Armorbeast opened this issue on Mar 25, 2005 ยท 129 posts
Armorbeast posted Fri, 25 March 2005 at 12:04 AM
Ok,everyone that knows me knows I am against child nudity...but I am not against it completely.With me I view it from a pov of necessity...to use restraint and discipline yourself like they do in most other art forms.What has always irritated me are the arguments that its not real or no ones being harmed which to me simply are not valid nor do they even address the issue.I argued that yes you will see child nudity in other forms of art but in most you see it very rarely and when you do its usually only partial nudity because the artists have to judge the necessity of doing a partial or full nude.
Again with me its a matter of discipline and when I've argued that point I've always been attacked for it.Now I don't know about you but doing a full nude of a child to test lights seems unnecessary when you know there are people already opposed to images of child nudity...its almost a slap in the face to such people.Images where the child stands posed like an adult with their legs spread wide open piss me off to no end and claiming its a faery or anime when it does not fit the mold of such things and you're using a product that clearly states its for making images of children...well I felt its cut and dried and you should not do it.
However,I find myself in an adversarial position on this change as I oppose it.The reason why is that you cannot argue that images of nude or partially nude children are not part of art...I never said it wasn't save for when someone may have gotten under my skin and I blew my top.My view has always been that it should be done rarely and with discipline...that you do it only when necessary and that measures be put in place so that when abuses take place you can deal with them.
Other artists opposed me on this and I warned them that the time would come where if they didn't listen and help create guidelines then their right to do any image even hinting at child nudity would be taken from them.That day has come and I am not here to gloat,I am here to voice what I have been saying all along...that poser artists by in large do practice discipline when it comes to child nudity,but some abuse it and even their friends find it uneasy to try to support them.
Circles and black tape disgrace an image and can in and of itself be an attack against the rules established to control certain aspects of art...so I agree with doing away with those.Anime characters have a distinct look that you can define...Aiko 3.0 is the perfect example of an anime style character but so are many of those you see with the big heads and eyes.Problem with anime is making the eyes slightly bigger doesn't make it anime cause anime characters don't look real...its not hard to distinguish anime from child characters,it simply takes educating yourself on a distinct and seperate artform so you understand it before you outright ban it.Faerys are the same as they have always been depicted as waiflike creatures...but most still had either a freakish appearence or their genitals were covered to some degree.
I do not disagree with rositys decision to create strong guidelines in regard to child nudity in 3d and its long overdue...but I think your previous change was strong enough with maybe some tweaking to address any issues that occurred after that.I only have one image of a child like faery and she is partially nude...its the only one I've ever done and may be the only one.I did it with great restraint and discipline because I did it for a reason...the birth of a beautiful child with brittle bone disease.I foresee this image will be removed and if per usual it will be removed before I even get a warning that it needs to be removed by myself or rosity will do it.
I am not contradicting my own stand on this issue...I believe child nudity has its place in art,but my detractors always misunderstood me and thought I was in favor of an outright ban.They saw only that I was against it and even though many ironically had never done a nude child image themselves...they saw fit to attack me for my view that we artists need to practice greater discipline and the sites create rules governing such a concept.Many great artists of modern time like Boris Valejo almost never do images that contain any form of child nudity because it took them years to learn what some of us can do out of the box with poser in a few days...thats what creates discipline and thats why we in the 3d community had this problem.
I will say this again...I do not support this move but for a completely different reason than most.I knew this day could come and tried to get this and other communitys to realise that but nobody wanted to hear it.If you don't act to protect your rights and discipline your own activity then someone else will and you might not only lose some rights...you could lose them altogether.
It won't affect me since I only have one image that seems to fit this catagory and if requested to do so I will remove it myself...but if rosity removes it before giving me appropriate time to remove it myself I will raise unholy hell because it was done with the purest and best motivation of all.I feel the same is true of many artists here and on other communitys...if you are going to make such a radical change that completely takes this issue to the opposite extreme then at least show us the courtesy of letting us remove our own images after being informed so that if they might be the only copy we have then we can salvage it.
You need to take a little more time to digest this decision and make sure you are making the correct choice here...then if you pursue it do so cautiously in order to allow people time to change their gallerys rather than the usual ban then inform.Hope my comments don't offend...but I have always stated that this would be the outcome if we didn't get our act together and others chose instead to attack me because they saw nothing wrong with child nudity and anyone who does is the one they see as sick.
If the end goal of learning is genius...why are most geniuses failures at learning?
Unicornst posted Fri, 25 March 2005 at 12:20 AM
JVRenderer posted Fri, 25 March 2005 at 1:33 AM
AB, you nailed it. I don't have a problem with the TOS either. It doesn't really affect me at all, since I don't do faery pics nor pics with 3d characters that look underage. I don't even have Laura nor Luke nor the preschooler. I do, however, have a problem with how the mods are handling respected members of the community. The new TOS hasn't really changed much. I think they just changed the wording a little and get the community all riled up to cover their recent mishandling of certain members. But then, it's their site, and they make the rules. Now it's just back to business as usual. We'll hear from them again in September. JV
Software: Daz Studio 4.15, Photoshop CC, Zbrush 2022, Blender 3.3, Silo 2.3, Filter Forge 4. Marvelous Designer 7
Hardware: self built Intel Core i7 8086K, 64GB RAM, RTX 3090 .
"If you spend too much time arguing about software, you're spending too little time creating art!" ~ SomeSmartAss
"A critic is a legless man who teaches running." ~ Channing Pollock
Unicornst posted Fri, 25 March 2005 at 2:14 AM
JVRenderer....I do make faerie images. Most of my images are of those wonderful, mystical creatures. And I have been reading about them since I have known how to read. Funny thing, in 99% of those stories, the faeries were small, ageless and unclothed. But, there are people in the world who think this is not the right way to portray them. There are people who think nudity cannot be innocent and pure. And since we are creating images and posting them on a public website that is owned by others, we do have to follow the rules. This saddens me more than anyone will ever know. It's not having to put clothing on characters that look exceptionally young. I do that already. What saddens and angers me at the same time is the way this was brought about. I have some very good friends who are affected by this. Not because of any deliberate intention. But these friends have now been to feel as though they did something intentionally dirty and wrong and even criminal. One friend in particular feels as though she has been accused of a most horrible crime. And because she used a prop for a character that no one had ever made clothes for. This is wrong. These friends and ones like them that had no bad intention when they posted their images and should not be made to feel this way when it was done in innocence. You say this doesn't effect you because you don't use child models? I'm sorry. I disagree. This effects everyone that comes here whether to post, to buy, to sell or to lurk. That is the message Armorbeast is trying to get across.
JVRenderer posted Fri, 25 March 2005 at 2:25 AM
I didn't really affect me, but If you have read most of the threads concerning this matter, I was defending your interests all the way. I was even agreeing with Armorbeast.
Message edited on: 03/25/2005 02:26
Software: Daz Studio 4.15, Photoshop CC, Zbrush 2022, Blender 3.3, Silo 2.3, Filter Forge 4. Marvelous Designer 7
Hardware: self built Intel Core i7 8086K, 64GB RAM, RTX 3090 .
"If you spend too much time arguing about software, you're spending too little time creating art!" ~ SomeSmartAss
"A critic is a legless man who teaches running." ~ Channing Pollock
Unicornst posted Fri, 25 March 2005 at 2:53 AM
I know you were agreeing with him. I wasn't saying that you weren't. I was trying to get you to see that it effects you simply because you are a member here and therefore part of the package, so to speak. It may not have effected your gallery, but it still effects you and everyone here in that manner. Believe me, I was not trying to say anything against you in anyway or to say that you were not defending my interests. I will also admit that I saw a chance to make a statement about the way the ones who have had to remove images have been made to feel. I'm sorry if you thought otherwise and I really appreciate your defending my interests. Now I have to get myself to sleep. Goodnight.
DarkElegance posted Fri, 25 March 2005 at 3:12 AM
yes there is child nudity in art. yes there is such a thing as "innocent" child nudity. but unfortunately, not everyone sees that or sees innocent is being harmless anymore. (sad fact of life but true even the most innocuous pose or stance can be seen by some as being titillating) Fae, pixies etc yes. I have said it myself ...are normally naked. but when you have them posing like armorbeast said in a way that there just is no need for...it is no longer innocent. and people get uncomfortable. ( personally I see very little use for child nudity. there are other ways to capture innocence in a Fae other then making them look like 6 year old provocative creatures) Now here is the crux. normally I do not deal with anything remotely underage looking. my big question rides on aiko and xinxin. I just "found" aiko3 so to speak and am in LOVE with her. but she tends even with "mature" morphs to look underage.(breast size does NOT equate over 18) I have worked and worked on her face and adore her. but she looks young. how will aiko 3 be handled? this -will- effect my future postings. if aiko 3 is not allowed nude I would appreciate a clear answer on that. not a "as a mod sees fit to judge" I want a yes or no answer on aiko 3 nudity.(xinxin just looks so so young so I know the answer on that one)
https://www.darkelegance.co.uk/
Birddie posted Fri, 25 March 2005 at 5:39 AM
how will aiko 3 be handled?
from what I've been told by the mods, Aiko 3 is no problem as long as she's clothed. I plan on using Aiko again as much as possible, don't care how young she looks, I've invested too much money on these figures to let them go to waste. It's not porn if they are dressed. edited to add: it doesn't matter how young a character looks as long as you dress them so what's the problem? I don't understand the fuss. From what I've been told you can use any character as long as they have shirts and pants on. why do characters have to be nude? It's like the more people are told they can't do something, the more they press the issue. ::shrugs:: Message edited on: 03/25/2005 05:48
Natolii posted Fri, 25 March 2005 at 6:57 AM
Attached Link: http://www.sparkchaser.net/spinner/blather/spinner.html
Take a good read on this article... Spinner does an excellent job expressing one of the bigger agruements you've seen here... Me, I've got to address a Lie posted in a now closed thread. An ignorant member basically slandered Renderotica by saying it encourages these type of mentalities with it's Child porn... Renderotica not only does not encourage, it goes out of it's way to police it's own galleries... It was apparent that person had an axe to grind with the site and chose to slander rather than learn the reality of the situation. This type of ignorance breeds the hysteria that leads to the knee-jerk reactions we are seeing within the forums... When in truth, it is plain ignorance.
DarkElegance posted Fri, 25 March 2005 at 9:13 AM
the thing is ..I do not want to use aiko as a "young" model. I want to use her as a mature model(mature as in age not as in adult material) that is where the quandry comes in. she 'looks' young no matter how I do her face and bod. consequently, if I am doing a piece that is an adult in a nude setting using aiko is a problem. You assume I am using aiko as being a 'underage' model. that is not the case. I have no trouble with the TOS at all. I want to know if aiko as a model used as an adult is or is not a problem due to her appearance. if it is. simply I dont use her here in renderosity. please do not make it out like I am fighting the TOS when I agree with it..ok? as for renderotica..I thought they had a no nudity underage policy too?? how is that encouraging underage nudity???
https://www.darkelegance.co.uk/
Natolii posted Fri, 25 March 2005 at 9:26 AM
It isn't.. They have a "No Child Pictures, Period." policy. However, some ignorant person "here" stated in the now closed thread that there is child porn on the site. A thread that was closed before a rebuttal to that slander. Sorry, but that is a lie... Dr. Legume is very good about removing them fast and the members are very good about reporting people that push the policy.
bonestructure posted Fri, 25 March 2005 at 11:08 AM
When was it decided that fairys run around naked? I've never understood that. As a writer of long standing, I've never seen fairys depicted in literature naked. As far as naked children, well, a naked 2 year old standing against a counter stretching up to reach a cookie jar is one thing, a naked kid in a porno pose is something else. I think it should come down to each case individually. It becomes rather obvious, at least to me, when something crosses the line. If one is concerned about child porn, trust me, nudity isn't the qualifier. I've seen my share of child porn, and quite a lot of it is of children fully clothed, albeit clothed out of their age range and provocatively posed. So to be SURE, one should prohibit pictures of any children at all, which would be absurd. Anime has a long history of schoolgirl images. Should that be banned too? I happen to prefer women that are small, thin, small breasted. But6 the few times I've tried to portray those women in art I've been accused of doing child porn. Which is amazing since every women I've ever been involved with in my life fit that description and they were far from being children. The cult of big breasts seems to have decided that if a woman is petite and small breasted that automatically means she's 12 years old. Which really pisses me off. I don't really do images of children, but I would like to use the kind of women I personally prefer in my art. I particularly enjoy the models that Thorne makes, and we all know he's long gone from this site over accusations that he was making children. So the big breast cult strikes again.
Talent is God's gift to you. Using it is your gift to God.
mateo_sancarlos posted Fri, 25 March 2005 at 12:29 PM
I don't have anything to add here, but I'm pleased to see you guys are being civil and polite about this. If you want to try to persuade the admins here, this is the way to do it.
FellPose posted Fri, 25 March 2005 at 1:25 PM
What is this...like many of you I haven't posed any child-like nudes..but I respect the rights (and curently laws) protecting children..that is to say a photo or picture of a child can be posted in the nude, as long as they werent't posed payed ect. And now renderosity comes up with a no child rule. Impose unjust BullS*** somewhere else. If someone post a image no one likes get rid of it or ban them don't come up with a harsh rule.
DarkElegance posted Fri, 25 March 2005 at 2:02 PM
the nude fairy thing comes from the fact that why would something wild, natural and mystical feel the need to cloths themselves? it normally done from wish to cover up.or shame/moral aspect. why on earth would a lil nymph feel the need to cover up? -that- is where that comes from. not from the fact that all fairies by law are nude.
https://www.darkelegance.co.uk/
Natolii posted Fri, 25 March 2005 at 2:21 PM
After the ranting PM I just received, I'd say Bonestructure is right on the money.
Natolii posted Fri, 25 March 2005 at 2:38 PM
You have me PM... I will be in contact with the MODs however in regards to this. You are on a campaign and you are supplying a lot of misinformation. It is also against Renderosity TOS to publish those link in the forums. With the exeption of Link #2 which was duly reported today, the rest have been deemed as within TOS and Not children by management. Several of these have been brough to the attention by members of the site and already evaluated. I'm sorry if they offend your sensibilities, however they do not prove your point by a long shot. They certainly prove Bonestructure's though.
Natolii posted Fri, 25 March 2005 at 2:44 PM
The first link has been brought to the Attention of Diane and Doc... Same with the second link..
DarkElegance posted Fri, 25 March 2005 at 2:58 PM
see that is what i thought. if they had been brought to the attention of the mods it would be checked into. also anime...notorious for them looking forever teen. that I can understand makes people uncomfortable.
https://www.darkelegance.co.uk/
Kismet_Queen posted Fri, 25 March 2005 at 3:08 PM
You accused me of SLANDER ...and I can't defend myself? really??? I'll just roll over and die than. You win!
I'm totally wrong. So sorry!!
MoxieGraphix posted Fri, 25 March 2005 at 3:47 PM
Yes, Renderotica has a policy of no child pictures at all, much less nude child pictures. All reported pictures are handled on a case by case basis, the guidelines for deciding if a picture is a "child or teen", I have no idea. They won't reveal all the criteria because there's always someone who wants to skirt the issue.
Unfortunately, the mods can't always catch every image. Renderotica has a very simple method of reporting images, there's a link at the bottom of every picture to allow you to report for either a TOS violation or for miscategorization. This puts the images in a queue for review. Doc reviews each reported TOS violation personally.
I honestly don't know why Renderotica is brought up EVERY time there's a discussion on child pornography as if it is not only allowed there but a common occurance. I realize we're just "a bunch of perverts" but, honestly, MUST the site get mentioned every single time this topic comes up? ::smiles::
Message edited on: 03/25/2005 15:49
nemirc posted Fri, 25 March 2005 at 3:50 PM
nemirc
Renderosity Magazine Staff Writer
https://renderositymagazine.com/users/nemirc
https://about.me/aris3d/
Natolii posted Fri, 25 March 2005 at 3:56 PM
That's right. I stand by what I said because you have admitted to me that you are not familar with the site. SO on the basis of what you perceive, you feel you can judge what the admin has already felt was cleared. In the first case, Myself and other members did speak with Diane and did flag the galleries for Doc to look at. Aside from one image, the gallery was cleared. In the second case, I flagged that one personally for Doc to weigh in on. ~On a personal note, The last image bothers me only because I have no tolerence for blood and bodily fluids physically. This is a reason why my nursing instructor told me in High School I should consider another field.~ So it's either all or nothing, but do not start saying that Renderotica is a haven for pedophiles and not expect someone to step up and defend them either...
deemarie posted Fri, 25 March 2005 at 3:59 PM
Hey everyone - just a couple reminders One - it is against the TOS to post links to Advertising or linking to any publications and/or web sites that are age restricted due to content, and/or pornographic in nature :] Two - please keep the member code of conduct in mind when posting. Members and users are expected to conduct themselves in a manner that is constructive and respectful of others at all times. Additionally, we would hope that each member/user would do their best to facilitate a culture of collaboration and positive reinforcement, so that we can all share our passion for art while realizing our personal ambitions, and developing friendships Dee-Marie
rowan_crisp posted Fri, 25 March 2005 at 4:15 PM
Knowingly spreading disinformation designed to injure a party is slander. I don't know if you knew the facts of Renderotica's TOS, but it's well-known among anyone who has ever gone that child images are completely verboten there. Speaking from ignorance only gets one so far, though, especially when you essentially insult an entire group of people who have done you (or anyone else) harm. Then people who you have just defamed will, indeed, call you on it. If you have a problem with that, choose your battles more wisely in the future. RC Quiet Member of R'otica Non-Pedophile
rowan_crisp posted Fri, 25 March 2005 at 4:18 PM
Oh, and bonestructure, I know. "You like petite women? There's something wrong with you..." Torqued me quite a bit, that did.
DarkElegance posted Fri, 25 March 2005 at 4:21 PM
sorry Dee, I had only posted those in refrence and shouldnt of. this thread was nice and civil..O.o dont know exactly what happen. Renderotica always has been to my knowledge very prompt on dealing with the matters. that is why i asked if they had been brought to the attention of the admin there. renderotica is not a bad place. not everyones cup of tea but not a bad place. and they usually handle things very responsably.
https://www.darkelegance.co.uk/
DarkElegance posted Fri, 25 March 2005 at 4:32 PM
Oh yes. the petite woman thing. yes everytime I get a very nice delicatly boned slightly oriental looking morph going on aiko that is -not- a underager..she still looks to young. very hard to get this petite delicate look right without it looking underage.
https://www.darkelegance.co.uk/
bonestructure posted Fri, 25 March 2005 at 4:51 PM
I tend, when someone commens on my taste in women, to call the kind of women I prefer elfish. But really, my taste in women was formed by movies from the 20s and 30s, whan that type od woman was commonly seen. Now those same women are perceived as being 'childlike'. I guess if you're not 50 lbs overweight and don't have huge mutant breasts you're a child.
Talent is God's gift to you. Using it is your gift to God.
bonestructure posted Fri, 25 March 2005 at 4:52 PM
God forbid you should shave the naughty bits. That automatically makes you 12 years old.
Talent is God's gift to you. Using it is your gift to God.
Rubbermatt posted Fri, 25 March 2005 at 5:10 PM
biting my tongue hard Renderotica member & Premier Featured Artist
Natolii posted Fri, 25 March 2005 at 5:35 PM
Since we are coming out of the closet...
I am a mother of a 9yr old aspiring little poser artist (once I get her rig up and running).
My rule of thumb, If it resembles my daughter, then I report it.
My child also has full internet access and an AOL screen name (Under 13 catagory with full parental control enabled). She also knows that mommy is a net geek and does know how to track her footsteps on-line should she not adhere to my rules. Mommy has already removed access for a week for spamming others. Not because someone reported it, but because I supervise her on-line. (Mommy has also busted her uncle the one time he decided to use my machine for his porn... Hes not so picky and has trashed a computer and rang up phone bills by going to not so legit sites.)
I also go by Lilliana and I'm Assoc. Editor for the Renderotica E-Magazine.
I'm not against the TOS revisions here when applied evenly and responsibily. I am against the blantant stereotyping of R'otica as a "safe haven" for peodphiles... Perverts maybe, but we are picky perverts...
=P
Message edited on: 03/25/2005 17:37
Armorbeast posted Fri, 25 March 2005 at 5:37 PM
How many of you remember seeing parents dragging their kids into public places with shirts on but no pants...and it was almost exclusively just boys?I remember seeing mothers who had sons and daughters like this and their daughters always had pants or diapers but their sons were fully exposed.Around here that stopped only because of decency laws created just to address issues like this because absolutely no one could make any sense of it. I remember growing up seeing images of nude faerys and such in literature as well,but it wasn't widespread and often if it were a realistic depiction it would be reproductions of the same images you might find elsewhere.I myself see nothing wrong with images of that nature so long as the artist employs discipline and the nature of the image is innocence. Let me provide a query here...lets say you have a fantasy character whose body has not aged since childhood but her mind has developed fully into that of an adult.In fantasy you could create such a person and logic would say that she might look like a child,but she would act wholly like an adult and even pursue relationships of a sexual nature.You can envision such a character existing...but it takes discipline not to create sexually explicit images of the character and set a standard by which others would use your work to excuse their own which is not innocently motivated. Thats what I mean about discipline,examine the possible follow up on your work by others...do it only when you cannot find another way and even then the way you pose or set the characters have to be of concern.The reason this issue is important is because you have to get together to establish standards which others can borrow from...standards you make work and that even if some are uneasy with certain works,they nonetheless accept them because most can see the "reasoning" for your vision. Whats important to know is that if you support or oppose images pertaining to child nudity...its not the radicals who should be allowed to set standards,but the majority on both sides finding common ground we can all accept.I think Rosity,DAZ and others would be very interested in seeing the artists themselves conducting dialogue for that purpose...not just saying I see nothing wrong so leave it alone or I think its wholly wrong so do away with it all.I hoped to start such dialogues in the past but feelings among some are clearly divided to the far right or left so it was hard to get things going where we ourselves could set a standard. On my site its easy...get out of line and insult someone and I'll pound ya lol (only one on my site insulting people is me...can't have people stealing my thunder;).We can have such discussions because we kinda have a little family going there.Try to think of yourselves that way...a few cross words here or there but you were respectful to other commentors by in large. You don't have to give a mile to give an inch,you just have to realise we all have the same destination in mind and get there together. I'm proud of you guys for keeping things relatively civil...was afraid I'd come home from work today and find myself roasting on a spit lol.You surprised me and I'm delighted you did...thank you:)
If the end goal of learning is genius...why are most geniuses failures at learning?
Natolii posted Fri, 25 March 2005 at 5:39 PM
Well, Armorbeast, While you do tend to pontificate, you do have valid points in this matter. ;)
DarkElegance posted Fri, 25 March 2005 at 5:51 PM
I know what you mean of the 20s and 30s. the lithe art deco comes to mind. willowy lean. kate moss type. I think it also has to do with the look in the eyes. the pink princess picture that looked WAY to young..it wasn't her body it was her face her eyes. and yes I have even an angel in my gallery nude(I better double check that one now come to think of it) because as I said why would something utterly mystical and wild and natural cloth themselves? yes I love the diaphanous cloths and cute cloths. but it is when you get that -look- that it borders. and as I stated in the other thread in this day and age unfortunately even the most innocent picture can spell trouble.when dealing with youths today, playing with AIKO...I finnnnnnnaly have a realistic face on her I am in love with(in truth I like her better then V3 at the moment just disparaging the lack of cloths) and sat, did a test render..and was like bloody 'eck she STILL looks too young. If aiko as a rule will be in a questionable stance being nude even with a realistic morph, I need to know upfront. it will save me and the mods time lol. O.o oh and btw...nothing wrong with a large chest...~nods~ LOL.~pleads the fifth from here on out~
https://www.darkelegance.co.uk/
Armorbeast posted Fri, 25 March 2005 at 6:30 PM
Lol...yeah I do tend to make long comments Natolii but often moreso when I am trying to spark conversation and make people think.You've seen what happens when my thick skin gets a nail shoved through it...my fault for not watching where I was stepping but I did have my reasons as I did see an outright ban coming and was hoping to avert that with civil conversation (danged nails;)
If the end goal of learning is genius...why are most geniuses failures at learning?
Natolii posted Fri, 25 March 2005 at 7:25 PM
::grins:: No worries. I had other concerns crop up based on this. It seems like people are out to bag R'otica even though Admins are on the job and are doing what they can. I'm a pervert with some morals! =)
takezo3001 posted Sat, 26 March 2005 at 12:43 AM
I don't care what the TOS says, I'M STILL GONNA POST MY
NAKED PUPPIES,AND KITTEN'S!!
AND THAT INCLUDES BABY CHICKENS TOO!!
Heee hee! I thought I'd inject a little Humour,cause these forums tend to get carried away with heated emotions!
.....BTW,I was just kidding about the chickens...PLEASE DON'T BAN ME!!!..lol!!
Message edited on: 03/26/2005 00:46
Ironbear posted Sat, 26 March 2005 at 1:52 AM
"Speaking from ignorance only gets one so far, though, especially when you essentially insult an entire group of people who have done you (or anyone else) harm." - Rowancrisp
No worries Rowan, that post in the other thread at least made up for the lack of basic research skills by being sophomoric and pretentious. ;]
For anyone wondering what us "People from the Dark Side of the Poser" are talking about, Rotica is NOT a haven for any art that falls under Rendo's new ToS:
**Renderotica ToS:
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.
It's an erotica site, one that's intended for adults. We disallow even "innocent" images containing children because of the rest of our content. They clash with the decor.
Don't do it. If Legume doesn't land on you, Diane or I will.
It won't be pretty.
It's a good idea to actually read the terms of service on whatever site you're posting at [or talking about]. You can save yourself headaches that way. ;)
"I am a good person now and it feels... well, pretty much the same as I felt before (except that the headaches have gone away now that I'm not wearing control top pantyhose on my head anymore)"
kawecki posted Sat, 26 March 2005 at 2:37 AM
"I honestly don't know why Renderotica is brought up EVERY time there's a discussion on child pornography " Easy answer, just because those idiots are in a crusade against the work of the Devil! Did you knew that Disney was censured?. The original faeries of the movie Fantasia were nude!, he must have been a paedophile and follower of Satan.....
Stupidity also evolves!
Primal posted Sat, 26 March 2005 at 10:47 AM
i think rules like this are just ridiculous..i have posted here for years now and havent seen anyone abuse images with children..it is always the lookers who seem to make it dirty..i have close to 100 images that break these new rules in my gallery and not a single one puts children in a bad light..i am a father of 4 children and yes i respect their inoscense..but i dont want to teach them that sex is dirty when it is one of the most beautiful things there is.and if its because someone is getting off on these images,well people get off on shoes..will we ban them next? also i now see alot of people asking were we will be posting and shopping next...seriously...renderosity should listen cuz some of the finest artists here are looking.
ghelmer posted Sat, 26 March 2005 at 12:15 PM
What about posting images of the great masters from the past? If someone posted one of Michelangelo's pics with a nude cherub or whatever they are would that image be removed? That poster be banned? Where is the line to be drawn? Are we even allowed to have our own opinions here at Renderosity or will we be banned for that? I suppose what I'm asking is "If we voice our opinions" will we be banned and ostracized as kiddie porn peddlers who have no business on the site? I dispise kiddie porn (never ever seen any) and the entire concept of it, but In my opinion the TOS is too extreme and unforgiving in it's enforcement.
The GR00VY GH0ULIE!
You are pure, you are snow
We are the useless sluts that they mould
Rock n roll is our epiphany
Culture, alienation, boredom and despair
Spiritbro77 posted Sat, 26 March 2005 at 12:30 PM
"It's a good idea to actually read the terms of service on whatever site you're posting at [or talking about]. You can save yourself headaches that way. ;)" Makes sense IB, but what about those that can't read? :) " You accused me of SLANDER ...and I can't defend myself? really??? I'll just roll over and die than" Promise?
Erlik posted Sat, 26 March 2005 at 12:41 PM
DE: "also anime...notorious for them looking forever teen. that I can understand makes people uncomfortable." Er... my understanding is that the Japanese see the characters in anime as typically 5-10 years older than the Westerners do.
-- erlik
kawecki posted Sat, 26 March 2005 at 12:54 PM
I never saw anime as children, kids, preteen, etc, for me are only personages with their respective style and action. Well..., I don't go to church and so, my eyes are different.
Stupidity also evolves!
Spiritbro77 posted Sat, 26 March 2005 at 1:26 PM
I would think when you consider where Anime comes from(Japan) that might explain the style of figures in anime. Many Japanese women ARE petite, thinner, and small breasted. Stands to reason their art would reflect that, yes?
Natolii posted Sat, 26 March 2005 at 2:51 PM
Precisely, Spirit.
And one of the images that was previously linked to was a Hentai (Adult Anime) strip.
I just find it kind of ironic that the person that was throwing the dirt and claiming to support R'osity TOS broke it by posting the links. If the person kept it to Private messages that's fine but this was over the line completely.
This is one matter where I completely agree with Kawecki ;)
(Thank you to the Mods for removing them, too many youngsters around here we don't want having quick access to the site)
It's all or nothing...
Message edited on: 03/26/2005 14:52
Spiritbro77 posted Sat, 26 March 2005 at 3:51 PM
It doesn't surprise me Nat :) I could say more, but would get banned. So suffice to say, lets hope you set the record straight for those that will listen, and those that won't aren't important anyway :)
DarkElegance posted Sat, 26 March 2005 at 6:30 PM
typically allot of people take hentai/anime/manga as being of teens or younger. I know that Japanese culture sees it differently.(and I agree normally Japanese woman are more petite and delicate then western woman. also have the features which tend to look younger longer. but generally speaking large round wide eyes and small mouth larger head tend to denote youth. that is why it is often taken as being teen or younger) the site though, is American based. the cultural differences here usually do not equal out. as stated in the other thread about Europeans that see naked kids on the beach and think nothing of it. or cultures that still have "child brides"(though if I remember correctly the child bride is not allowed sexual intercourse till she hits her first menstruation) there are many many views on child nudity and how Innocent or not it is. the TOS is -very- conservative(heck I even asked a mod if one of my pics was ok to be safe) just because Rendo is saying no nudity on children..doesnt mean the old masters aren't works of art. means they cant be posted here. not all "art" can be posted or even accepted everywhere. that is a fact, not pleasant all the time, but fact.
https://www.darkelegance.co.uk/
spinner posted Sun, 27 March 2005 at 6:04 AM
Surely Kismet_Queen had more than one post ? I can understand rendo deleting part of K_Q's initial post, but weren't there more than two ? And will rendo at some point get the goddamned courtesy to at least insert a note a post has been pulled ? I actually popped by to comment to K_Q to the rotica links post: In the last image linked to, there is a post that made my freak radar go ping! - not on the pedo front, but on the generic "boy, you've got ISSUES, kid" front. How come someone like the K_Q gets her knickers in a twist over reasonably innocent hentai/anime figures, but can seemingly read some fairly violent stuff against women without having a single shitfit ? I'm not talking consentual BDSM of any sort here, btw, and yes, I know statements and images like that are within 'rotica ToS, and I am not attacking it, or judging it: Just pointing something out to K_Q, should she still lurk the thread. Not that I feel it'd make a difference, but I just wanted to ask... ~S
svdl posted Sun, 27 March 2005 at 9:05 AM
Cherubs have very often been depicted as nude chubby little boys with wings. Many a religous scene contains such cherubs. I can't for the life of me find anything immoral in such an image. I have never seen a dressed Cupid anywhere. Why should Hellenistic mythical scenes involving Cupid be banned? I can imagine 'rosity will not allow Hermes images - according to Greek mythology one of his attributes was a permanent erection. But a harmless Cupid? Fairies, dryads, nymphs and the like are supposed to be creatures of nature. The only species that has managed to loosen the ties to nature is homo sapiens. It is also the only species that is wearing clothes. I won't say that wearing clothes is unnatural - I'm not a hardcore nudist LOL - but I can't see why a spirit of nature would ever bother itself with the concept of clothing. A father or mother bathing a toddler. Just a sweet family picture. Again, I can't see anything immoral here. All this would be prohibited by the new TOS. But what do these new TOS accomplish? Do they prevent "stroke material" for paedophiles to be posted? Not at all, see spinner's article. In short, these new TOS do not accomplish anything constructive at all. But they do limit the creativity of a lot of very fine artists. I second Armorbeast. The responsibility should lie with the artists themselves. Only a few of them don't handle this responsibility in a mature way. Those few can get their butts kicked into low orbit for my part. Establishing a draconic over the top rule to get a sort of "legal handle" is unnecessary and counterproductive. After all, the TOS already have a catch-all clause. Using that catch-all clause wisely is a responsibility of the moderators. We will have to trust them to act responsibly. I can even read these new TOS as a sign of distrust towards the mods - aren't they capable of distinguishing between innocent images and unsavory material? In my opinion the 'rosity team is very well capable to do the right thing without having every little thing outlined by the rules. Steven.
The pen is mightier than the sword. But if you literally want to have some impact, use a typewriter
B_PEACOCK posted Sun, 27 March 2005 at 10:13 AM
ghelmer Actually one was .Taylor777 posted an image with Mary and nude Jesus as a child with other works around it and put censor tags all over the images and it was deleted and now his gallery and profile is gone .
I understand the tos to protect children and I dont have a problem with that .But what I do have a problem with is so many images with fae's and children have been posted with class as art .Not child exploitation and they are being ripped out of here faster than anything and even artists being banned ??? That I dont get .Some of these images have been around since I have been here and now they are bad ???I agree with AB,Primal and svdl in what has been said .I believe that the moderators have a job to do and I hope that they use tact and judgement before losing alot of members .
Like I said before, that it is sad that a freedom is being taking away because of the 2 P's Perverts and Prudes.The line between art and porno has been drawn very close together .Artists and masters have been doing images like this from the beggining and now all of a sudden it is bad. Were has innocents gone ?? So what do we do ??? Whats next ??? Is there a common ground we all can stand on ??? I hope so Bobby Pacock
Message edited on: 03/27/2005 10:20
bonestructure posted Sun, 27 March 2005 at 10:51 AM
"Fairies, dryads, nymphs and the like are supposed to be creatures of nature. The only species that has managed to loosen the ties to nature is homo sapiens. It is also the only species that is wearing clothes. I won't say that wearing clothes is unnatural - I'm not a hardcore nudist LOL - but I can't see why a spirit of nature would ever bother itself with the concept of clothing." Because as originally existing, classic fairies, also known as the sidhe, were creatures of nature, but they were also a royal court, with a king and queen, princes and princesses and all the attendant pomp and circumstance. Nymphs and dryads would certainly have been naked, but fairies would not have been.
Talent is God's gift to you. Using it is your gift to God.
Spiritbro77 posted Sun, 27 March 2005 at 11:41 AM
You guys are beating a dead horse. The TOS has been written and it's going to remain. AB is right, it should be up to the community and members to police these things, to use restraint and good judgement. That choice is no longer available to us. Maybe Admin is actually trying to cover their asses, or maybe their bandwidth costs are such they wish to remove some of the images and this gives them an excuse? :) A bit paranoid perhaps? Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.
svdl posted Sun, 27 March 2005 at 11:58 AM
Mistakes can and should be corrected. The most ridiculous part of the new TOS has already been corrected, the result of questions and opionions posted in the forums. Let's fix the remaining unreasonable parts too.
The pen is mightier than the sword. But if you literally want to have some impact, use a typewriter
Primal posted Sun, 27 March 2005 at 12:15 PM
Why was Taylor777s Gallery deleted?is that going to happen to us?was thier a warning?was it because he challenged the TOS?
B_PEACOCK posted Sun, 27 March 2005 at 12:26 PM
I dont know what they may call a challenge to the TOS .He showed nothing because they were covered with censor marks These paintings are from great artists of our past . The really sad part is that he never really posted nudity in any of his images I remeber .So why the whole ban .Because he spoke his opinion and stayed within the guidlines ???? Or was it because he posted some one elses art .That will probably be what they say. Either way some artists are going to lose this fight because they have the big ammo .A delete button Peace Bobby
ghelmer posted Sun, 27 March 2005 at 12:36 PM
I'm not entirely certain but I think Taylor777 removed the rest of his gallery himself after the one "Tongue in cheek" satire poking "fun" and "personal opinion" at the new TOS was removed by the mods. I'll try to find out from him about that. I saw his pic... It was complete satire, even if it didn't have the satirical censored signs it still would have been in no way offensive. All this crap is getting WAY out of hand!!! I suppose I'll be banned or slapped on the wrist for pointing this out. G
The GR00VY GH0ULIE!
You are pure, you are snow
We are the useless sluts that they mould
Rock n roll is our epiphany
Culture, alienation, boredom and despair
Spiritbro77 posted Sun, 27 March 2005 at 12:44 PM
That would depend on whose art he is posting now wouldn't it? I don't see a problem with posting Michelangelo's art as long as the scan was copyright compliant. Not like Ol Mic or his heirs are going to complain. I didn't see the posting, but I assume he took an historic masters piece and covered it in censors marks as a protest? Good for him. He had to know they would axe his ass for it though. Don't you guys remember? We've had bannings for apologizing, and for calling a mod a "Dufflebag" for god sakes. Of COURSE they offed him because of this protest. THATS WHAT THEY DO! You aren't REALLY surprised by this are you?
ghelmer posted Sun, 27 March 2005 at 12:46 PM
"You aren't REALLY surprised by this are you?" Actually yes... very surprised. I've been of the mind that Renderosity was an open artistic community and not what it's turning out to be like in real life.
The GR00VY GH0ULIE!
You are pure, you are snow
We are the useless sluts that they mould
Rock n roll is our epiphany
Culture, alienation, boredom and despair
Spiritbro77 posted Sun, 27 March 2005 at 12:55 PM
"Actually yes... very surprised. I've been of the mind that Renderosity was an open artistic community and not what it's turning out to be like in real life. " Well, I'd tell you to examine the old C&D and OT forums for examples of this not being a new thing, but alas those forums are no longer available to view.Hmmmmmmmm I wonder why that would be? :) Take my word for it, this is nothing new. This is NOT a community.This is a STORE FRONT. I know, it takes a while to realize that, it did me too. I'm sorry to have to be the one to tell you, but that's reality mate!
ghelmer posted Sun, 27 March 2005 at 1:01 PM
THanks Spiritbro77!! I still love Renderosity and I'm not gonna let stuff like this get me down. Just have to think of it in this new light and keep my opinions to myself I suppose. That's ok, I'm here to read and communicate about art and stuff... I'll leave my standing on a soapbox at the wayside where it belongs. Later! G
The GR00VY GH0ULIE!
You are pure, you are snow
We are the useless sluts that they mould
Rock n roll is our epiphany
Culture, alienation, boredom and despair
Spiritbro77 posted Sun, 27 March 2005 at 1:13 PM
"I'll leave my standing on a soapbox at the wayside where it belongs." Or you could visit one of the many other sites that value freedom of speech a bit more when you want to vent or discuss a subject without worrying about getting the axe. XFX_3d.com, PoserPros.com Renderotica etc. At XFX_3d.com( be sure to add the little dash in there or you'll go to a porn site ) you'll find the new home of RFI. Radio Free Ironbear. Stop by, its a small but cool site owned by Dodger. I guarentee you'll hear a lot about the past, present and future of the community at large. :)PoserPros has a forum where you can say almost anything you want, just have thick skin cause the flames DO get going on occasion. There are places where you're opinion is not only tolerated, but appreciated. Rosity is what it is, not knocking it really, I still care about the place, I've just come to the realization that it isn't what it once was, nor what it should be. Good luck! Later
bonestructure posted Sun, 27 March 2005 at 3:04 PM
"This is NOT a community.This is a STORE FRONT. I know, it takes a while to realize that, it did me too. I'm sorry to have to be the one to tell you, but that's reality mate!" That wasn't how it started, not how it always was.
Talent is God's gift to you. Using it is your gift to God.
Spiritbro77 posted Sun, 27 March 2005 at 4:39 PM
"That wasn't how it started, not how it always was. " You are quite right. It wasn't always this way, and it's sad that things are as they are.
Mark_uk posted Sun, 27 March 2005 at 5:04 PM
YOU SHHOULD SEE THE WRINKLRS ON MY
ghelmer posted Sun, 27 March 2005 at 6:31 PM
The GR00VY GH0ULIE!
You are pure, you are snow
We are the useless sluts that they mould
Rock n roll is our epiphany
Culture, alienation, boredom and despair
OpenMindDesign posted Sun, 27 March 2005 at 9:15 PM
I dunno, I've been here a few years now and this style of thing all seems rather familiar...just a new topic. The simple fact is that the rules are the rules and we have to abide by them if we want to post our artworks in Renderosity's gallery. Have a lovely day everyone :)
Artist
Page ~ Store ~
OpenMindDesign (website) ~
OpenMindGallery
(website)
There are more stars in the universe than grains of sand on every
beach in the world!
XENOPHONZ posted Sun, 27 March 2005 at 11:00 PM
Did you knew that Disney was censured?. The original faeries of the movie Fantasia were nude!, he must have been a paedophile and follower of Satan.....
Walt Disney was a closet anti-Semite. Despised Jews.
I suppose that the central subject of this thread will be debated ad nauseum.
If I desire to once again join the debate on this topic, then all that I need to do is to check back here in a day or two.
Without fail, someone will have started up a brand-new thread on the subject.
mateo_sancarlos posted Sun, 27 March 2005 at 11:09 PM
I think they will eventually tire of it, Xeno. They were much more vehement during an identical debate (the nude fairy debate) 3 or 4 years ago, but even that passed, as they realised there were other sites that welcomed their genre. Ironically, there are less such sites now than there were then, as these arguments have shown that their genre is only feasible in sites that don't allow dissent or criticism.
dburdick posted Mon, 28 March 2005 at 12:28 AM
Okay everybody - take a deep breath - relax. I'm relatively new to the R'osity art world but it seems to me that the TOS is not an intractable position. It's just an attempt to play it safe so that R'osity and its parent company don't get sued -- which is quite understandable in this litigous world we live in. Why don't we try to communicate with R'osity and see if there is some middle ground. Basically what they are trying to do is to steer clear of the child pornography laws so bullet three under the TOS would seem to be okay - "No depictions of young humanoid characters/children giving the appearance of being under the age of 18 displayed in erotic, seductive, provocative poses or context" - the other rules seem to be an over-reach and would not run afoul of any child pornagraphy laws. If they kept rule 3 and added that it would enforced under the "discretion of the Renderosity team", I think the solution could be workable for all.
kawecki posted Mon, 28 March 2005 at 12:41 AM
"Walt Disney was a closet anti-Semite. Despised Jews." Disney?, Damn..., I always thought that was Hitler.
Stupidity also evolves!
Spiritbro77 posted Mon, 28 March 2005 at 3:09 AM
"as these arguments have shown that their genre is only feasible in sites that don't allow dissent or criticism" Unlike Rosity that embraces dissent and criticism? LMAO Why don't you ask Legume how Rosity embraces dissent and criticism?
Birddie posted Mon, 28 March 2005 at 3:28 AM
DarkElegance, you can still use Aiko. I'm doing Aiko renders right now. I refuse to give up Aiko because of how young she looks. why should we stop doing Anime because of age? When did Anime become porn??? News to me. ;)
Tebok posted Mon, 28 March 2005 at 7:18 AM
There is a differance between child nudity and child porn. People do not post Child Porn on Renderosity. It is pretty sad that people think Nude = Porn. If that were the case, the nude people in the National Geographic Magizines would be porn. So I believe this new TOS is a step in the wrong direction! First of all, if this is because there were complaints - Ummm if you don't like nudity, don't click on the pictures with nude tabs checked! Its sickening that prudes come here - to an ART site, they see a picture marked "Nudity" and are shocked to see a nude fae or a little girl without a shirt on and they go cry about it. What is even more sad is that Renderosity does not tell them to "Grow up and get over it." Instead they give into these people who hate nudity, but try to find it anyhow just to complain. Secondly, Child Porn does mean they have to be nude. They can be fully clothed but in sexual explicite poses which would make the image offencive. If people have been posting boarderline nude child images here, then punish them, not everyone. Turtle and Heartsong, two -- very great artist and by favorties -- have posted nude child images with nothing offensive in them at all. Why are they being punished? Renderosity has forgotten not only that are we artist, but also that artistic images of nudes is not illegal - real or not, weather they are 8 or 80. They have taken a step in the wrong direction and taking away our freedom of expression. They are going to have a lot of angry members. I myself will stop posting updates to my work on this site ang do elsewhere - May I suggest Fairtytop or FairyWylde where you can post anything you want other then torture and porn.
XENOPHONZ posted Mon, 28 March 2005 at 10:25 AM
"Walt Disney was a closet anti-Semite. Despised Jews."
Disney?, Damn..., I always thought that was Hitler.
The Nazis had some famous early apologists in the US.
Celebrities like Henry Ford, Charles Lindbergh.....and Walt Disney.
Although Disney wasn't as open about his support as the others were.
Disney's anti-semitism is an "open secret" these days -- it's just not a subject that gets talked about very often. Too uncomfortable, I suppose.
rockets posted Mon, 28 March 2005 at 12:01 PM
It really saddens me to see once again that the silent majority is punished because the not-so-silent minority are yelling at the top of their lungs. I quietly took down an image of 2 little naked cherubs (nothing showing, no suggestive poses)just to keep from making waves. That was probably a mistake on my part. There are many of us who have done that just to keep peace here. I wonder why most of us feel that way. Maybe we should be like the puritans who scream the loudest and thus get their own way. PS - What does the late Walt Disney's anti-semitism views have to do with child pornography anyway?
My idea of rebooting is kicking somebody in the butt twice!
kawecki posted Mon, 28 March 2005 at 12:27 PM
"Disney's anti-semitism is an "open secret" these days -- it's just not a subject that gets talked about very often. Too uncomfortable, I suppose." Uncomfortable to whom? "PS - What does the late Walt Disney's anti-semitism views have to do with child pornography anyway?" Faeries, nude Faeries!, this is evil!
Stupidity also evolves!
rockets posted Mon, 28 March 2005 at 12:33 PM
"Faeries, nude Faeries!, this is evil!" Ah, I see. Nude faeries, Walt Disney and nude children = evil. Hmmm, I should have figured that out!
My idea of rebooting is kicking somebody in the butt twice!
mateo_sancarlos posted Mon, 28 March 2005 at 2:00 PM
Spirit, Legume may have gotten disgusted by the way he was singled out for censorship here. It merely proves my point - he couldn't stay because his kind of dissent wasn't tolerated here, whether for right or wrong. By analogy, I couldn't go to one of the nude fairy or pedophile sites and discuss with them why I think they are pedophiles, because that kind of dissent and criticism wouldn't be tolerated there. What they have there are "group-think" cultures, where approval by the "amen chorus" is the norm, and dissenters are quickly hounded out of existence, even as Legume tapered off his participation here, possibly due to ill treatment by his opponents. I would rather have him participate here, but I have no say in the matter. By the way, I don't think Legume was posting pedophile crap, so it may have been more about how he did things, than about any images he posted. Let him speak for himself, though. But we're seeing the same specious arguments here that we saw 4 years ago, when Thorne and the others split off in self-righteous rage and disgust. I think the nude child enthusiasts should think up some new arguments if they want to persuade anyone here. Garbage like "you mean, I can't post Michelangelo's (or the old masters') paintings of nude cherubs?" just doesn't cut the mustard, because this site is supposed to be for original works, not rip-offs or scans or reposts of European paintings.
rockets posted Mon, 28 March 2005 at 2:06 PM
My cherubs were nothing like "the old master's". Just my own creations in my own style. Most of us aren't "nude child" enthusiasts.
My idea of rebooting is kicking somebody in the butt twice!
Spiritbro77 posted Mon, 28 March 2005 at 2:22 PM
"By the way, I don't think Legume was posting pedophile crap, so it may have been more about how he did things, than about any images he posted. Let him speak for himself, though."
No he wasn't and I never said he was. My point was Rosity doesn't take criticism or protest very well and used Legume as a well known example of this. I would never try to speak for Legume, he does so on his own quite efectively.
"Garbage like "you mean, I can't post Michelangelo's (or the old masters') paintings of nude cherubs?" just doesn't cut the mustard, because this site is supposed to be for original works, not rip-offs or scans or reposts of European paintings."
This was used as an example. I don't think anyone want's to start posting scan after scan of the great masters works, there are other sites for that. Personally, I look at a great many scans of the masters and sometimes attempt to bring that feeling or mood out in my work. Not very effectively I might add :) I saw a work by Rembrandt where an old man was sitting by a window, I forget the name, anyway it looked like Rembrandt willed light to appear from the darkness on the canvas.I would love to recreate that effect .
Now, if someone wants to attempt to pay homage to one of the masters by using similar figures,ie cherubs.I can hardly see a problem. I HATE child porn, Pedophiles should be taken out of the courtroom and HUNG! OK, but I don't see anyone around here posting child porn. A mother holding a child, a cherub in an Angelic pose blowing a trumpet, etc.
Hey, as I said, the TOS is written, its not going to be changed, so this is beating a dead horse.Child porn is WRONG, I don't think anyone would disagree with you, but that was forbidden with the OLD TOS wasn't it?
Message edited on: 03/28/2005 14:30
XENOPHONZ posted Mon, 28 March 2005 at 2:54 PM
"Disney's anti-semitism is an "open secret" these days -- it's just not a subject that gets talked about very often. Too uncomfortable, I suppose."
Uncomfortable to whom?
Uncomfortable to those that equate the name "Disney" with "child-like innocence".
"PS - What does the late Walt Disney's anti-semitism views have to do with child pornography anyway?"
Nothing -- but Walt Disney gets brought up as an example of squeaky-clean innocence.
It helps to point out the fact that other things are bubbling underneath the surface.
bonestructure posted Mon, 28 March 2005 at 3:24 PM
"But we're seeing the same specious arguments here that we saw 4 years ago, when Thorne and the others split off in self-righteous rage and disgust. I think the nude child enthusiasts should think up some new arguments if they want to persuade anyone here." Just as a point of clarification, Thorne NEVER did nude children. He was a victim of the if it doesn't have massive mutant boobs crowd it must be a child crowd. Thorne creates models of exactly the kind of women I've been involved with and married to and loved all my life. I can't blame him for leaving when he worked his ass off to create beautiful models, only to be accused of doing children. He and I happen to share the same taste in women, and as he told me once, all his models are based on a real person. I don't know the circumstances of anyone else leaving when Thorne did, bit I DO know his circumstances. His models are my favorite models and I use them constantly. Just as another clarification, Walt Disney adored his children to the point of obsession, and there was never a whisper of any impropriety. He loved all children, sorta why he did what he did, you know. And for someone that's supposedly an anti semite, his first partner was jewish, his head man ub iwerks was jewish and a very large number of his animators and employees were jewish. Kind of makes the point a bit moot. Are the same arguments to be found here as have been found in the past? Sure, because they're still valid arguments. I don't do nude kids. I almost did once, a while back, but the whole child porn freak out dissuaded me from showing a little boy butt in a picture. I do, as I said, use Thorne's models a LOT, since those are the kind of women I prefer, so I am a bit concerned that what is, essentially, a matter of taste in women, will be transformed into beiing accused of liking children because some viewer can't discriminate between a grown woman who's petite and has small boobs as opposed to the standard mutant boobed naked vicky in the temple.
Talent is God's gift to you. Using it is your gift to God.
pali posted Mon, 28 March 2005 at 4:27 PM
I was going to post a new image (a landscape image created with Terragen) today, but then I noticed the new TOS, and decided not to post. I think the new TOS simply can not be tolerated. This sick crusade against "child pornography" has gone too far. Everybody should see it by now. And it will not stop here if we do not stop it. Every new cencorsihip that is accepted is an excuse for more, stricter cencorship. There is no end. Yes, site owners can set up any rules they like. But we, the members, have right to draw our own conclusions from it. I feel that at current situation, I do not want to post any images. And definitely do not buy anything advertised at Renderosity.
XENOPHONZ posted Mon, 28 March 2005 at 5:05 PM
Attached Link: http://www.stockmaven.com/logsdon99_F.htm
*Just as another clarification, Walt Disney adored his children to the point of obsession, and there was never a whisper of any impropriety. He loved all children, sorta why he did what he did, you know. And for someone that's supposedly an anti semite, his first partner was jewish, his head man ub iwerks was jewish and a very large number of his animators and employees were jewish. Kind of makes the point a bit moot.*Try doing a google search on Disney and anti-semitism. There's plenty of information floating around on the subject.
Sure, he's got his defenders, too.
As in so much else, it depends upon who one chooses to listen to.
Personally, I believe that the evidence is there. Although admittedly, he wasn't as outspoken on the subject as some others were. As I indicated earlier: a closet anti-semite.
In early 1940, Walt Disney was thinking of taking his studio public and asked Ford for his advice on the enterprise. Ford expressed his admiration for Disney because he was a successful Protestant in the film business- a field dominated by Jews. However; Ford warned, Jews also controlled the stock market, and Disney would be wise to sell his company outright rather than lose it to "them" one piece at a time. Disney, who may have had anti-Semitic leanings of his own, thanked Ford for his advice.
annemarie2 posted Mon, 28 March 2005 at 5:06 PM
Well since i just found out today that another wonderul friend/artists/merchants gallery has been cleared without a warning, I suppose I should add my two cents in as well. People need to start being a tad more respectful on all sides. A majority of the people here try their best to follow the rules out of respect for other artists and the site. How do you expect those people to keep respecting this site and following the rules when you do not afford them the same courtesy? Maybe istead of defining the TOS all the time everyone should just define their idea of art that way people are making only what is appeasing to others, and making sure others fragile sensibilities are not getting warped. Sounds pretty stupid huh? But thats what this is turning into... I am a pretty optimistic person and hope that things can get better, but it seems like the same problem... lack of common courtesy towards others.
Spiritbro77 posted Mon, 28 March 2005 at 5:22 PM
"Well since i just found out today that another wonderul friend/artists/merchants gallery has been cleared without a warning" Was it just their gallery or were they banned as well? Was it their ENTIRE gallery? Seems odd that every image in the gallery would be a violation of the TOS.
bonestructure posted Mon, 28 March 2005 at 5:33 PM
I don't think it's right to remove images that were already here. When you do that, it seems to me, something is very badly wrong with the new TOS. Keep it up and this site will no longer be an artist's site. We're artists, we're not politically correct and never will be. Hitler tried to make artists in germany be politically correct too. He failed. It seems to me that people who own and operate an ART site should have some respect for and understanding of the artists and the artistic process.
Talent is God's gift to you. Using it is your gift to God.
bonestructure posted Mon, 28 March 2005 at 5:34 PM
Just a suggestion, but why don't the owners of this site devote it entirely to art, and start a seperate sister site completely devoted to merchandising. seems to me that would solve the problem.
Talent is God's gift to you. Using it is your gift to God.
svdl posted Mon, 28 March 2005 at 5:42 PM
About that cleared gallery, I think I know what was the matter. If I'm right about the artist in question, the TOS violations had to do with linking to certain sites. I don't know what exactly happened. I know what I would have done were I a moderator: PM the artist, tell him his gallery violated the TOS, and allow him some time, something like 48 hours counting from the moment the artist received the PM, to fix his gallery. And only if the artist refused to fix it, either explicitly or implicitly, I'd delete it and record a warning - maybe even a temporary ban. It may have happened this way. I don't know.
The pen is mightier than the sword. But if you literally want to have some impact, use a typewriter
annemarie2 posted Mon, 28 March 2005 at 6:12 PM
Yes it was every picture in their gallery, and yes it was a link to their site that caused it but no they had NO WARNING. To me thats completely unacceptable...it shouldnt be tolerated by anyone here...next time it could be your gallery.
Spiritbro77 posted Mon, 28 March 2005 at 6:24 PM
What was wrong with the link? Adult material on the site? Or is it now unacceptable to link to a site here? See this is the BS I'm talking about. They could have told this person hey, we have a problem with this, change it or we will delete it. Was this member banned as well?
svdl posted Mon, 28 March 2005 at 6:55 PM
No, this member was not banned. The site links were actual violations of TOS rules, AFAIK. Not some new rule made up after the fact, an older standing rule. When following the letter of the TOS and disregarding its spirit, the removal of the gallery was correct. Probably this member got a PM after the removal saying he had violated the TOS and that a warning was recorded. It could have been worse. Apparently this violation was regarded as one single incident, not as 50 or more separate violations - which would have led to an instant permanent ban. Apparently the moderators need to follow the TOS to the letter and the spirit be damned. I don't like this at all. Something must have forced this "Ordnung muss sein" attitude. I wonder what it is, and I wonder what the community can do to remove this need.
The pen is mightier than the sword. But if you literally want to have some impact, use a typewriter
kawecki posted Mon, 28 March 2005 at 8:35 PM
Stupidity also evolves!
DarkElegance posted Mon, 28 March 2005 at 8:55 PM
either the server ate my post or it got removed. O.o but as I don't have a warning... why is it a picture of a cherub gets removed but that pick from sndcastie is still up? both babies naked. ok sndcastie has a diaper but according to the TOS that is very against it.(http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=120512&Start=37&Artist=SndCastie&ByArtist=Yes) now I have no problem with the TOS. I do not do underage art (though I worry of aiko work) so it is not a problem for me. I also have no problem with a pic of a "new year" baby. BUT (oh come on you knew there was a but) if the TOS is to be taken seriously it should at least be consistent. is the new TOS for members only? mods are absolved? personally if they are going to remove whole galleries and take down cherubs..then their own mods should be subject to the same strict rules. (note for the record. baby in diaper is not a problem to me. I just think that if cherubs are being taken down for topless or nudity..then "baby new year" should be too. fair is fair)
https://www.darkelegance.co.uk/
annemarie2 posted Mon, 28 March 2005 at 10:17 PM
Nude Aiko's are going to be removed now as well? You have to be kiddin me....
svdl posted Mon, 28 March 2005 at 10:41 PM
There are two items in the Child Image guidelines that make sense: "No depictions of young humanoid characters/children giving the appearance of being under the age of 18 displayed 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." These two bullets should be sufficient to protect 'rosity from legal issues. Maybe add a note that it is better to err on the safe side: when in doubt, the post will be considered to be a violation of the TOS. What I like about the first item is that it does not mention nudity. A very important point. Example: a young teenager, provocatively dressed (but no genitals or nipples showing) and posed, that is forbidden. As it should be. By this same rule, a nude cherub or Cupid would be just fine. As it should be. And there is one item that seems to be specifically designed to prohibit criticism of the new TOS: "No use of: transparent clothes, blurring of nude areas, or the use of blots or Censored wording or props to cover areas that are otherwise not clothed." Hmm. Not very consistent with the American ideals of democracy and freedom.
The pen is mightier than the sword. But if you literally want to have some impact, use a typewriter
XENOPHONZ posted Mon, 28 March 2005 at 10:47 PM
Returning to more interesting themes
True. Like doing renders.
As opposed to wasting time engaging in interminable forum "debates" in which people talk at, rather than to each other.
I'd say that the TOS change is a fait accompli.
The rest is just venting.
Unicornst posted Mon, 28 March 2005 at 11:25 PM
"I'd say that the TOS change is a fait accompli." Ah, but rules have been changed before and laws have been re-written. Perhaps if debates are presented in a logical and calm manner, then the people in charge of the rules will be more open to considering change. And if not, then there has been a good discussion on the whole with people talking to each other and that in itself is educational. See, I'm an optimist. I believe reason prevails. And there have been some very reasonable suggestions by ones that have posted here.
XENOPHONZ posted Mon, 28 March 2005 at 11:37 PM
See, I'm an optimist. I believe reason prevails. And there have been some very reasonable suggestions by ones that have posted here.
Admittedly, this thread has been a bit calmer than some of the others.
I doubt that it'll change anything. It's a case of "too little, too late". Reasonable individuals on both sides of the issue should have spoken up earlier, and told the rabid to tone it down.
My guess would be that a minor tweak or two might happen. But that's about it.
XENOPHONZ posted Mon, 28 March 2005 at 11:39 PM
Perhaps if debates are presented in a logical and calm manner That's the rub, isn't it?
Unicornst posted Mon, 28 March 2005 at 11:53 PM
If the minor tweak or two should be along the lines of what svdl suggested, I can live with that and I think others can as well. As for the "rabid" (like the word, btw), I can see where anger came to the front before logic and calmness. I was very rabid myself about it when I first read it. Then hurt set in. Not about any images being removed, but the comments made by others that effected the artists who had made young models sans clothing. Some were way beyond necessary and very far off the mark. Then anger set in again, but finally logic broke through and calmness came. Now, I'm waiting to see and when there is a calm discussion going on, inserting my 2 cents worth. And, uh, Xenophonz? I think we just talked TO each other and logically and calmly. So there is hope, yes? big grin Thank you for your replies. I sincerly mean that.
XENOPHONZ posted Tue, 29 March 2005 at 12:03 AM
And, uh, Xenophonz? I think we just talked TO each other and logically and calmly.
It can be done in the forums. Albeit rarely.
Unfortunately, the hammer is the only thing that some can comprehend. Subtlety works for them about as well as Monday morning.
Thank you for your replies. I sincerly mean that
You are certainly welcome.
It's easy to be reasonable whenever one is dealing with reasonable people.
;-)
XENOPHONZ posted Tue, 29 March 2005 at 12:03 AM
Or at least people that are in a reasonable mood.
XENOPHONZ posted Tue, 29 March 2005 at 12:05 AM
Unicornst posted Tue, 29 March 2005 at 12:11 AM
"Or at least people that are in a reasonable mood." LOL....You must teach me how you get the quote italicized. grin And now, this person in a reasonable mood must seek sleep. I hope you have an enjoyable evening. Before I go...ANY MODS reading this? Can we get feedback about svdl's suggestion, maybe? Or is this discussion truly in vain?
mateo_sancarlos posted Tue, 29 March 2005 at 12:15 AM
What I heard about Walt is that he had a some kind of interest in children that I can't post here, because they would have to delete the message due to the ugliness of its content. Eisner carried that along with statements like he believed that if cartoon movie animators create their work through the eyes of a 7-yr-old- girl, it will be a blockbuster. I never heard Walt was anti-Jewish, but it was, and is still, the norm in his milieu. However, it has nothing to do with any anti-pedophile clauses that this site chooses to enforce. Just look at the news on CNN or any American news outlet. There's one horrifying story after another, about a paroled pedophile kidnapping, raping and killing a little girl. So it's no surprise that we'd have pedophiles constantly trying to minimize, excuse, exculpate themselves from their need to post images of naked kids. But even as they lost the debate 4 years ago, they'll also lose this debate, if they still use the tawdry tactics of abusive language, attempts to shame, and other well-documented pedophile tactics.
XENOPHONZ posted Tue, 29 March 2005 at 12:32 AM
You must teach me how you get the quote italicized.
It's done in HTML.
Type "<i>You must teach me how you get the quote italicized.</i>".
BTW -- if you want to do a color like red........
Then type: <font color="red">red</font>.
For other colors, simply enter "blue" "violet" "yellow", etc..
<font color="blue">blue</font>.
XENOPHONZ posted Tue, 29 March 2005 at 12:47 AM
BTW -- some people know just enough HTML to be dangerous with it.
Use it judiciously. Preview your messages before posting them.
Message edited on: 03/29/2005 00:48
svdl posted Tue, 29 March 2005 at 6:26 AM
mateo_sancarlos: may I point you to the link presented in post #9? A very educational article. And while you're at it, please take a look at the scientific work of Loren Coleman, about copycat behavior and media exposure. Pedophilia and child nudity are completely unrelated. Actually, if 'rosity would be serious in removing images that are interesting to pedophiles, all "innocent" child images should go, and the naughtier ones could stay. Pedophiles get off on innocence. Not on nudity. You suggest that posting an image of a nude child equals pedophilia. I find that suggestion very offensive. In case you wnoder where I get my knowledge of pedophilia: my father worked as a psychiatrist for the Justice department, advising the court about the mental condition of serious crime suspects. He's seen his share of pedophiles. They fit spinners decription to a T. Back to the TOS: Renderosity needs to protect itself against possible legal issues. The suggestion by dburdick (#71) takes care of that neatly, without being overly restrictive. I see no need to curtail artistic freedom more than necessary, and that is what's happening now.
The pen is mightier than the sword. But if you literally want to have some impact, use a typewriter
Birddie posted Tue, 29 March 2005 at 6:29 AM
How will Aiko be portrayed now by the TOS? Would it depend then on how she was posed in the renders? Even though she'd be fully clothed? or, do we now have to ask a mod everytime we go to put up Aiko in our galleries?? Just wondering.
svdl posted Tue, 29 March 2005 at 6:37 AM
S3 has beem cleared. Ingenue Vicki has been cleared. These characters are about as realistic as Poser characters get. Aiko in her "natural" state is a typical anime character, which means she's ageless, and thus she should be OK under the new TOS. Aiko with her realism morphs looks oriental and delicate. But not underage, if you take the trouble to take the ethnicity into account. She SHOULD be OK. Just my opinion, I'm not a mod.
The pen is mightier than the sword. But if you literally want to have some impact, use a typewriter
Birddie posted Tue, 29 March 2005 at 7:19 AM
Is there an age limit? Some of the poses even in Aiko are adult in nature. Personally, I never thought Aiko was an underaged character. I don't want someone to scream TOS if I put her back up in my gallery. I have SP3. Has she been cleared?
Message edited on: 03/29/2005 07:22
Natolii posted Tue, 29 March 2005 at 8:21 AM
Frankly, rule of thumb should be anyone under age 18. Through you have to take into account that different races and even different people are going to have different body types. To do any less would be outright discrimination as was demostrated earlier in this thread.
3-DArena posted Tue, 29 March 2005 at 10:56 AM
Oh gods - boys that have to wear shirts and a ban on nude aiko's? Come on! I'm not honestly even going to read this entire thread, I'm barely back online after a cross country move and catching up, but there is a point where it gets beyond ridiculous. Aiko is not a child - if one uses the realistic morph on her she doesn't look like a child. Girl is not a child either - or at least not intended as one by the creator or the site selling her. My Bubblegum Betty for Aiko doesn't look like a child, I've used the preteen for images where she didn't look like a child (even as a nude pinup). Once any mesh has been adjusted and resembles an adult than it is an adult I don't care what the model is called. I do have an issue with child porn and pedophiles, I did spend many, many years running an anti pedophile site and working with net watch groups, I'm not naive, not even close. But this is so insanely paranoid it's ridiculous. As for fairies, where in literature (other than modern fairy tales for children) have they been depicted as innocent? They tempted and misled humans - especially men and children, stole babies and in general could be and often were malicious. My fairies are always a bit more endowed than those of others because I see them from the temptress point of view (and that's just my style). But innocent fae? As for reason prevailing? Since when does that work in Poser communities? The rabid spitting and blamegames, name calling and finger pointing is more like an elementary school yard than a community of adults interested in art (which often depicts nudity and drawing nudes is a step stone in art classes). humbug! I'm going back to work on my very curvy aiko image and character...
3-D Arena | Instagram | Facebook
I do not feel obliged to believe that the same
God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has
intended us to forgo their use.
-Galileo
DarkErebus posted Tue, 29 March 2005 at 11:12 AM
ohhhhhhhhh she got u!!
pali posted Tue, 29 March 2005 at 11:17 AM
JVRenderer: "I don't have a problem with the TOS either. It doesn't really affect me at all, since I don't do faery pics nor pics with 3d characters that look underage." Several people have written similar comment in this thread. Do you realize what you are saying? You say that any violation of human rights is OK, as long as it does not affect yourself. I am sure in Nazi Germany many people said the same about the persecution of Jews. But in the end, it did affect them. Cencorship is a crime against humanity. But, for some reason, it has become fashionable these days, almost a virtue. People often try to excuse cencorship by claiming that nude art "offends" someone. But the people who are offended by nudity are sick. They should seek help. We should not feed their sickness by giving in to their demands. And why would those few sick people be the only one who should be protected from being offended? What about the rest of us? Personally, I find the new TOS extremely offending. I think such TOS'es should be banned by a law. And, unlike a nude image, the TOS actually does hurt lot of people. I suspect most of those attacing against nudity are not really offended by it. They do it because they want to hurt other people. I think people who enjoy hurting other people are the only group that must not be tolerated in any circumstances. Therefore, we must stop them now.
Unicornst posted Tue, 29 March 2005 at 11:24 AM
So it's no surprise that we'd have pedophiles constantly trying to minimize, excuse, exculpate themselves from their need to post images of naked kids. This is the type of statement that leads to anger and hurt. Mateo...Not everyone who has done an image of a child sans clothing is a pedophile and I am deeply, deeply hurt that you chose to group us all together in this manner.
XENOPHONZ posted Tue, 29 March 2005 at 11:45 AM
Great......here we go again. Wake me up when it's over. *********************************************************** BTW -- another thing.......please wake me up whenever anyone succeeds in changing anyone else's mind on this subject. If it happens, it'll be one for the record books. Lock up the kids and throw away the key.
DarkElegance posted Tue, 29 March 2005 at 11:56 AM
PaliSeveral people have written similar comment in this thread. Do you realize what you are saying? You say that any violation of human rights is OK, as long as it does not affect yourself no that is NOT what we are saying (do NOT put me in that lot as you have NO idea what I do behind this screen and right now with the stuff going on behind the screen I take a huge offense to that) we are saying that this is NOT a human rights violation. human rights violations are things like the lack of compassion and right to die with dignity in that case in Florida. human rights violations are the rapes in south Africa, human rights violations are the use of rape as a weapon in Bosnia and neighboring countries to control a race. human rights violations are the mass graves found in Iraq. the change in a TOS of a online gallery is NOT I repeat NOT a human rights violation. it may make you mad. it may be unfair or extreme, but it is not the violation of human right. you have the choice to go to another gallery that allows such work to be posted. you still have your freedom to choose where you go. It is a change in a TOS. not the mass murder of a race or culture.
https://www.darkelegance.co.uk/
kawecki posted Tue, 29 March 2005 at 12:09 PM
Curious, you've forgotten: "human right violation is Guantanamo"
Message edited on: 03/29/2005 12:10
Stupidity also evolves!
svdl posted Tue, 29 March 2005 at 12:21 PM
kawecki: shall we keep this on topic? Not that I disagree with you, but this is not the place to discuss this issue.
The pen is mightier than the sword. But if you literally want to have some impact, use a typewriter
kawecki posted Tue, 29 March 2005 at 1:37 PM
It's not too much out of topic, it's very close related to nude faeries hunters. Really those people don't care of paedophilia, look at the numerous examples inside their own churches, they use only the paedophiles as an excuse for their crusade against nudity and sex. Because they haven't solid arguments against nudity they are inventing reasons and using those "noble" arguments for removing any kind of nudity. One day is forbidden one element, other day another until a day that anyone that is not dressed and don't act as the Taleban allows, won't be allowed anymore. " But the people who are offended by nudity are sick. They should seek help. We should not feed their sickness by giving in to their demands." I agree with you and is our responsability and duty to remove and try to cure, if possible, those people.
Stupidity also evolves!
bonestructure posted Tue, 29 March 2005 at 1:57 PM
" So it's no surprise that we'd have pedophiles constantly trying to minimize, excuse, exculpate themselves from their need to post images of naked kids." Have you ever had kids? Kids get naked. They enjoy getting naked. It's just something that happens in every day life.
Talent is God's gift to you. Using it is your gift to God.
Unicornst posted Tue, 29 March 2005 at 1:59 PM
" But the people who are offended by nudity are sick. They should seek help. We should not feed their sickness by giving in to their demands." I agree with you and is our responsability and duty to remove and try to cure, if possible, those people. And once again, a blanket statement covering people who do not necessarily fit this. Offense at nudity can also result from culture and ethics they were raised by. sigh
Natolii posted Tue, 29 March 2005 at 2:00 PM
If anyone read the link I attached ot my first post, they will realize that Pedophiles do not use CG work as part of their MO (Modus Operandi). They use real pictures of real child as a tool to weaken the objections of a real child. By now enough child out there have seen a Pixar movie to the point they are not fooled by a CG scene. Plus from what I can make out from the article, it was also like trading cards for other Predators. All this from the congressional testimony of a convicted pedophile. In short, to equate CG work with pedophilia is just a whitewash over the real issues. The statement is a lie and the logic faulty. However, Renderosity has chosen to revise their TOS. They reserve the right to do so at anytime. You have the right to disagree with it up to and including closing your gallery here. Right or Wrong, Renderosity is a Privately Owned Business. This decision maybe right for them or it may bite them in the arse in the long run. HOWEVER, it is their decision to make and by signing up for a membership here, You agree to abide by that decision. Yes, TOS will be revised without warning. No, You do not have recourse beyond cancelling your membership. I'm not against their policy. I think it is heavy-handed, and they may wish to reconsider their actions. But as a member of this site, I do not have the right to tell anyone they need to change anything just because I don't agree with the statement. My purpose however, was to point out the inappropriate, Inflammatory statements made against another site by someone here. That person chose to respond publically and in an inappropriate fashion. Lessons learned...
Unicornst posted Tue, 29 March 2005 at 2:01 PM
Kids get naked. They enjoy getting naked. It's just something that happens in every day life.
Shoot, Bonestructure...I have a 4 year old grandson that you can't keep clothes on in the dead of winter. LOL Message edited on: 03/29/2005 14:03
SndCastie posted Tue, 29 March 2005 at 4:16 PM
Ok all we could rehash this over and over it is time to put this one to bed. There for I am locking this thread. SndCastie
Sandy
An imagination can create wonderful things
SndCastie's Little
Haven