and lots of it >^_~ but child porn? No. From the TOS at Renderotica: "You may not post any images of the following on this website: CHILDREN DEPICTION OF CHILDREN OR CREATURES RESEMBLING CHILDREN (INCLUDING IMAGINARY CREATURES SUCH AS FAIRIES) UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE IS STRICTLY FORBIDDEN, EVEN IN NON-EROTIC SITUATIONS. As a rule of thumb, make sure that all your models, virtual or real, look clearly over 20. We realize that this is subjective and hard to determine with virtual figures, but we prefer to err on the side of caution in this matter. PICTURES THAT INCLUDE A TEXT SPECIFYING OR IMPLYING THAT AT LEAST ONE OF THE CHARACTERS IS UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE, OR THAT INCLUDE PROPS AND SCENERY IMPLYING SUCH, ARE FORBIDDEN. This includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of "teen" anything, high school desks and classrooms and other words and situations implying that one or more of the participants is under 18. IMPORTANT: In the case of photographs where the age of the model may be in question, please send a copy of all models IDs, or proofs of age, to the moderators PRIOR TO POSTING." Please do not infer that Renderotica tolerates child pornography again. I find that personally insulting.

i should hope not. i child porn as i said be it virtual or real is filth. and as butterfly_fish this was copied from a earlier state ment that one made: Re: TOS update by butterfly_fish on 3/7/04 22:29 Not to add fuel to the fire, but I spoke with a sex offender tonight. He said that a place like Renderosity should certainly have this in their TOS. He told me that virtual or real, it does, in fact, "normalize" the act. It makes it seem like "everybody is doing it." He told me that people who have this sexual addiction need to keep ANY images of child pornography as far away from them as possible, as it exacerbates their problem. He also said that he applauds Renderosity for this measure.

Just as long as it's clear that child nudity doesn't equal child porn.

Calypso Dreams... My Art- http://www.calypso-dreams.com

Renderosity Gallery

Does this mean that Renderotica would reject a depiction of a family scene that includes children, even if everyone is fully clothed and participating in non-erotic activities such as a family picnic? I'd consider that covering one's ass right up to the eyebrows!

fetter, Yes.

Attached Link: http://www.etsu.edu/philos/classes/rk/modernzenith/adobejpgimages/28deathcamplarge.jpg

Armor, I don't know where you get your information from, but the change in the TOS comes at the same time as the passing of a LAW that restricts that kind of image. I assume it is in compliance with this law that the TOS has has been changed. If R'osity had made this change as the result of you or any other group of users complaints, I would be flaming them full blast for catering to any ONE's moral sensibility. It would be like letting the Taliban dictate what could be posted here. There is no difference between what fanatic seeks to control what people are allowed to see. Be it their religion, or lack of it. "If you argue there should be censorship of any kind then you have just destroyed the very heart of your own argument!!!" Why? Because YOU say so? The line I draw is a very sensible one. Do I hurt some one in creating my art? In the case of any 3D representation, the answer is NO. In the case of photography the answer is yes. "Part of a successful ad campaign is to find the right image or combination of images to inspire a desire in consumers for what is being offered... in the ad biz there is no separation of pencil,cg,airbrush or photo-they are all viewed the same as the images are designed solely to entice the viewer into desiring what they see!!" You have OBVIOUSLY never worked in advertising. I have. I've had arguments over which shade of blue something should be, and over how saturated the reds are. No separation between pencil,cg,airbrush or photo? Are you INSANE? You talk about a medium who first law is Marshall McLuhan's famous phrase "The Medium is the Message". Ask a dropout advertising major, and they know those styles are NO WHERE NEAR interchangeable. "I'm not sure... but bet you don't do images of nude children in your work do you-if not,maybe that shows that even you draw a line you choose not to cross?" The point is that *I* get choose that line. Where ever I draw it is my business as long as I don't hurt some one else doing it. Now I don't have that choice. Did we suddenly cure every pedophile because we took away their CHOICE to be one? Of course not. You don't change a person's mind by silencing them. I CERTAINLY am not going to create or post images I find personally offencive. But looking at your examples: "an image of a group of klansmen lynching a black man in cg,a woman being gang raped by a group of black men or a child being molested by an adult white male." Every one of those images can be used to show the horror or the situation. They can make you sympathies with the victim and as a result tech you that doing those things is wrong. But not if you don't allow them to be created because you don't like the subject matter. Only a Klansman would look at the lynching and see some thing positive. Only the rapist would be aroused by gang rape. Only the pedophile would see themselves in the image of the child molester. A pervert can see a child being molested in a ink spot, or the cracks in his ceiling in the same way a religious nut can Jesus sweat stain. Are we all supposed to pay the price for one person being a pervert? Are we ALL guilty because some one is. Cain didn't kill Able in the Bible because he saw a picture of a murder. He did it because he chose to, and THAT was the sin. It wasn't the THOUGHT of killing Able that made him evil and wrong, it was the ACT he chose to do. It is you who are wrong. None of you arguments hold up to any form of logic. How DARE you think that your opinion is some how more valid than mine because it fits in with your own narrow faith or belief system. Everything you said can be summed up in one sentence. You're not allowed to talk about that. Well I believe I should be allowed to discuss ANYTHING, and YOU are no better than me to tell me otherwise. If we lived by your rules there would be no civilization because EVERYTHING humanity has become is based on our ability to WARN each other about the dangers in our world. You seek to end that communication, and all the lessons that go with it under some delusion that if you don't talk about maybe it won't happen. Check out the link above if you horrible images so badly. A Nazi would see and say it was picture of a great achievement. A Prude would see it and it was bad because it's got naked people in it. Me... I see it as an example of what can happen if you don't stand your ground and fight every day for rights against those who think they are right just because THEY say so. I see a lesson that a simple lack of communication can cause the death of millions. What do you see?

Heh, I see you didnt tag that link to violence :P Oh,....and ya said the "N" word..so guess this discussion is over now :(

~Jani

Renderosity Community Admin
---------------------------------------

Actually Rat I was in the ad biz for over five years and images are the single most important thing I focused on...it was my job and anyone with eyes can see that the art is designed exclusively to sell the product-sometimes its an actual photo,sometimes a little airbrushing,inks or even cg or paints as how its made makes no difference!Maybe you can explain how doing one image seen as offensive by consumers can destroy a multi billion dollar enterprise and put thousands of people out of work!!Doesn't matter if the image is painted,drawn,a photo or cg...if people find it offensive they'll find it just as offensive regardless of how its done!!!But since you were in the ad biz...you know that don't you (cause everyone else does)!

Lets say you argue that a cg image of a child being raped by an adult was wrong but a simple nude of a cg child female exposing her genitals was ok because she wasn't real...you cannot argue that the one is wrong "because Rat says so" and the other isn't!If its not real then it should mean nothing regardless of what the image depicts...you have the right to make a point,you also have the right to contradict yourself and be called on it!

As for the image and considering that I actually had family that died in those death camps,I can honestly tell you I see the death of innocents who fought for nothing more than the air they breathed!Isn't it ironic that you would use these people to make your point as they didn't die because they wanted to live in a world free of censorship,they were in fact among the worlds most repressive peoples when it comes to images of sexuality and yet you use them as an example...it was the nazi's who were unrestrained and who threw away the limitations we as a people impose upon ourselves-limitations we willingly accept by "sacrificing" personal liberties to ensure we are not the victims of those who believe they have the right to do as they please!

As for ending communication...seems you're the one that was in here telling people what they should think and that they were wrong because they thought differently than you!In a world full of Rats we'd see everyone crying for personal freedoms...then when they get into positions of power,the first thing they do is begin silencing anyone who disagrees with what they think...thats what the nazi's did so who's the nazi here and thanks for providing something I could throw back in your face!!!You may also remember how the nazi's plundered Europe of its art...they saw nothing more than canvas and oils with value,it was worth a buck and worth nothing beyond that!

You also speak of the law rosity was addressing...this law has been on the books now for a few years and the Supreme Court has yet to determine that cg images of child nudity are even truly covered by the Protect Act-its been held up and in initial conversations I had with the site owner here,she stated this to me herself as a reason rosity "did not" have standards prohibiting child nudity and that even if the image in question were a child it would not violate their TOS!!

Again,you know nothing about how this issue came about or why the TOS were changed...you make assumptions from an uninformed position!I still have the site owners emails to prove there was communication between us and I doubt they would deny it in any case as it is irrelevant save to you!!My initial post saying thanks in fact came as a direct result of an email from Tammy Choate containing the link asking me to check it out...I gave a simple thanks and departed because she already knew how I felt and that there was no need to say more.I then come back to find you muck raking the issue and trying to shout everyone else down.The nazi's were infamous for these type of brow beatings and I am deeply insulted by your comparison of myself to them when it is your behavior and beliefs that most relate to theirs!

Before you comment again...get a clue first as I didn't come here to argue,but I love to argue when I've already won the argument!I am a self prefessed pervert and proud of it...I do not support censorship and even have my own site with a Dungeon area for uncensored material!Yet,because we use a sense of reason...we don't allow images containing bestiality,scat or nude images of children!!We are more liberal in regards to "humanoid" figures with the definition being that they must look "anime" or possesses "faery" attributes...it is at our sole discretion that an image can be deigned as too much like a child and deleted!So again...you know nothing about me or my stand!Rosity is a huge site and they have to be tougher because they have way too many images being posted...this decision wasn't made because of the law or even as you state,because of me-it was made because the majority of members on rosity agree with me!Attempts to make the law address the issue of cg child nudity could have thousands of images taken from rosity and paraded before a public that pretty much doesn't even know rosity or cg sites like it even exist...just check the member homepages and you'll see that most "stumbled" upon it and fell in love!But,show the general public at large an endless stream of nude cg child images and the backlash would indeed destroy rosity...as for the law,all they would have to do is begin removing the images to comply with the law and nothing more would be done to them-so the change was in no way a matter of being forced to comply with a law!!

Sure the image of a black man being lynched would make a powerful statement "against" such horrors as would the image of a woman being gang raped or a child being molested...yet,I don't see people posting them as even though such images make a powerful statement-they also generate a lot of pain for those victimized by such crimes and being that you cannot seperate meaningful from exploitive in such cases-they are deemed tasteless and often banned or hidden!

But again...lets see you prove me wrong...do one of those images and post it to prove your point and not just post a link to an image taken or done by someone else!Put your money where your mouth is and back your words with your own work...if not,back off and lets let everyone else talk because you have become your own worst enemy in regards to making your point!

Sorry people...but I can make a better argument than Rat for "allowing" images of child nudity-I see both sides and both do have their strengths,just Rat here is playing on a weakness which is only hurting those who have posted objections to the changes-they have a right to be heard as well and not to have someone destroy their pov from within their own camp.Then again,if you're against child nudity...Rat here has actually served to prove the change was indeed necessary!Sorry Rat...but you seem to be the least informed of whats going on here and doing your own cause more damage than anyone else ever could!!

If the end goal of learning is genius...why are most geniuses failures at learning?

sigh

Let it go, guys.

One goes into the house of eleven eleven times, but always comes out one. -River Tam

Your wish is my command...lol,didn't want to be here anyway which is why I pointed to my initial post. Its all yours and I apologise for allowing myself to get out of hand...

If the end goal of learning is genius...why are most geniuses failures at learning?

"Your wish is my command" Boy, I wish more people would say that to me! ;-)

One goes into the house of eleven eleven times, but always comes out one. -River Tam

They should and frequently don't ya think

If the end goal of learning is genius...why are most geniuses failures at learning?

Well, what can I say. You seem to be a master of lying with the truth Armor. I'm sorry for any family you lost in WWII, and I can asure you I will "Never Forgot". I lost family freeing them. The rest of your arguing is bordering on nonsense to me, and while I would never let you work on ad campign, I will defend your right to spew it. Speech hurts NO ONE. It is only words. Pictures hurt NO ONE they are representations. Thoughts hurt NO ONE, they exist only in the mind of a person. Actions DO HURT people! Weather they are the actions of a child molester, a Nazi war Criminal, some one trying to stop words, pictures and thoughts by taking away our rights, or the ACTION of sitting idelly by and letting them do it. The question is what do we do about it all. I say listen, and hear everything. You can't do that if go around silencing people.

Somehow pedophilia, pics of nude children, porno, and child molestation all get jumbled up and the true intention of the thread is lost as usual. Pedophile predators are indeed prevalent in our society and it is a horrible thing...but check the statistics. The majority of cases of child sexual abuse occur within the family circle, and of those most happen within the immediate family circle. Not very supportive facts that simple nude graphic representations cause temporary insanity with the end result being molestation.

good rattler, you go make a personal website with all the ude children you want. just let us know if you can when your trial will be. if you can. if you are against censoring any thing that has nude kids in undress Renderosity has a responsiblity towards the communtiy as a whole. and if they break the laws, we lose a great site. unlike some of the artists i have seen here

"The majority of cases of child sexual abuse occur within the family circle, and of those most happen within the immediate family circle." What are you trying to say? It's OK to encourage it because it's just a family member? "Not very supportive facts that simple nude graphic representations cause temporary insanity with the end result being molestation." They don't. Any more than Judas Priest's music causes their listeners to commit suicide. Unfortunately, When someone is already mentally ill, they see things differently than the rest of us. Unlike the music-caused-my-kid-to-kill-himself bit, child pornography DOES encourage offenders. Don't take my word for it. Ask one. I did. Armorbeast: Thanks for the IMs. I see your point. -Heidi

One goes into the house of eleven eleven times, but always comes out one. -River Tam

there is a pedophile that is going to trial. in his collection was found to be some virtual child porn. which by the way is being used AS evidence against him.

Wow, this topic has really inflamed peoples passion. It is good that there is debate on it though. Sadly, it goes to show, that laws can be both good and bad. It is hard to get everyone to agree on the same thing. That is their right if they wish to agree or not. It is hard to keep a balance, when it involves the thoughts and feelings of another. You are dealing with anothers intellect. Knowledge is power and Ignorance is.... Much as I am for the protection for the rights of an individual, including a child. You do have to ask this question: How much freedom is taken away, until we take real notice? When it is too late? We do something drastic, so people take notice. I know this comment will get people's passion up. One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist and vice versa. Think about it. If things get too much walk away. That is what I do!

@115 Disturbing. Very disturbing. One can see why people prefer to imagine that paedophiles are wild eyed scruffy strangers from somehwere else.

I think that this is very difficult topic to debate, and I appreciate the reasons why renderotica needs to moderate its content. But I would like to raise a few points. If this is such a concern why doesn't Renderotica also ban the sale of characters and textures designed for the Millenium Children which clearly have genital depictions. If you use a texture produced by one of the vendors in the marketplace for the Mill Kids or Young Teen based models aren't the original artists of these products actually profiting at the expense of 'children' Why do you need genital textures of children anyway - if you are going to dress the models. I think it would be fair to say that whilst Renderotica will happily ban the posting of images - you can bet it won't remove those items from its store; images after all don't raise any revenue. So lets not be to hypocritical Guys - If you really want to help fight Virtual Child Porn - don't just ban the pics but be responsible - Ban the Child Porn Products !! If you take away the props it's got to make the production of these images harder. Pepsi

Err... Children have genitals. If you're doing a realistic texture, they're expected to be, well, realistic. Again, child nudity doesn't equal child porn.

Calypso Dreams... My Art- http://www.calypso-dreams.com

Renderosity Gallery

Unfortunately the definition of pornography is so very open ended which is why it is so difficult to regulate and even more difficult categorise. Ultimately, if an image of a naked child, virtual or not causes any arousal or sexual desire, then that image can be classed as pornographic. Since it is impossible to tell what aspects of an image of a naked person cause arousal in any individual, it is equally impossible to make the distinction between what constitutes a pornographic image or not. Normally adjusted people can happily deal with child nudity, for example on a public beach or pool. Unfortunately our society has individuals which don't think that way and seek out these places to fulfill their voyeuristic activities. It is therefore the responsibility of those people that govern or run such places, such as Renderosity, to make them as safe as possible and to minimise the threat of a predatory individuals and not provide a 'honey pot' for the weirdos that seek out such images for personal gratification. Personally I can't think of any reason for posting an image of a naked child. Perhaps you would like to give some realistic examples of when it would be appropriate to post naked young teens and young children Caly, and perhaps some the other readers might like to comment on your suggestions; I know I will be waiting eagerly... Pepsi

Did I say Renderosity has to have nude kids? No. Just that child nudity does NOT equal child porn. Anyone that believes THAT has a problem, not I. As for when... You already stated places that it happens- like beaches and pools. Mom had nude pictures of me playing in a tub with toys. She also had another where she was in the middle of changing my clothes and I had crawled off to investigate stuff. Nude babies can make for beautiful paintings, especially as cherubs. Nude children can be found in paintings and photos- look through some online museums.

Calypso Dreams... My Art- http://www.calypso-dreams.com

Renderosity Gallery

Babies are Babies Toddlers are Toddlers 8 - 16 year olds are are something else and it doesn't take a very big IQ to figure that. Also I'm sure your baby photos weren't on public display at the local town hall. Cherubs! - do I need to comment on that asinine remark. They are babies, in most cases depicting the innocence of the Christ Child. Context. Now point me at the renaissence galleries containing nude 8 - 16 year olds hmm, don't think there are any are there Quod Erat Demonstratum. Pepsi

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/gallery.ez?Sectionid=0&filter_genre_id=0&WhatsNew=Yes

Pepsi,as per your request.. Here is one link to a gallery where the image of a nude child can be tastefully displayed. You won't find any child porn there, as they have a TOS that guards against the exploitation of children as sexual objects (good for them!). But it does allow for the artistic beauty that is found in the nude rendering of all ages (again good for them!). Hope this helps,SWAMP

Attached Link: http://www.artunframed.com/images/jan/jan%20001.jpg

*lol* Seriously just look at any museums/galleries. The Louvre has nude sculptures of what look like teenage boys and girls. Look for galleries that have fairies & fae. Of course they don't come with ID, but plenty look young to me. http://www.faeriewylde.com/ Aa lot of paintings use transparencies... Nude, yet not. Regardless that's besides the point. Simply put nudity doesn't equal porn, regardless of age. *shrug*

Calypso Dreams... My Art- http://www.calypso-dreams.com

Renderosity Gallery

butterfly_fish, no I am not condoning child molesting [or kiddie porn] on any level...global or familial. Just pointing out that the 'majority' of these people are not mad persons roaming the streets seeking victims, but family members who have their victims close. As to asking "one" about getting heated up viewing kiddie porn, I am afraid "one statistic interview" is not very solid evidence for forming an overall criteria. Don't misunderstand me in my presentation, it is the whole censorship roller coaster that upsets me...something is allowed over a long period of time, suddenly it is no longer kosher.

"Nude children can be found in paintings and photos- look through some online museums. " They can also be found running down the street- I was 9 months pregnant with my second child, trying frantically to potty train my first child ( he wasn't quite 2 at the time) and he slipped out the door and ran down the sidewalk nude- laughing at me as i ran (waddled) after him, trying to catch him-now that would have been a hilarious photograph to send to all my relatives or put on a homegrown web site for family to view and dl and print out for their personal family albums. nakid child= porn? not when it's innocent in context, as long as they aren't in provocative or compromising positions. But then again, pedophiles don't actually care if children are naked or not- there's one dispicable site that's famous for pedophiles stealing family pictures of peoples children,( you know, home grown web sites of the " here's my lovely family" flavor) posting it on their forum and talking about what they would like to do to those children. That site is monitered very closely btw. It's a good thing it's not "monitored" by me- I'd have to hunt them down and kill them. There is one particular poster/merchant here who makes my stomache turn. No matter how much this person says their images are innocent, - it reeks of "sick pedophile" to me, but the images are allowed to stay. This same person also has the habit (according to a 3rd party) of when being brough to task or critisized for these same images, they push the line even harder- to tweek the ones critisizing them- also reeking of a phycological disorder. I'm just glad this person lives no where near me and my children. My gut-o-meter doesn't go off very often, but when it does- i listen- it's usually right. People have complained and brought these images to the PTB 's attention, yet they remain, while others ( not belonging to that particular person and no where nearly as graphical in nature) are pulled. The whole problem//issue here is and always has been- inconsistancy of application of the tos. While the PTB may try to be consistant, it hasn't happened yet, nor is it likely to happen any time soon. Best just to use some judgement, common sense, and if one gets slapped every now and again.. scream and rant about it in a forum thread, then wait for the next biggest crisis or fire to happen- cause there's always another on the way ( ok that last part was a bit tongue in cheek..) ;D

I am a little irritated that my first response was not posted in here, basically what i said before was what WhildCHild said ......why does renderosity ban the images but not the products, why do young children and im talking like under 10 looking need to have fully rendered textures. The question I had though and was not adressed and i feel it should be....many "Real" women either have very mature bodies and young looking faces or some have very petite bodies and young faces even in there mid 20's how can one judge if its a child, and not some one of age, it is not like they are real and can be carded...so what are we as artists to do when we do a fairy or a person with smaller breasts does that constitute as a minor....I agree with a majority of you that these are computer generated figures and whether a child or not they are protected under the first amendment the catch is we are using someone elses website. But seriously ....how can one judge age of a wire mesh, height alone is not a factor....look at many of todays leading men such as Elijah woods ...OMG he looks young and is a HObbit ....so height varies upon the creature created as well do the facial features such as fairies who to me embody the spirit of eternal youth. So just tell me how do you judge age on a wire mesh that isnt real.

you guess and hope to err on the side of caution and not end up in jail.

I just had an interesting conversation with one of our European members regarding how Europeans view this issue in regards to art...he said that most Europeans truly do not understand the American view on this because they've never been here.He lived here for several years in the 80's and rightfully pointed out that most churches here have nude depictions of children in statues,imagery,stained glass windows and that even most bibles contain some level of nudity.Europeans tend to have the view from Americans crying out about the loss of freedoms and libertys regarding sexual imagery that there's a ban on all such images...from his view and rightfully so,its more an issue of Americans trying to exercise some restraints on the libertys we promote and that most Europeans either don't have or take for granted.He reminded me of ancient Greece and Rome...look at those peoples then and compare them to their contemporaries and you find a huge difference in moral values!

He was quite upset that many European commentors have made all Europeans look as if they condone not only child nudity but child pornography...like myself,he believes that they just aren't in an informed position and that the constant reference to cherubs is an indicator of this.

Cheryl brings up another interesting point as pedophiles do not need images of nude children to get their jollies...nor do they have to be images of real children.Pedophilia is a sickness and the issue before us isn't that we're feeding this sickness...the issue is what we are doing as a society in regards to right and wrong.

Some people make a lot of the fact that we don't allow nude images of children because it protects our children...at no point does it protect anyone as laws cannot prevent these crimes from taking place!These laws are designed to stop those who "perpetuate" these crimes by viewing or presenting the material for viewing...thats why the law goes after site owners and anyone caught viewing such images-other laws are called into play for those who actually commit the crime!Likewise,the law equally applys to images "portraying" children for the same reason...it perpetuates or acts as a supplicant to the real thing.We as a society ban many things that most are grateful for...scat for instance,I don't care if its real or not real,I don't want to see anyone taking a dump rofl!!

People who say its not real are merely making excuses,its not whether the image is real or not but what it represents!I make a challenge to these people to do an image of a cg adult having sex with a 3 year old child-every one of them refuses because on a personal level they would never make such an image.But why not?The reason is that their own sense of morality won't allow it...no matter how much they argue,they know its wrong from their own sense of right and wrong-and "it does not matter if its real or not"!They aren't arguing right or wrong...they're arguing the right to do it period!!Even if most will not do it,having that right will guarantee that many who have no such inhibitions will...at times every society sacrifices certain personal libertys simply to prevent this from happening!Even if it fails to totally stop it...it provides a means for dealing with it and helps a society establish the standards that define it.

If the end goal of learning is genius...why are most geniuses failures at learning?

"Well, what can I say. You seem to be a master of lying with the truth Armor.

I'm sorry for any family you lost in WWII, and I can asure you I will "Never Forgot". I lost family freeing them.

The rest of your arguing is bordering on nonsense to me, and while I would never let you work on ad campign, I will defend your right to spew it.

Speech hurts NO ONE. It is only words. Pictures hurt NO ONE they are representations. Thoughts hurt NO ONE, they exist only in the mind of a person.

Actions DO HURT people! Weather they are the actions of a child molester, a Nazi war Criminal, some one trying to stop words, pictures and thoughts by taking away our rights, or the ACTION of sitting idelly by and letting them do it.

The question is what do we do about it all. I say listen, and hear everything. You can't do that if go around silencing people."

Ratteler...my family in Germany wasn't a direct lineage and so glad you point out how you lost family to free them as I did as well!!You keep saying that I'm trying to silence people yet you're the one shouting to force people to accept your view...you say I'm a liar yet it seems that the ol Ratteler is the one with venom in his mouth-its the armored beast thats immune!!Hitler did nothing but speek and so glad you agree he had the right to do so...as he inspired one of the most evil period of bloodshed in world history with "harmless words" and maybe we should have stopped him-yet,he killed no one and committed no crimes-he merely gave the orders and aren't those harmless words?So glad you have just cleared Adolf Hitler of any blame or accountability for what happened in WW2...after all,the only crime he committed was speaking and thinking of what to say-he didn't commit the crimes himself!

Sitting by and doing nothing isn't an action ...its a choice and you choose to put the rights of an individual before the majority!True,at times the individual should have more rights because they are the same universal rights that everyone possesses yet are being denied...some people believe pornography is art and I include myself among them in that pornography "can be" art-but not every pornographic image is art and everyone including the artists themselves agree with that.The same rings true of imagery in general...just because you do an image doesn't make it art,its the judgement of others that make it art.Thats why one image is judged pornographic by some and art by others...likewise,the image of a nude child can be seen as art or pornography!Some people may look at a nude cg child and see pornography...that same person may look at the image of a real nude child and see art!!Art is indeed in the eye of the beholder...but society as a whole does not have one set of eyes and so we have a majority rule issue!

In reference to me being a liar,just contact the site owner as I still have the emails and could post them...but why not let her tell you herself as I think watching a ratteler swallow a crow would be quite humorous rofl!What harm do you really see in covering a childs genitals in an image ratteler...you make it sound as if first its this and next we're all in chains being marched to market!!I'd say that by allowing full upper body nudity rosity is still somewhat in violation of the law which says that its not the law they're trying to comply with...they're only trying to set a standard and you're the one saying they have no right to do so!!Its not even a total ban...but then again,maybe next they'll ban showing any animal with balls-course,snakes don't have those so you're ok there my friend!

I for one fully support this move and think they've drawn an excellent line not to cross...the issue of merchants though does bring up another sticky issue as it was actually one of my focus points-I wanted to know whay the merchants were not allowed to show the genitals of mil kids in the marketplace and yet could in their gallerys!With this change in TOS though,its rather a moot point but to answer-these characters can be morphed into adults and there are several such characters that have no childish features at all.Thus,it really isn't worth fighting over as long as the TOS are in play...but it is an interesting pov nonetheless. And ratteler...you don't need me to do an ad campaign for you-you need a psychiatrist and there I must profess I have no credentials. With that I say adios...only came back because someone copied "forked tongues" comment and sent it to me-had to see if it was true and think calmer heads with different pov's should take over since me and rat have slugged it out.I'm just not one to back down from a fight worth fighting...rat just loves to fight even if there's no fight to be fought,he's just gotta sink his fangs into the topic to spread some poison!

If the end goal of learning is genius...why are most geniuses failures at learning?

This thread has departed too far from its original purpose-the announcement of a change in Renderosity's TOS. It has also degenerated into personal attacks that are contrary to the same. Please remember to adhere to the TOS and keep posts within a thread on topic.