I saw a picture of the pre-School Mil-Girl with female genitals, and the outer two lips showing from the front. (You know the way a real person is.) I want to get this. Does anyone know where or how? The only things I have found are for the preteen or V3.

wouldn't that classify as kiddy porn?... I mean, really... pre-school??? I've never seen anything like that, in all the galleries, freebie sections and markets that I've been to. Not that the prop doesn't exist, but... what you saw might have been created in postwork, or possibly one of the genitals props for V3 scaled to fit.

If you saw an image like that here at renderosity, please im me the link. Our terms of service do not permit showing the genitals of under 18s. Thanks, Shoshanna.

What the hell do you want it for? I mean, asking for a realistic genitalia for a pre-schooler? Boy, you better have a good answer to this one!

Are you sure you are not mistaken, and calling the PreTeen...PreSchool? Merchants do use morphs on the PreTeen to make her more of a young adult (over 18 pixel years), which include "slight" genital crease. The PreSchooler.no way. SWAMP

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/messages.ez?Form.ShowMessage=1905971

I won't mention the creator or the character for fear they'll be lynched, but there certainly is at least one MG-PS texture (not a morph or prop, mind you) that includes external genetalia.

Perhaps this is what GoN2GraceLand saw a render of, assuming he/she is not trying to make a joke of course. If so, I'm pretty sure the image wasn't posted here or on any American site for that matter. BTW, Dude(ette), if it was a joke, stick to something non-controversial like Bush, Kerry, the war, religion, gay marriage, etc. - we'll all have more fun.

Message edited on: 09/16/2004 06:37

GoN2GraceLand; Either get one of the shaved body detailed textures for V2 and use that, or use one of the V1-V2 genital add-on kits, dial all the detail morphs down so that you only have the external labia at a very undeveloped state, then scale it down and parent it to the PS hip. You'll still have to do some texturecolor mapping, and there may be a seam problem to disguise, but that's about the best you can do. As for what he could 'possibly' need it for..... Hmmm.... (1)A birth render. I've done a couple of those that required putting tackle on the Milbaby. Both genders. Post birth, newborn suckling for the first time. The Armani suit looked a bit silly under those circumstances, you know. (2)Skinny dipping. Kids still do that in the South, with gay abandon (oh horrors!) and no concern for adult hangups. (3)Streaking. Dinner party. Stuffy adults. Little Jonnie or Suzie making a break from bathtime, shedding water and giggles all over the place, wanting a hug or to see what all the commotion is. (4)Nude study. Sleeping child. Sleeping child with sleeping puppykitty. Sleeping child in parents arms. This list can go on, btw. (5)Being Helpful! Toddler makes connection with Mommy removing diaper when all messy. Toddler appears in doorway of before Mommy's social gathering of your choice, holding said object, rather....messy....and =proud= of the new accomplishment. (6)Historical piece. Until just -very- recently, children and little or no clothing was the norm during the hotter parts of the year. (7)Pre-histrorical. Just about everyone at some time, simply due to the fact that Pampers hadn't incorporated yet. Let's see now... Hmmm. No mention of faeries. No mention of Science Fiction or Fantasy. No mention of sexual contact of any kind, in any way, shape, or form (unless you consider breastfeeding 'sexual' in an adult context). If any of those scenarios come across as 'kiddie porn' to someone, then the problem is not within the image. It's within them, wouldn't you say?

i must also add that his/her last message in the thread is just confirming he/she is a joker

Gotta disagree. The other thread started with a serious request, and when the helpful advice came in, he/she responded with a thank you that seems a riff on an Oscar speech, which, given the starting post, probably seemed appropriate. I dont doubt the request here was a serious one, but even with Dale's list, I find it a little off-setting -- mostly because of what I've seen built around Poser over the past four years. But who knows...

Message edited on: 09/16/2004 09:27

To answer the question of: can you add genitals to the pre-school girl- yes you can. I just did it while reading this thread. No, it wasn't a prop. I will not mention the merchant, just do some creative searching. Now off to delete the experiment. As Swamp said, who needs a figure of this age this detailed- I don't. Don't ask how I did it just that it can be done. nuff said!

this is a joke .ONLY A PERV would want such a thing.

It's not a joke, but it's inappropriate for this website. They should probably delete this thread before it gets out of control. The topic would be better handled at one of the fairy sites.

You're talking about virtual kiddie porn here...

um. no, they are talking about an anatomically correct figure. For it to be kiddie porn you must have a sex act. Nudity does not equal sex.

umm... why does child pornography always get shouted when someone mentions this kind of thing here? Don't children have genitals? I really think some of you are very very scared of natural normal parts of the body.. Its quite sad really.. Maybe its because i'm english, i don't know... but child porn didn't spring to mind when i read that 1st post.. If you wanted to do a picture of a naked child (don't all faint), like a baby/infant playing in a paddling pool or something innocently free of clothing, with any hint of realism, surely that child has genitals...? One hint of the word genitalia and it sends some people into utter shock & outrage... Yet guns, violence, greed are 'A' OK... We all have genitals... And what they are talking about is a collection of polygons... Not actual body parts.. I hope one day some of you will get over yor fears of the natural naked body on any age/gender being presented in an artful beautiful way. I'm not wishing to upset anyone. but this really makes my mind boggle. Its utterly ridiculous. -Simderella-

Though I must agree with a lot of the comments made here, especially with Dale B's list of what such a model/prop might be used for, I also have to refer to Renderosity's terms of service, which states clearly: Members/Users will not use this community for; Posting Unacceptable Images or Writing Themes: 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. Even though so far no images or writings have been posted in this reference, that we know of, depicting this. Its still implied. I personally don't have a problem with nudity of most any kind, however on a child, I think it is at least bizarre. Plus, though I am no anatomy expert I do have a neice, who when she was pre-school and toddler age, I took care of several times, so I have an idea of what the "pre-school" female anatomy looks like, and you can't see developed genitals like that, in most cases. It is accepted by most people in the united states, and other parts of the world, that exposed genitals on children goes against moral code, and its definately illegal in the US. Depicting a nude baby, toddler, child, in an artist's piece, such as those listed in Dale B's post is one thing, and in most situations would be harmless enough. But detailing genitalia that a child of that age would in most cases not even be developed to fully, is definately pushing some legal limits. This reminds me of a movie I saw once, which I believe was based on actual events, about a woman (and single mother) who was arrested and charged with child pornography because she innocently snapped some pictures of her naked 3 to 4 year old daughter who had just gotten out of the tub, or maybe she was changing for bed. Anyway, the damage was further impacted when more photos revealed the little girl touching the exposed pregnant stomach of the mother's friend. When she dropped the film off to be developed, it was the photo lab that reported it. In my opinion she'd done nothing wrong, but in the overall opinion of the law, she had. So, stuff like this is always a controversy.

There are also perfectly acceptable biology texts that use such models. Example: illustrations portraying the various stages of human development from birth thru adolescence/ adulthood. Very useful when giving "the talk" -- I wish such books & diagrams were available I was a pre-teen and wondering just what the heck was going on with my suddenly changing anatomy. But unfortunately, this is also the sort of thing that appeals to the perverts, which is a sad commentary on society. (By that I mean human society, not singling any particular nation/ethnic/religious/whatever group out.)

Whatever... I just think the way Gon2 'asked' for it in the starting message is not quite in the tone of a biology assistant having to develop the graphic part of an anatomy book, nor seems that of an artist looking to redo the '600 naked angels of some baroque painter. It has the tone of a provocation, and if the scope was to cause some reactions, then... Add one more point to your scoreboard, pal... you got me twice.

Just re-read Gon2's post. You're right, it does not sound at all like either of those. If it's a prank it's in extremely poor taste, to put it mildly. And if it's a pornfreak ... Ewww!!! I feel icky all over just thinking about the ramifications of that one.

I too just re-read it and had I spotted this line 'I want to get this.' I would not have responded.

Thank you to those of you who gave me the benefit of the doubt. I am new here and did not know I was sitting on the sacred cow, or speaking of a taboo subject. I am a medical doctor, and staff assistant to the surgery team, at a small hospital and clinic. We use the poser program to teach, and for pre-surgery. We had been using the V3 vaginal prop in reduced size, as suggested here. But would really like a correct version. I thought this was the place to ask. I was wrong. For those few people who did act helpful and knew where such an item could be found. Here is an address you can send that information too. I promice I won't expose you to the others here. Emerald_City002@hotmail.com

Nothing to do with bovines at all, be they sacred or profane. It's just that all too often the people looking for this sort of thing are the ones who want it to use in the production of kiddy porn, which is against the law, not to mention common decency. That makes it awful hard to sort out legitimate requests; however most of us do try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt. Just a thought: if you'd given us that information in your request, it would have raised fewer eyebrows, not to mention hackles.

I agree there is waaaay too much of a tendency to jump to evil conclusions. I can understand that some people feel there are no circumstances under which anyone in any way could want an anatomically correct model of a child and not be some kind of sicko pervert. But, to use Cromwell's rather colorful phrase, "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken." I agree with Byrdie, the way the request was phrased might seem to imply less than wholesome intent at first glance but consider that people don't always express their intent clearly as they might in dashing off a quick post here. Not everyone here is a native English speaker or familiar with the nuances of expression. Not everyone is familiar with the cultural taboos they might be treading on. I could go on but the point is, why immediately pounce on someone you don't know, whose background, motives and intent you don't know, without giving at least some small consideration to the possibility that you might indeed be wrong? And if we're going to start policing "implied" images, then and request foe Mike "erection morphs" is a priori forbidden because it "implies" the creation of an image that can't be posted here.

GoN2GraceLand; You're more than welcome. There's a lot of history on this, and it really isn't worth getting into, frankly. Most of it jumps off the cliff of reason and insists on splashing about in the seas of hysteria anyway. I would suggest that you hop over to arduino.net and talk to arduino. He's modelled several very good genital props for varying ages of Vickie, he lives in the EU and doesn't get stupid about the concept that human beings below the age of 18 have gender. Tell him what the use would be, and see if he would be interested in doing this for your purposes. For that matter, he may have something already that could be adapted.

From Europe, where a chid nude isnt a crime, nor ask about it (you have crucified GoN2GraceLand without give him an explanation, you almost called him a sick man, and he said that was newbie in Poser), I say, remembering Asterix, "... these romans are crazy!" ;)

People are funny aren't they? I have had quite a few e-mails since I was on trial here, asking me to send the information I got about the Mil-Girls genitals to them so they two could use them. The funny part is that two of these dozen e-mails were from people who took the time to pre-judge me when I ask for help. Raked me over the coals up-front, then wrote to say they were sorry for making a fuss and acknowledging there were legitimate reasons to have such an item, and could they also know what I learned because they also have thought of a legitimate reason to use this prop themselves. Do not worry I will not expose you. But I will also not help you. If you have a good reason to use this prop as you stated to me. Please ask your fellow jury members here. I'm sure they would understand.

Really curious, funny and... a little sad... All we are under suspicion, while you dont demonstrate the opposite thing ...

And I thought all the hypocrites were busy running for office.

Attached Link: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/research/visible/applications.html

Attached is a link to the visual human project. Combining poser images with these scans may help your patients better understand the procedures you are suggesting.

Yeah, sure, but... ewww!

depending on how intrusive the procedure is determines how much of the scans you would look at.

Wisdom is justified by all her children.

"I saw a picture of the pre-School Mil-Girl with female genitals, and the outer two lips showing from the front. (You know the way a real person is.) I want to get this. Does anyone know where or how? The only things I have found are for the preteen or V3." Gon2: please reread your original post. 1. It was not stated you are a surgeon. 2. You used the word "lips" when I would expect a physician to use more medical terminology to describe exactly what you are looking for. 3. Your request was based off of seeing an image of the prop elsewhere, which to some would signal a violation of TOS by having nude children. How was anyone supposed to know you are a doctor? I'm not trying to vilify you, just trying to clarify why people reacted the way they did. I suggest we call a truce. And in the future, in might be best to have some sort of science and/or technical forum that requests like these can be processed.

GoN2GraceLand, you know... All we are under suspicion. If you ask a question in a technical Poser forum that includes the words "girl" and "genital", you must do it with hands up putting in the wall, open the legs, identity card in the mouth, certificate of penal precedents hung of the neck, and only you answer "yes, sir" when they ask you. The benefit of the doubt isnt included into TOS ;) In Spain also we have hard laws against child pornography. But they havent turned us mad men yet. And sorry if I break in million pieces some fragile minds: Im father of a age 2 girl, I change full diapers daily, and I swear all you that A CHILD HAVE GENITALS Where you go, poor America, where you go...

"You used the word "lips" when I would expect a physician to use more medical terminology..." He probably considered the venue and thought that if he said "labia," he'd get Archie Bunker's response. 'Yeah, that's where Ronnie's jets kicked the hell outa Khadaffi.'

For those in the 'pro' camp - go to http://www.faeriewylde.com where you may get such questions answered without all the hue and cry. For those in the 'con' camp, I agree to an extent - why anyone would want anything more than a cosmetic and non-functioning hip morph is beond me, but apparently the only versions of such an organ made and marketed in Poserdom are ones with lots and lots and lots of options - many of which one would never want to see displayed on a child, of all people. OTOH, something that makes the prototypical milgirl hip into more than a generic lump of playdoh-looking mesh can't hurt if the image/render/animation isn't sexual or suggestive in nature.(shrug) /P

Those are my thoughts, Pen. Most of those props are made with far more morphs than anyone would ever need to use on a child figure. I don't see a reason for it either. And the idea that people went so in an uproar over this issue is common sense. You ask a stupid question (yes, in this day and age, it is a stupid question) and you'll get stupid answers. You may as well just said "Anyone know where I can get naked pictures of little girl's parts?".

Looking at the original post, what he said was that he wanted something that looked: "You know the way a real person is.", from a frontal view, no open crotch, spread shots or functionality mentioned. He also implied at least that the things available for the adult figures wasn't appropriate. That's quite a ways from asking for the equivalent of the multi-functional hardcore ready 'Perfect G' type of setup. If the latter was his intent, it would indeed be a stupid question to ask here. It would be stupid for an elementary school dropout, much less an MD, which is one reason I assume he wasn't asking it, however it was phrased. Of course, I could be hopelessly naieve. I agree that the "generic lump of playdoh-looking mesh" on the figures looks unnatural and that simple "non-functional" morph would be appropriate. That would be too close to a real human body though. Lord knows enough people think that putting a realistic pelvis on Vicky is beyond the pale of decency. I don't think I'd go to the fae folk either Peng. They're pretty picky and I don't think genitals are part of their fantasy world either.

My, my. You all are great. This is the funniest entertainment we have had in this hospital for a long time. T.V. producers should read this drama. (I'm not "GoN2Graceland", but one of the staff nurses. GTGL is nice enough to let us all in on his arrest and trial here.) We tell him he needs to speak like a doctor 24/7, but he is much more like the doctor "Trapper", on M.A.S.H. You are more likely to see him in a fishing cap with hooks in it, than a white coat. He is totally unaware of the role the average person takes on as porno policeman. He will treat a child rapest to medical care the same as a child. He has turned over more than his share of suspected child abusers in the ER. But see's all people as "in need". He regularly goes to underdeveloped countries and gives free medical services, at great cost, and exposure of harm to himself. Most of these services go to children that would make you weep thinking they are hopelessly doomed to death from lack of services thus far. Many of them do die, dispite help. Those of you who did not level charges of suspicion on him for the way he ask for help are the exception to the rule. People are fearful as a rule. It's easy to distroy, but takes skill to restore. I hope that where ever I go in life I will find people there to embrace me like you few do. There will always be those who shoot first and ask questions later. Like the man who heard a cry for help on his way into town. He rode into town on a horse, shooting everything in sight. When the smoke cleared he got off his horse and approached the person who had cried for help and said, "Now what seems to be the problem here?"

"We tell him he needs to speak like a doctor 24/7" That is not what I meant. There is a difference between simply wanting this type of prop for "art" and needing it for professional reasons. Probably due to my background in forensics, I am particularly skeptical when these requests are made.

Actually around here, the overall effect tends to be more along the lines of a full broadside from the New Jersey, followed by a radioed request for coordinates just to make sure they got the summbitch....and then a second request for an excuse for opening fire in the first place. What's so sad about it is that I could do a render of the PT and PS Milgirls nude, holding hands, and scuffing along a beach at sunset, showing nothing but the Coppertone butt shot. Attempt to post it with a nudity flag, and I would be banned and the target of several hundred screaming tirades about being a 'pedo' before you could say 'Boo!'. But if I did one of a fully dressed PT character getting her face smashed in by her father, in all probability it would hardly raise an eyebrow....and probably get a bunch of 10's on the ratings... I trust the irony illuminated by this hypothetical pair of illustrations is not totally lost.....

Dale, I understand that some artists would use the prop to simply create innocent looking images. Some biologists may use it for scientific reasons. But like stemardue said, the original post doesn't evoke an intention to use it for either artistry or science. Maybe I was more critical after finding out Gon2 has a science background. Scientists can often be more critical of people in the same field. (If you want to see someone really get vilified then attend a forensic science convention and you'll hear constant slams against Fred Zain.) I've been involved in scientific research both as an undergrad and a graduate student. Gon2 later stated that the request was for a teaching aid. That's fine. But it's in good taste to present that kind of information upfront. At least, that is how I was trained to think through my scientific experiences. Since this is not a scientific community, I understand that everyone else's reactions to Gon2's request may be different.

"...doesn't evoke an intention to use it for either artistry or science...." Quite true. The key work here is "evoke," something my scientific background in behavioral psychology gives me some familiarity with. There was no statement of intended use, legitimate or otherwise. Look up 'evoke' 1. arouse, elicit, enkindle, kindle, evoke, fire, raise, provoke -- (call forth (emotions, feelings, and responses); "arouse pity"; "raise a smile"; "evoke sympathy") 2. provoke, evoke, call forth, kick up -- (call forth; "Her behavior provoked a quarrel between the couple") 3. educe, evoke, elicit, extract, draw out -- (deduce (a principle) or construe (a meaning); "We drew out some interesting linguistic data from the native informant") 4. raise, conjure, conjure up, invoke, evoke, stir, call down, arouse, bring up, put forward, call forth -- (evoke or call forth, with or as if by magic; "raise the specter of unemployment"; "he conjured wild birds in the air"; "stir a disturbance"; "call down the spirits from the mountain") 5. suggest, evoke, paint a picture -- (call to mind or evoke) I don't begrudge anyone their reaction though mine may be different, but as you say, those reactions are based on our own feelings, experiences and predispositions, not fact. Sometimes circumstances are such that we have to act on incomplete evidence and gut reactions. If you look out the window and see your child talking to a stranger in a car, you can't afford to assume it's an innocent request for directions and go back to your soap. I simply don't think that someone asking a question about a 3D figure on a website rises to a level that requires such such a response.

PapaBlueMarlin; Wasn't aiming that at you; just at the paranoid mindset and lynch mob mentality that seems to have taken hold in the general population of late. I have to admit, it would have been rather amusing if GoN2 -had- approached in full doctorus-Latinus mode. He probably would have lost most of the place with pre-progynal mons veneris, and been just warming up (not a physician or scientist myself in any kind of official capacity. Just a lot of time sparring with doctors and a love of knowledge). I do object to fallacious arguments and twisting and redefinition of words to justify overzealous behavior. The current fetish regarding 'the pedoperv behind every tree' is one. Not only is it not true, but it blatantly obscures the true ugliness of the issue. 95%+ of childhood sexual molestation occurs within the nuclear family (as defined to include parental siblings and their progeny), and-or the first level of familial friendships. It is secretive and manipulative. In all the years I've been here (since way back when Diane and Jack ran things, and the Willow shitstorm was still going strong), there has been exactly =one= individual involved in this. Lots of accusations and Wailing Wall theatrics, but only one person did it, and was arrested for it. 'Zero Tolerance' on any issue may sound good in print, but application involves human beings, and a lot of innocent human beings have been destroyed, either figuratively or literally, by someone or a group of someones hellbent on being zero tolerant.

I trust the irony illuminated by this hypothetical pair of illustrations is not totally lost..... You were far too trusting. ;-) bonni

"...exactly =one= individual..." Which is whi I found the idea that such was the case here highly unlikely. Still, what happened once could happen again so suspicion and vigilance are fine, but accusing someone of being a "virtual" child pornographer right off the bat seems a little out of line to me. It occurred to me that in all the questions of what "legitimate", even or daresay even artistic use anyone might possibly have for such resources, there is one prominent example. It got a lot of press a few years ago when notorious child porn peddler Barnes & Noble was taken to court in Alabama and a couple of other southern states. So, just as so many here seem inspired to emulate the work of Vallejo, It would certainly seem legitimate that someone might want to emulate Sally Mann or Jock Sturges, both certified artistes--or at least not considered kiddy smut mongers by the Alabama legal system. Of course, they'd have to post in Copenhagen or maybe Mobile

Oooh, do I remember that one. Promptly went out and bought both Mann's and Sturges's books in protest over that. At least the states in question and the FBI got spanked on the unmentionables for it. And I would say they both rate as artistes in the field of photography. And that is pretty much a Southern tradition, unfortunately. DA's routinely pull shit like that to get re-elected.

If GoN2Gracleand is a doctor, he completely skipped all courses in grammar, punctuation and spelling, en route to his medical degree. Explain gluconeogenisis for the forum Doc.

"If GoN2Gracleand is a doctor, he completely skipped all courses in grammar, punctuation and spelling, en route to his medical degree. Explain gluconeogenisis for the forum Doc." 1. your paraniod :P 2. you spelled Gluconeogenesis wrong 3. We're on the internet. 2 seconds with google will give you the answer no PHD required.

Well, actually it's 'you're' paranoid. And, if the guy's a doctor, he'll be able to explain gluconeogenesis in NON medical terms - which ain't out on Google - that I could find. So, play dungeons and dragons, or be a real person and ask real questions.

"I trust the irony illuminated by this hypothetical pair of illustrations is not totally lost..... You were far too trusting. ;-) bonni" Actually not. I just had the Sarcastometer flag off. And BTW; gluconeogenesis: 'The creation of new glucose molecules in the body from other substrates converted into pyruvate at the cellular level, rather than the breakdown of glycogen by the liver and kidneys through glycosis'. Basically the creation of body useable sugars (glucose) from various other hydrogen-carbon molecular combinations (un-named substrates, as there are so bloody many potential ones that fit the bill) broken down into pyruvate, the ionized form of pyruvic acid, which is the byproduct -typically- of the breakdown of glucose through glycosis occurring in the liver(mainly) and kidneys(tertiary). In aerobic respiration, it is the main input of the citric acid cycle, in anerobic respiration it becomes lactate. Or making cell food by changing things that are =not= glucose =into= glucose. Gluconeogenesis: Gluco...shortening of glucose. Neo....new. genesis....creation. Easily translated medical jargon from the Wikipedia link, 3rd link down in a google search out of 60,500 links. Guess that makes me an MD. Or someone who reads a lot and understands phonetic deconstruction. It proves nothing. GoN2, on the other hand, has been in the Vue forum for a bit, and has been quite reasonable, so I have some small knowledge of his posting style...and yeah, Trapper John McIntyre is pretty close when he lets loose. My way of looking at this issue is rather simple; Innocent until proven guilty. Changing definitions does not a crime make. Those who rail loudest are generally railing at flaws they fear they possess themselves.