Something that has been bothering me is the number of images that have nudity in the preview, or nudity in the picture itself, yet do not state that it has nudity in it. Is it just me or does this bother anyone else. I have a 7yr old son and my family and friends like to view the artwork here as well. Can we put the word out to please use the filters available to us to let others know weather a pic has nudity/violence in it? Not trying to be a sourpuss just that as artists we still have to be responsible enough to remember that there are those out that that dont wish to see the nudity/violence. Hope I am not upsetting anyone, just tossing out an idea. Thanks all and be safe!

Yes, you're over-reacting. Move along citizen nothing to see here.

Message edited on: 05/17/2004 17:42

I don't think you are over reacting, whilst most of my images have nudity in them I can understand that not all people want to see it, but offten the lack of a nudity flag will be an oversight, sometimes people just forget to tick that box. So it's good to be reminded, keeps us on our toes!

Don't take this wrong Moonbiter, but I think you are over-reacting to this thread. This is an age-old subject and will be re-visited time and time again. We should use the Nudity and Violence Tags where applicable. It is part of the TOS of this forum. Accidents do happen and intentional abuse does happen, but everyone has the right to express their opinion here. That's why it is called a Forum! Just disagree politely and 'move along citizen' as you yourself put it. I'll get off my Free Speech Soap Box now and go back to playing wih my naked dolls! You slipped in under me there Les, you're too quick for me!

Message edited on: 05/17/2004 17:55

"...but everyone has the right to express their opinion here." Really, when did we have a site policy change????

"I don't agree with what you are saying, but I'll fight with all my strength so you have the right to say it..." (or something like that...:) Rousseau, if I'm not mistaken?..................

"That's another fine mess you got me in to!" -- Oliver Hardy

Sorry, I was responding sarcastically to an oft debated question that bugs me in the way it's presented. Every time you see one of these nudity tag messages it has some line about "my kid is 4 or my daughter was in the room when those titties popped up!" It's never I don't like nudity. It's always about the children. I have an 11 and 6 year old sons. They aren't allowed to visit renderosity and when I cruise the galleries I don't do it with them in the room. If by chance I see an image I'd like to share with one of them I invite them in to see it, but I'm adult enough to know that being an art site the galleries and forums carry the risk of nudity. If they see something they shouldn't well that's my fault not the fault of someone forgetting a tag. Next time I'll lay off the sarcasm..

Moonbiter, I can see your point and I share your feelings on this matter. I'll even go a little further by stating that nudity in art has never corrupted the masses, at least here, in Europe (the walls of the Capella Sixtina, in Rome, are covered with "nudes" made by Michelangelo). And that's the way I brought up my child to think. But, some people don't see it that way; therefore we should make some space for them --with the understanding of course that they shouldn't attempt to force their beliefs upon those among us who happen to think along different lines. And as the rules in this site demand for a flag --let's hit the flag and have everyone happy. I don't think your sarcasm had a malicious intend though. Cheers :)

"That's another fine mess you got me in to!" -- Oliver Hardy

Its ALWAYS about the children. An excuse used to strip everyone else of their rights and freedoms. Other excuses are "the environment", "the world", "for freedom", "for peace", "for equality", "for justice", "for the poor and starving and sick". Reducing everyone else down to no rights for the worry of some children in someone else's house who that person should be controlling to begin with is wrong. It is your responsiblity to raise and protect your child, not mine to shield your child or guess what you do or don't find acceptable for them. Some parents don't like war and war images, even those of guns, to be seen by children. Should we label all gun pics? Perhaps we should just default all posts to Nudity and Violence just in case someone gets their feelings hurt.

Whache,... "yet do not state that it has nudity in it". Not sure,but I think you might not understand how the nudity flag works in the galliers. If a person used the nudity filter when they posted,and you have the nudity filter turned on (in your member profile),you are not going to see a warning....your not going to see the image,title or the preview at all. (It isn't like the violence filter that labels with a red warning.) Sometimes you will see "(nudity)" or "(some nudity)" in the title. That has nothing to do with the nudity flag/filter,but was just made part of the image name by the poster,and serves no purpose as a filter(but perhapes a ploy to get more "hits"). Course this all depends on the poster setting the filter in the first place....if not contact a Mod and they will set the flag. Hope this helps,SWAMP

I don't like the nudity....I don't like the nudity! PLEASE use the Nudity flags.....I give up on asking people not to put nudity in the thumbnails.....

"(but perhapes a ploy to get more "hits")."

Ya think? ;) LOL!

That and because some people have a problem with setting their setting in their profile. So we do that to be nice. But we don't have too. ;)

Message edited on: 05/17/2004 19:21

Message edited on: 05/17/2004 19:23

This edit function is great but we still need a built in spell check.

No you are not over-reacting, this is a much your forum as anyone else's and you have the right to ask that the tos be followed. Marque

Just out of curiosity how do you handle going to a museum and seeing the old masters or nude statues? I guess that I raised a little strange, because I was always told that if something bothered me not to look, watch or listen to it. That if I had questions about about it, talk with Mom or Dad... I was reading on the Adult level/college level by the time I was ten and read some books with some racy stuff in them. Again I was told to either skip over those parts or ask questions. I am not a parent, but this seems to be a reasonable attitude. Most of my friends who do have children have the same basic kind of attitude. At most the might tell the kids if a nude scene comes on at the movies to close their eyes. What bothers them more than skin is the language that is being used today....

"Due to the content and issues discussed in our forums, we ask that anyone under the age of 15 receive written permission from a parent before joining our service." No one forces an individual to view the content. If the TOS & the flags are not being used then that is an issue that needs to be addressed. If you are worried that your child(ren) are going to be exposed to content then dont view it when they are around. I've never fully understood why a village needs to raise a child when its the parents responsibility.

It's an agreement. We agree to abide by the TOS when we post. If there is a nudity flag rule, we, by posting, have agreed that we should use the nudity flag. True, sometimes people forget, and they should correct their mistake when it's pointed out to them. It's a commercial site that has rules, and we should follow them if we're going to use their service. Their site, their rules. Also, it's common courtesy to post a warning. Some people don't like nudity, and by not using the flag your inflicting your opinion on them. I feel sorry for people who have such problems with the human form, but I have no right to go out of my way to make them feel uncomfortable. Of course, parents. if your kid is looking over your shoulder and sees a naked body, it's partly your fault for taking the chance when the kid is around. Frankly, I'd be more concerned over exposing them to the violence in the galleries than the nudity. I'd rather have a kid used to the human body, and not think of it as something to be afraid of or ashamed of. I wouldn't want a kid to ever get used to violence, and accept that hurting someone or something else is at any time acceptable.

I don't think the point should be WHY the original poster asked for the nudity flag to be used. It could be the children, it could be they (like myself) browse the galleries during lunch at work, or it could be they simply don't like nudity. The FACT of the matter is - it doesn't matter why - you are obliged (having agreed to the TOS by posting the image) to use the nudity flag on images requiring it. Morals aside - it is the law (contract law, in this case). This is due to the fact that Renderosity could get into alot of trouble should someone kick up a stink (and yes, it's not that hard to kick up a stink in some parts of the world - particualrly the US).

It's not just about parenting, many people (myself included sometimes) view the site during downtime at work. In my workplace, I doubt if anyone is "prude" or offended by human nudity, but as a matter of common professionalism, I avoid all nudity-flagged threads when at work. Now the babes in undies in the banner ads, pretty hard to avoid, LOL, but I'm not complaining about that. Use of the nudity tag is more than just a requirement, it's a courtesy for all sorts of reasons.

If people -- for whatever reason, including their kids -- want to avoid bringing up images with nudity in them, they should have the ability to do that. It does NOT infringe anyone else's "rights" to expect them to take a fraction of a second and flick the "Nudity" flag. Personally, since Renderosity has a somewhat restrictive TOS (compared to some sites), most of the nudity at Renderosity is so mild that I don't really care of my kids see it. I'm a lot more concerned about violence than nudity, and I've found that people are pretty good about setting the Violence flag. bonni

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

"Moonbiter, I can see your point and I share your feelings on this matter. I'll even go a little further by stating that nudity in art has never corrupted the masses, at least here, in Europe (the walls of the Capella Sixtina, in Rome, are covered with "nudes" made by Michelangelo)." I'll go even further than that by stating even nudity OUTSIDE of art has never corrupted the masses. However, the censorship of nudity HAS. People are brainwashed into thinking that nudity is equivalent to pornography, which has no basis in logic. The only way viewing a nude figure would corrupt your mind is if you have been trained since birth that it should. Censorship (even self-imposed) of nudity has no place in art.

Tools : 3dsmax 2015, Daz Studio 4.6, PoserPro 2012, Blender v2.74

System: Pentium QuadCore i7, under Win 8, GeForce GTX 780 / 2GB GPU.

Great thread here.

I dare say I deliberately put a snippet of nudity in a thumbnail solely to see how many hits I'd get. (Close to 600. The closest one after doesn't even have half as many hits.) It was an experiment that I likely wouldn't indulge on a regularly basis. While I'd love to get more hits, I have no desire to go that route to get it. So the few images I have with nudity pretty much get ignored, like everything else I do, because the nudity isn't advertised. Whatcha gonna do? Even so, I always use the 'nudity' and 'violence' flags. Forget the TOS; it's the responsible thing to do.

I don't worry so much about the nudes here and my kids. I spend a lot more time raging about the f*&^#*$g adult pop-ups. I find those a lot more offensive, not simply because they're terribly graphic, but I didn't invite them into my home and never would.

kmw

Thing is, Nudity in artwork doesnt bother me one bit. I am an artist and have done nudes quite a few times. Problem is that I do view this from College while on breaks and such and often am caught by suprise when some hooters pop up on the screen big as life. Its a simple request asking people to follow the TOS out of respect for others. I do have a son that loves artwork. I do let him view the pages under restriction and close scrutiny. Im not trying to start a well im right and your wrong fight. We are all a part of this community together and I love to view ALL of the work here. I have honestly learned more from this site and my fellow artists here than anywhere else and for that, I will be ever greatful. No, I do not believe in forcing my views on others, nor do I wish others to force thier views upon me. Again guys, this isnt a fight or a nasty gram, just a question asking people to remember the tags simply outa respect. thank you all greatly for your input on this and for keeping the replies both entertaining and thoughtful. makes a guy feel good when his fellow artists can answer in adult manners, and still have fun with the subject. Thanks again.

" It's not just about parenting, many people (myself included sometimes) view the site during downtime at work. In my workplace, I doubt if anyone is "prude" or offended by human nudity, but as a matter of common professionalism, I avoid all nudity-flagged threads when at work. Now the babes in undies in the banner ads, pretty hard to avoid, LOL, but I'm not complaining about that. Use of the nudity tag is more than just a requirement, it's a courtesy for all sorts of reasons. " One could argue that it would be a courtesy to us if you simply did not view the website while at work, and refrained from doing so until you were in a more comfortable environment where simple artistic nudity would not be a concern of professionalism.

Tools : 3dsmax 2015, Daz Studio 4.6, PoserPro 2012, Blender v2.74

System: Pentium QuadCore i7, under Win 8, GeForce GTX 780 / 2GB GPU.

I always use the 'nudity' and 'violence' flags. Forget the TOS; it's the responsible thing to do. That's it in a nutshell. "Rights" go both ways. You have the right to put nudity in your images. I have the right (according to the TOS) to know about it beforehand so that if I have some reason to want to avoid it, I can. Nobody's rights are infringed if people just act responsibly and take that fraction of a second to set the flag. ;-) I DO happen to think that the North American preoccupation with nudity as an equivalent to pornography is bizarre and misguided, but that's another discussion entirely. This thread is supposed to be about setting the nudity tag on images posted at Renderosity, and there's absolutely no reason NOT to do that, IMHO. bonni

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

Whache, I once turn on the Nudity and Violence Tags for the gallery. I only found 3 pictures afterward. Sigh! I just avoid the gallery when other members of my family are around. But I wish there were no nude thumbnails.

"This thread is supposed to be about setting the nudity tag on images posted at Renderosity, and there's absolutely no reason NOT to do that, IMHO."

I agree. If you are intent on posting your images here, then follow the TOS of the site in doing so. Which is exactly why I probably will never post my artwork to the galleries here. I dont' agree with the TOS or this website's methodology when it comes to self-imposed censorship. My images and animations amost NEVER contain nudity, but as a matter of principal, I do not contribute to the galleries here.

I do enjoy the forums, however, and have nothing against those who post their works. :-)

Message edited on: 05/17/2004 21:48

Tools : 3dsmax 2015, Daz Studio 4.6, PoserPro 2012, Blender v2.74

System: Pentium QuadCore i7, under Win 8, GeForce GTX 780 / 2GB GPU.

Elizabyte and Maxx have said it best.

I dont' agree with the TOS or this website's methodology when it comes to self-imposed censorship. My images and animations amost NEVER contain nudity, but as a matter of principal, I do not contribute to the galleries here. Hey, I think that's fair enough. :-) I'm not bothered by the TOS. I cleaned out my gallery a while back and only have a few images here now, but plenty of them had nudity in them, all flagged. I wish there were no nude thumbnails. I've wondered about that, too. I've often thought that imposing the same rules on gallery thumbnails as are used for advertising banners would be a reasonably good thing for the sake of sensitive viewers and it would fit the general "ethos" of the site (take that however you wish, heheh), but the uproar it would cause probably isn't worth it. ;-) bonni

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

The only nudity that bothers me is when I see myself naked in the mirror. That's when I tend to scream and run out of the room... which has it's on problems since I'm usually still naked.

I'm not going to jump in a puritan/censorship debate, i think it has been well done already. I just think that a technical modification of the galleries should be fair. The fact that potential viewers just don't see that nudity-tag enabled pictures exist in a gallery is not a good thing, in my opinion. It should be possible to allow all nudity-tagged images still appear (maybe just without thumbnail) in all the gallery preview. The tag puts a warning (like for "violence"), but you can still chose to view one, for example if you like the artist's work Again, just my opinion...

Just to add a note here: I only have one nude image in my gallery and hit the 'nude' tag when I uploaded it but nothing appeared. I tried repeatedly to edit and add it, but no. Sometimes it seems, the nudity tag can be a little temperamental. I also agre that it does seem a bit weird that although there is a nudity flag for the actual images, there are many nude thumbnails, including some male full-frontal shots. Surely this negates the effectiveness of the NF itself...

My Renderosity Store

Lilybell, as it was mentioned, there won't be something special to see if you check nudity AND have allowed nudity in your profile. I have a few pictures with nudity flagged and I can hardly tell which ones, BECAUSE I have allowed nudity in my profile. It's not like the Violence tag that pops up in red, if you've disallowed nudity in your profile you just won't see that picture, in fact you'll never know it even existed.

I do allow nudity both at home and at work (but OK at work I have my back against a wall so noone but me can SEE my monitor.

At home my kids play with Poser too. Poser people do have genitals (at least some of them) and so what? PEOPLE have genitals. The first time the little kid (now age 8) saw a naked Poser man she went all *giggle-giggle, you can see his winkie giggle and then that was it. Mostly when she is playing with Poser, she uses Koshini, who has as much genitals as a Barbie Doll. The big one (age 13) also prefers Koshini and Krystal at the moment. My idea is that as soon as you prohibit something, it is 1000% more interesting.

I do try to remember to check the nudity flag, and IF I forget it is purely by mistake - or sometimes because I do not regard the image as nude. Is a naked torso ok? A male torso? a female torso? A nude Kiki/Koshini/other cartoonish character? Donald Duck without pants?

What is considered nude varies around the globe and sometimes I honestly doesn't THINK of a naked mesh as nude. Again I TRY, but I may fail :o)

Message edited on: 05/18/2004 04:08

If you have your own filters set to no nudity, you shouldn't even see the thumbnails once you flag them. I'll go test this to be sure, but they might show up for me anyway. We are a bit short-handed, and as this site grows with more and more people posting to the galleries, it is possible for images to slip by. If you see an image which contains violence or nudity as defined in the TOS, and it isn't flagged, please drop an IM to one of the staff, and we'll deal with it. If you have questions about interpretation, we will try to answer. Carolly Poser Coordinator

I've never actually seen anyone reply to the point about art galleries, or even public sculptures. Do these people who are concerned about their kids seeing nudity shun art galleries or any place where there might be statues? Hide the newspapers lest there be an unclothed figure in an ad for shower fitments? I've no objection to following the TOS of the site, but I do wonder about these people who find the human body so corrupting.

And in answer to panko, it was Voltaire.

Message edited on: 05/18/2004 05:19

I am with ernyoka, my 10 year old girl plays with Poser too and I see no problem with that. She has no interest in playing with Don or Judy, she preferes the animals and loves to create new poses. And even if she would play with Don or Judy I won't see a problem, she is used to see nekkid people of both genders simply because over here in Europe nudity is not hidden but treated naturally. You see nudes on the beaches in the swimbath and even in magazine or TV ads. Kids grow up with that and no one makes a big fuss about it. I even let my daughter stand beside me when I browse the galleries. I have no idea how a nude Vicky or Mike or Don or whatever could harm her?

I agree about setting the nudity flag for those who don't like to see nudity but then I expect that this people have turned the nudity filter ON in their profile. Sometimes after someone complained about the nude images in the gallery it turned out that they haven't set the filter in their profile or even didn't know about that option.

Every organisation rests upon a mountain of secrets ~ Julian Assange

As far as i know, the "nudity" filter is set by default. So the visitors and people who don't know about it don't even see that there are images with nudity. But they do see images with the "violence" warning. Which makes me think that violence is more "politically correct" or acceptable than nudity here. I think that both should be treated the same way, for the visitors and for the default settings.

Hmm Merlin is right. Gives you something to wonder about. Just for the fun of it, I logged out and took a look at my gallery where I knew there would be both nudity-flagged pictures and a single "violence" one. And sure enough: You could see the violent pic while the nude pictures simply didn't exist. Seems like it's the same issue as in movies, where you can shoot and knock down people to your heart's content (well almost) without the movie being PG-[anything] rated, but as soon as you see a naked butt or someone kissing more than just on the cheek, it's a PG-13 or more. Hmmmm So violence is ok while love is a no-no?

So violence is ok while love is a no-no? It's an observation that has been made many times by critics of North American culture and entertainment standards, yes. To quote the film Victori, Victoria, "Kill them, but you mustn't kiss them!" bonni

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

Everytime this subject comes up folk reply saying "I browse r'soity at work", here's a suggestion that I follow while I'm at college - avoid the poser galleries completely! Check them when you're at home. While nudity flags should be used according to the TOS half the time they aren't. While there is the responsibility of the artist, there is also the responsibility of the viewer. As has been said already if you don't want your kiddie to see "rude" bits then don't surf the site while they are about. It's a two way street, and application of common sense.

That should be Victor, Victoria, by the way. The ability to edit only lasts a little while and I only saw that typo. ;-) bonni

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

Sometimes when I read discussions like this it strikes me that nobody ever explained what kind of horrible things that might occur if the kids actually happened to see the nudity that they are supposed to be protected from... Will they blow up in atoms? Be eternally condemned to some horrible fate? Enlighten me, please! As a matter of record: my parents never, ever tried to protect me from seeing nudity at any age. If that did me any harm is for others to judge, but maybe it was OK since it was European nudity. Our nudity appears to be less dangerous than the US nudity...

"Sometimes when I read discussions like this it strikes me that nobody ever explained what kind of horrible things that might occur if the kids actually happened to see the nudity that they are supposed to be protected from... Will they blow up in atoms? Be eternally condemned to some horrible fate? Enlighten me, please!" **** Insert polite sarcastic voice here**** Careful, Kelderek... such a question could influence this thread to stray hopelessly off-topic and cause it to be MOVED or REmoved by the powers that be. ;-) **** Remove polite sarcastic voice here****

Tools : 3dsmax 2015, Daz Studio 4.6, PoserPro 2012, Blender v2.74

System: Pentium QuadCore i7, under Win 8, GeForce GTX 780 / 2GB GPU.

I have nothing against nudity at all. I have no kids, I work from home & I have a healthy interest in the female form. I Just find the endless nudes on renderosity boring. I think the reason that there is so much nudity in the poser galleries is because its easier than putting on clothes (clothes that you have to buy or model & make fit). Its easier to launch Poser, click on victoria, click a texture, click various poses & put out half a dozen renders. It's harder to make an interesting digital image that may take several weeks to accomplish. Its laziness more than anything else. However, that is not a blanket description of all the nudes on renderosity, some of them really are quite amazing. There is a vast difference between someone who wants to create a magnificent nude piece & someone who has just pointed their mouse & rendered.

Anytime I see something screech across a room and latch onto someone's neck, and the guy screams and tries to get it off, I have to laugh, because what is that thing?

I think it's really about choice..if you choose to look at ndit, (sorry, we have a parser on our firewall at work..), then you set your profile accordingly. I don't have it at either place (keeps Data Security and the missus from getting all het up..;), but I've noticed that lately I've seen 'the full Monty' in thumbnails (something about twins..:), and I wasn't expecting that
fact is, you're going to run into all sorts of opinions here, being as many people as there are..and if you put the flag on..it will draw those who want it, and repel those who don't..it's only being considerate to the wishes of others..
the way I check galleries at work is by package..I stay away from Beginners, Poser, and have my hand on the 'back' button for Vue (though those folks have been fairly decent lately). Home is 'all and all'..;) I don't have a problem with the prescence of it, just not having the choice..(I should write a macro for Tools|Delete Files|Delete Offline content..;)

I wish I'd said that.. The Staircase Wit

anahl nathrak uth vas betude doth yel dyenvey..;)

I'm not against using the nudity tag. And I agree as part of the TOS you should use it. I however don't agree that we need a daily reminder in the forums, touting your children as one of the reasons why we should do it. If you don't want your kids to see nudity, it's up to you to act like an adult and censor what you don't want them to see. While I'm pretty open with my kids about the real world and don't get all uptight if they see a boob, or even a full nude, I don't feel they need to be in the room looking over my shoulder at the plethora of nudes on this site. Which is why I veiw the gallery on my time. Side's I admit I have a hard time explaining to my six year old why that womans breasts are larger than her head... ;) As for the nudity flag at work... well the arguement could be made that you shouldn't be screwing around here on the boss's time/bandwidth anyway. If however viewing the gallery is part of your job duties, i dont' see the fact of an occasional nude slipping through the cracks as all that big a deal.

Why does the discussion always get phrased in terms of Censorship v. the Artist? Why can't setting the nudity flag be seen as social courtesy? There are a thousand and one things I do that are appropriate in one setting but not another. I'll talk loud and use profanity at the carpentry shop, but not in a library. I'll slurp my miso in Kyoto but eat my clam chowder quietly in Boston. I don't do push-ups in a clothing store or inspect labels at the gym (much as I am sometimes tempted...!) So what in 'ell is wrong with making it possible for someone to explore Renderosity without bloody severed heads and crotch shots filling the page? It ain't always appropriate to show the nudes. In some parts of this fine country, it might even be illegal and get you and Rendo in trouble! The one thing that is bothersome, tho, is that flagging the thumbs makes them vanish. We really got to change the code on that so they display a blank, but you can still tell an image is there. I was not aware that the images vanished, thumbs and all, and even though that is a setting completely under the user's control it does verge on some kind of mild censorship. Best to have a warning label and let the user make an item-by-item choice.

And by the way....re "Do people cover their kid's eyes when they go to the museum?" Well...yes they do. At the small theater where I work much of the audience is locals. It's a quiet town with a bit of a small-town feel despite being smack in the middle of the cosmopolitan mega-plex called the San Francisco Bay Area. Every show that we do (no exceptions) we get angry letters. People call up my boss howling about "terrible profanity" and "disgusting stuff we saw" -- one person was so mortified that her children were forced to listen to "two hours of this dreadful profanity" that she could only sit in her seat fuming (one wonders why, however, she didn't take the chance to leave at intermission!) The play that got that particular reaction was, by the way "Life With Father" by Clarence Day -- an old perenial based on a series of articles written by Clarence Day in 1933 about life in a well-to-do New York family around 1890. Father is a bit the outspoken chap...he says "Damn" rather often and when annoyed, "God Damn." He taketh the Lord's Name in vain and what was good enough for the New Yorker in 1933 or William Powell in 1947 was apparently too much for our dear patron! I was working the summer-stock musicals at a big outdoor theater, a family-friendly place ran by a nice gent in his 80's. Following "Man of La Mancha" we got an angry letter about our Dulcinea being nude. Somehow it didn't bother the letter writer that the lady in question was being abducted and would soon be brutally raped...what bothered them was a personal inability to tell flesh-colored tights from flesh -- on an actress eighty feet away on a darkened stage, yet. And she was afraid of seeing what? Yeah, people do get this insanely stupid. And the sort of people who do, are eager to push their views on the co-worker who is browsing Rendo during lunch, or the woman who allows her child to experiment wit Poser, or the site that dares make this "terrible filth" available to anyone who goes through the trouble of registering and giving their name and email and agreeing to the Terms of Service and.... So, yeah, I got no trouble with a little self-censorship, as long as it doesn't restrict actual access. Let's keep the "Pious Perverts" (as the writer Jack Woodward called these people) from their excuses to do us harm. Give us a nice simple "boobies in the thumbnail" graphic that can be clicked through or removed by the person browsing. And case closed.

Just had to add.... Funniest letter we ever got was after our production of "Mr. Roberts", the Thomas Hegen/Joshua Logan play about events on a small cargo ship in the latter part of W.W.II. Said this dear letter-writer; "I wish you wouldn't add such filthy language to the plays you do. My husband was in the Navy and he assures me that sailors never talked like that!"

I happen to agree with you in part, Ratteler. Removing posts accomplishes nothing. Like the ninth planet, the missing post shows its influence on the posts around it, engendering much confusion and anger. I've seen too many threads that devolve into screaming matches about what might or might not have been in a post that was removed. Let's leave the offensive post (or let the poster agree to delete it while clearly marking that it did once exist), and lock the thread around it. Are we, or are we not both strong enough and human enough to live with the evidence left by a troll or two, or an angry outburst now regretted by all the participants? I feel that hiding these only leads to smoldering resentments.

Ok, a few people have asked questions and I am goin to try and answer them. Kelderek: No, children will not blow up in tinney little atoms nor will they be warped and in need of mental health counseling for eternity. I, though, as a parent feel it is my responsibility to raise my son in the best way I know how, this means that if I feel that he shouldnt view nudity in certain ways then that is my right as a parent. Seeing a nude woman or man is, IMHO different than seeing people in sexually oriented positions and such. TOS states that you should mark images with the appropriate flags, what, might I ask is so difficult about doing that? Nevermore: Sorry to say this but you are dead wrong Nevermore, its not a two way street. The ToS is a set of rules. Rules we all agree to when we click that little button. I do have the filters checked when browsing and as such, should not have to view the images I am trying to filter. As for browsing at work, I cant and dont, no computer in a glass shop with Internet, as for school I am there from 6-12 midnight and like to read the forums, show my newly posted work to friends at school that dont have computers and so on. Merlin: Unfortunately if you have Nudity blocked and someone doesnt check the nudity in picture box, then you still see the nudity. That is what this is mainly about. Why have filters if no one is going to use them and worse off, no one cares that rules are broken. Phantast: At six, my son is hardly concerned with the Dallas Art Museum, nor would I take him there, not because of the nudity, but because Six Flags, Football and playing in the swimming pool are more his forte. As far as sheltering him from nudity? He does not get to watch sex on the tele, nor do we allow overly violent movies at our apartment. Moonbiter: First off, I havent seen daily reminders about using the flags for I am new to the forums. Second off, you said dont view it when my son is in the room, Ok, Ill send him outside or lock him in the closet as I live in a small one bedroom apartment where my computer is also in the family room. partly due to where the plug ins are and partly due to no room in the bedroom I take the time to set my filters what is censored about asking others to set their filters? Or am I wrong in asking people to follow the rules set forth by this community? Hauksdottir: Its not the fact that their is nudity here, nor is it weather I have my filters set, its that people are having thumbnails with nudes in them that are not blocked, and pictures that are not marked as having nudity in them. Graviton: While not a question, what you stated was excellent, thank you. So many people seem to think that I am against nudity. I am not. I dont have a problem with a picture of a man or a woman posed nude to convey artwork or a message sent forth by the artist. When done right, it can be truely outstanding. Oh, and I never stated I viewed it at work, I cant view it there. I view it at school during my breaks as When I am home, I would rather be working on my art cuz I have a LONG way to go I dont want to upset anyone, this isnt about infringing on anyones rights. Its about just common curtesy and clicking a button that is required by the TOS anyway to be clicked. I really dont want everyone blowing up and getting mad. I look at everyone here as mentors, people that I learn from and admire very much so. Each artist at renderosity has their own style and I love them all.

It all boils down to PERSONAL resposibility. My message WAS caustic and bitting, but a personal attack has to be against a person. Doesn't it? I was critical of a type of person without pointing out anyone in particular. Can you launch a personal attack against an unnamed group? My post was also satrical. It was worded in such a way that no reasonable person could take it seriously. I could go on forever... but the bottom line is every post like the one that started this is about the same thing. Restricting what WE say because some one doesn't want to take the responsibility for THEIR action of looking at it. Morality, children, family values. These are buzzwords designed to make accepting the removal of our rights easier to swallow. To make the unreasonable seem the opposite. If they claim my violence and sex can desenitise them to make it acceptable, can they not also desenitise me my rights being violited? If they have a Right to protection from my opinion, shouldn't I also have a right to protection from theirs? Well, they have not changed a mans mind simply because they have silenced him. If theyve made their morality, children, and family values MY responsibility, why is it ME who has to do what they say? If they insist on placing the responsibilies for their choices on ME, I will fight with my last breath to make sure it THEM who gives up THEIR rights.

Please calm down, or I'll have to lock the post. It is quite possible to discuss nudity and filters without being vituperative and nasty about the feelings of other people. This is a community. Hauksdottir Poser Coordinater

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

The TOS makes NO mention of the nudity, and the word violence only occures in the clause about threating another member with violence.

Now that I re-read it the post I got warned for was probably closer to being in violation of that than a personal attack. If it was taken literally.

"Common curtesy" is buzzword for saying "my way is right, and yours is wrong."

Would you read a Playboy in front of your children? Of course not. If you did would you blame me for your child seeing nudity. Of course not.

But some how when you open a web browser on your computer in your home and surf wherever you want, it magically becomes my responsibility.

If I have to bear that burden, I think your kids should see violence and sex, and since YOU gave me that responsibilty, it is YOU who should do what I say. If you don't like my style, and opinion of how your children should be raised... RAISE THEM YOURSELF!

It's called Personal responsibilty, and it SHOULD outweigh "Common Courtesy".

Message edited on: 05/18/2004 20:04

Before this thread gets locked, I just want to state that if Ratteler gets banned for stating his emotional opinion, then I will personally never participate in the forums again.

We're NOT robots. We have feelings, and in a true community, we should feel free to exercise our freedom of speech without fear of reprisal.

Message edited on: 05/18/2004 19:58

Tools : 3dsmax 2015, Daz Studio 4.6, PoserPro 2012, Blender v2.74

System: Pentium QuadCore i7, under Win 8, GeForce GTX 780 / 2GB GPU.

Thanks Maxxx.

My message was a little over the top. I don't even mind the deletation as much as the "official warning". I probably deserved a slap on the wrist... it's the "STRIKE TWO!" that has my Irish up.
Sorry Hauksdottir. This will be all I write on this subject. I think my point has been made clearly enough to be understood, even if it's not agreed with.

Message edited on: 05/18/2004 20:02

I admit I have a hard time explaining to my six year old why that womans breasts are larger than her head... Oh, that's easy. "She's like a cartoon. You know, like Jessica Rabbit." :-p Let's keep the "Pious Perverts" (as the writer Jack Woodward called these people) from their excuses to do us harm. That's a great phrase. I was commenting to my husband just last night that the sort of people who see "obscenity" in everything (I was specifically talking about Ashcroft and the statue of Justice that he had to have covered with a curtain because she has a bare booby in the traditional style) are basically perverts on some level. People who are better adjusted don't need to cover up everything and hide their eyes (and everyone else's) from a little uncovered flesh. Only the very insecure, the very rigid, or the perverted who are hiding behind a facade of "morality". And before anyone misunderstands, I'm not at ALL implying that anyone who, for whatever reason, would like to see the Nudity flag ticked is a pervert, only that people who habitually see "filth" everywhere usually have something to hide. The real filth is in their own minds. bonni

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

Generally, I don't participate in these threads, since I have a very open view about nudity. I do have to say, though, that this was actually one of the more civil ones I read. :D Now, I have a 5 year old. He browses the galleries with me. No nudity filter, we just avoid the violence. Not the nudity. I personally feel I was born nude, so what is wrong with it. :D Just as I would, and have, taken him to museums where there are nudes. Art is art. Nudity is nudity. I generally feel there is no reason to get our panties in a bind over it. BUT. Rules are rules. And if you want to actively participate in a community, you should follow them. I used to browse from work, on my hour and a half lunch. (I work gov, so therefore am poor, and had to spend it somehow. And browsing art galleries online is a big stress reliever, which I need with my job.) HOWEVER, I have had to stop, over concerns of losing my job. Not because I was browsing on company time, but because the nudity is not always getting filtered. I work child welfare. I investigate child abuse. Have to understand why there is a no nudity policy in place at work. That is their rule. I have to follow it if I want a job. So hence, since others don't follow site rules, I cut out this site. Since my time is limited in the evenings, that generally means I don't usually have time to visit the galleries here anymore. It sucks. Yes, I have a choice. Take the chance or don't. So I don't. But for me and other's like me, or who chose not to view it for moralistic or whatever other reasons, our choices are forced due to other people not abiding by the rules. Rules that really are not that hard to follow. Doesn't make it fair for them. I say, by all means, use all the nudity you want. (Although it would be nice to see some more classic, less idolized nudity from time to time.) I am judging your art on the art itself, not the clothing or lack of clothing on the model. But please, whether you agree with the reasoning, just click the damn box. k? Now I'm done. Have to finish my own nude pic. (With my son, who is telling me I have her posed all wrong. :D Boy has a damn fine eye for a 5 year old. :D)

Could we get an 'art Carl wants to see' flag? I was showing my gallery to some friends from their computer. Just logged in as a visitor. Only one picture out of the nine in my gallery was there. Oh, I paniced. Then figured it out and logged in as me. Posters should be responsible and use the tags that apply. Viewers should be responsible and realize mistakes happen and some people just aren't responsible. There are 1416 surfers currently online, one of them is undoubtedly doing something that would piss me off if I let it. Hauksdottir - if a post is deleted, does it make a sound? Who ever would have guessed artists had such passionate emotions?

I think we agree, Rateller. I hope we agree. If I feel a need to block myself, my kids, or my neighbors from the wild boobies it should be my personal responsibility to set my Renderosity preferences. If I want to make the best ever naked-vickie-in-a-temple pic it should be my personal responsibility to tick the little box that sets the "nudity" flag. Apropo -- I was browsing an old issue of Time during the slower part of rehearsal and discovered some Federal legislator is trying to ban veiwing of blue movies on those TV's they now install in some cars. The theory being that some soccer mom might get stuck in traffic right beside the offending SUV and her kids would be exposed to a little Deep Throat through two car windows and a bit of freeway smog. Is it just me, or did people used to "go for a drive" to enjoy themselves outside? Now apparently life is so boring that no American should ever be seperated from TV, DVD, cel phone and headphones for even an instant. Harrison Bergeron, your world is almost here.

Whache, regarding #51:

I meant nudity, not sexually explicit pictures, there is a difference. If you feel that it's your responsibility as a parent to bring up your children in a way that shields them from nudity, then it's your decision. However, since nudity is considered as a natural thing in many parts of the world, you will run into problems with that stance. That problem is your responsibility to handle, not the responsibility of the society and/or people responsible for Internet sites and other media.

If a site condones a nudity tag, it should of course be respected, I have no problem with that. I don't know how well/bad it works here since I don't post nudity and/or sexually explicit pictures here. What I meant with my comments was that I think the whole nudity thing is blown out of proportion in society as a whole. Most problems derive from that lack of proportion, not the fact that kids happen to see nudity from time to time. The guilt people feel from exposing kids to nudity appears to be much worse than the harm they think it does to the same kids and I have a hard time understanding the logic in that. I think there are more important things to work on as a parent

Message edited on: 05/19/2004 01:26

It's interesting the fact that Nudity is not mentioned in the TOS. I re-read them myself yesterday and that point leapt out at me. Violence and sexually explicit scenes are covered but not nudity.

So I go back to my previous point. It /is/ a two way street, responsibility lies both with the poster and the viewer.

Message edited on: 05/19/2004 02:14

Yeah we're back to the nudity=porn if you think the pictures here in general are sexually explicit. I won't say there isn't any sexually explicit pictures here, I haven't SEEN any, but then again I don't browse the galleries that much.If I wanted to look at sexually explicit pictures I wouldn't go here anyway, I would go to R'otica.

I make the occasional nude picture, and when I bring in a Vickie to scale a prop I do not clothe her. And if my kids are nearby I do not cover her up either.

I do also make Poser porn from time to time, and I don't do THAT with my kids around. Actually I don't even do it with my hubby around LOL - he might get ideas...

Of course the nudity flag should be used when appropriate, but once again: Is a male naked torso/chest ok? What's the difference between that and a female's (except for the obvious differencesG)

In the end we may all flag anything with Nudity and Violence just to be sure. That would unfortunately mean that a lot of people won't ever see our posts/pictures, but... Better safe than sorry, right?

In general I don't think people post nude pictures without the tag to piss other people off. They do so because they FORGET it. Sure they should set the flag, but to err is human, no?

Message edited on: 05/19/2004 03:06

Is a male naked torso/chest ok? What's the difference between that and a female's (except for the obvious differencesG*)* Well, the difference is that a woman's breasts can actually be functional as well as decorative. In all seriousness, I've long thought the "women can't show theirs but men can show theirs" thing is really stupid. I tend to see bare breasts in the same light as a naked male chest. It CAN be sexual or even erotic, but for the most part, it just shouldn't be a big deal. I'm not even someone who would walk around in public with my shirt off (assuming it was socially acceptable), but I still think making that distinction is stupid. And personally, I find a naked male chest a LOT sexier than a female one. ;-p bonni

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

Yes you are over-reacting. If my kids (regardless of age) were to be interested in looking at Rosity galleries (highly unlikely) I would let them. Naked people is the most innocent thing in the world. My daughters knew about the birds and the bees before they were 5. But violent movies, PC games and news from Iraq and such - now THAT is scary stuff for little kids. I would seriously think abot what small children are alowed to see. But renders of semi nude people???? Good grief.... who cares, lol! And there's nothing even remotely similar to porn here at Rosity - this place is so squeaky clean. :] Fish

Ok, I'll "touch" the museum issue. Who are you kidding? There are some serious artists here, but the vast majority of the images in the galleries are comic book schlock, soft core porn, and glorious, full-color, 3D bathroom scrawls. Sturgeon's Law run amok. My kids are not censored from seeing Michaelangelo and Francis Bacon nudes, and I don't worry if they spot a nipple in a Dillard's ad. But I don't want them looking at adolescent fantasies of sex-obsessed, women-hating Peter Pans. Let them show a little creativity. This "rights of the artist" BS always reminds me of the jackasses on the street with boom boxes blaring music I find tiresome, revolting, or both. Their "freedom" requires me to listen to that crap. Some jerk pulls up next to me while I'm listening to Vivaldi, and suddenly all I can hear (and feel) is the rumble of his base shaking my car while some threatening voice mumbles limericks. What happened to my "right" to listen to my own radio? "Freedom" is a transaction. We both have to give something in order to get what we want. You have to give a checkmark. Get a grip. M

I greatly appreciate all of your responses on this, just had alot of thoughts on the subject and seeing everyones responses once again confirms why I stay with Renderosity, its the community, while each of us different in so many ways, we all are artists and in that one thing, we are all alike. Thank you all greatly now, if I could only get this many hits on my pictures lol

" Ok, I'll "touch" the museum issue. Who are you kidding? There are some serious artists here, but the vast majority of the images in the galleries are comic book schlock, soft core porn, and glorious, full-color, 3D bathroom scrawls. Sturgeon's Law run amok." That's a grossly bias exaggeration. So large-breasted comic book heroines = softcore porn, or...? I've never come upon "soft core porn" or "3D bathroom scrawls" in THESE galleries. Not saying everyone is a serious artist, but there's a serious artist in everyone. I suppose the only REAL art is that of the Masters? "This "rights of the artist" BS always reminds me of the jackasses on the street with boom boxes blaring music I find tiresome, revolting, or both." sigh To avoid what would most likely be misinterpreted by the mods as hostile rhetoric, I won't even dignify this with a response. I'm done with this thread now. Bye.

Tools : 3dsmax 2015, Daz Studio 4.6, PoserPro 2012, Blender v2.74

System: Pentium QuadCore i7, under Win 8, GeForce GTX 780 / 2GB GPU.

nomuse said: "...and discovered some Federal legislator is trying to ban veiwing of blue movies on those TV's they now install in some cars. The theory being that some soccer mom might get stuck in traffic right beside the offending SUV and her kids would be exposed to a little Deep Throat through two car windows and a bit of freeway smog. Is it just me, or did people used to "go for a drive" to enjoy themselves outside? Now apparently life is so boring that no American should ever be seperated from TV, DVD, cel phone and headphones for even an instant." Jeez, you sound like me! Though I usually phrase it, "Kids these days think they are being deprived and unduly punished when they can't go from point A to point B without benefit of some sort of electronic (read: video) entertainment...even if it's only a 15-minute drive." And on the other item...the movies. I keep wondering why there is such a huge uproar about x-rated movies in a vehicle on a 9-inch screen that one (it would seem) need to be within 6-8 feet of in order to see what is going on (though I understand the concern). MORE in need of attention, IMO (note I didn't say "imHo"), are the lyrics that stream from open-windowed vehicles from amplifiers and speakers capable of handling a concert. Most recent example was when I was with our troop of Brownie Scouts selling cookies in front of Publics and 2 guys drove by with all sorts of lyrics (audible from 50-75 feet) drove by our stand. Lyrics talking about how this guy had f****d this girl real good and now she was his bitch. All I had time to do what run in front of the girls and try to capture there attention with a loud voice about how well we were doing till the car exited sound range. I object to this much more than video since one needn't not be so close to be assailed by unwanted and disgusting "art" and freedom of speech and self-expression. Bottom line? The whole world is a community just as R'City is one. And within either community, one should try to balance your rights/privaleges with the rights of those around you.

So we need two flags instead of one, do we? "Serious" nudity and "Comic book schlock" nudity? The first is OK to be seen by children and the second isn't? Now, the question is, if (as so often happens), someone needs to post a plain Poser render of P4W to illustrate some jointing problem, which nudity flag would be appropriate? It isn't serious artistic nudity, but neither is it softcore porn nudity. Is it suitable for children? Maybe a third flag is needed: "Technical" nudity. Any other categories of nudity I'm missing here? Oh, yes, there's "Satirical" nudity, which is where you post a picture of a nude horse and click the nudity flag for fun. Probably OK for children to see that sort. Any others?

"This edit function is great but we still need a built in spell check."

Now why should we have to put up with something like spell check when people should be perfectly capable of watching their own spelling? Why should this site cater to the lazy one's who can't bother to post only when they're in a room with a dictionary? No dictionary at work? Don't post at work! Not able to spell correctly at home? Don't post when the dictionary isn't in the room! Simple, right?
------ > ;) (/sarcasm) < -------

"Why can't setting the nudity flag be seen as social courtesy?"
They consider it overreacting. ;)

...... Kendra

I reckon there will always be problems around the boundary. Do you think a skimpy swimsuit is "nudity"? Is John Wayne holding a Winchester "violence"? (Bother, now I just have to do an image of John Wayne holding an HDD and a bikini, and looking puzzled.) We use the tags as a courtesy to others. If you want us to look after your kids, you can't afford my hourly rate.

Ow.....Antonia....you hurt my eyes....John Wayne in a tiny red bikini....ow...! Seems to me the nudity that shows up in discussions about ERC or how Vickie's clothes fall off whenever she moves needs to be flagged. Reason is those DAZ figures are just so flamboyantly, flagrantly, flauntingly nude. You illustrate a point with Posette in default mode and all you got is an orange Barbie. You illustrate with V3 and you have acres and acres of high-resolution skin stretched over a strikingly statuesque form. (Of course this begs the question...if we are talking joint params why are we rendering Vickie with skin? Or at all? Wouldn't wire-frame be more appropriate?) I'd really hate to have the standard-model V3 stroll into our costume shop, by the way. There isn't anything we could put on her without her looking like a siren or a hussy -- period clothes, sack-cloth, whatever, she is just too male-fantasy.

I can't help but agree with your theme, but I am less sure that it is relevant to a nudity flag.

Uhm the base V3 does not have any high res textures. you can add them just as you can add some to posette, but they're not there by default. So if you can load a nude posette because she's an "orange arbie doll" then so can you load V3. she's just a more pinkish barbie, that's all. How about if you showed the character as a wireframe? is it still a nude? (technically it's even more nude than before, but...)

slaps his forhead then looks around for the violence tag egad!

I know Vickie doesn't load up with tex, ernyoka. Yet, somehow, she manages to get her tan lines in place before appearing in any of those "help me, the boobs keep sticking out of the dress" posts. If people were leaving the default when posting their technical questions -- or doing her as wireframe or white mat -- I wouldn't be so eager to see the nudity tag on them.

A wire-frame model may be even more revealing than an undressed Posette. Do you really want to see the backs of someone's teeth? :shudder: Judy is complete, and I believe there are 2-3 other female models which are. The nudity defination is fairly comprehensive because it has to cover humanoids and aliens. Your average city ordinance isn'r concerned with mermaids frolicking in the fountain outside government offices or satyrs surveying the shopping mall with lascivious intent. Carolly

Heh. Nudity, like obscenity, lacks an objective definition. However. It doesn't take a mental giant to figure out if a particular image is likely to strike the community that you have been interacting with as "nude." I'll admit there are borderline cases. I also strongly believe, however, that the "borderline" is mostly populated by people who damn well know better and who are trying constantly to push the line just to attract attention to themselves. Okay. I do admit to there being a hidden truth here. The gallery is not just a place where people post what they've created so other people can enjoy it. It is a place where people fight tooth-and-nail for coveted votes into "most viewed" and Hot 20. I can understand why the people who are trying desperately to be this week's Hot Thing don't want to do ANYTHING that might lessen the number of people who view their creation. That also is the driving force that makes the banner ads for certain products push the borders whenever and wherever they can. Oh, and yeah -- the American workplace is full of hypocrites. But you are going to save the day by sneaking nudie pics onto the computer of some unsuspecting lunch-time browser? Riiiight. You might cost a job, but you ain't saving the world, not that way. Stand up and fight the good fight where you might actually get heard.

Attached Link: http://bonni.net/gallery/

*Your average city ordinance isn'r concerned with mermaids frolicking in the fountain outside government offices or satyrs surveying the shopping mall with lascivious intent.* Some are. attorney General Ashcroft had a clasical statue of "Liberty" covered with a curtain because she had one bare breast. In the city of Bendigo (Victoria, Australia) there's a very nice public fountain. It's quite large and was officially opened in 1880 by a member of the English royal family. It's got four sculptures of women on it, and two have both breasts bared, while the other two have one breast bared. This was in no way considered offensive or disgraceful. So much for Victorians being prudes. At least they didn't get their knickers in a knot over a classical style sculpture with a bare breast! Modern sensibilities, at least for some, seem to be a lot more unreasonable. I have pictures of the statue in my personal photo gallery if anyone cares, by the way (link attached, but only for reference, not for advertising ;-). bonni

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

Nice fountain... but with all the classical symbolism, it would look like the rest of the statuary populating old gardens back in England, and so familiar that it wouldn't really be noticed. I'm more impressed with those lovely hippocampi tucked into the curves. And you are right about Ashcroft. There is some abberancy in every generation. However, I suspect that he is more uncomfortable with the idea of Justice watching his actions, than with her breast. ;^) Carolly

Nice fountain... but with all the classical symbolism, it would look like the rest of the statuary populating old gardens back in England, and so familiar that it wouldn't really be noticed. Ah, but in the middle of the town center of a Victorian-era "frontier" gold rush city, it was (and still is) VERY noticible. ;-) Well, not the bare boobies so much, but the fountain in general... laugh Oh, and I love the hippocampi, too! There's also a drinking fountain on one of the very stylish posts, which I think is a nice touch. bonni

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

Forum: Poser - OFFICIAL

Subject: Maybe I am over reacting,