Okay, a little history here, if I may. Anyone who knows me or my work knows that (shock! horror!) I'm a gay man who does images with a gay sensibility, but anyone who's seen my work at PoserPros or Planit3D or RDNA knows it's about as offensive as a "Family Circus" cartoon. Heck, when I first joined here, I was accused of being a prude because I took issue with some of the more blatant sexuality going on in the galleries. I generally dont enter the contests here, mostly out of practicality. I dont use the "right" model meshes to get the popular vote, and that's okay with me. But every so often one comes along that looks like it could be fun, and I'll go for it, with absolutely no expectations save to have a good time. I write all this because recently I had an image that was disqualified from the book cover competition because, apparently, same sex imagery, no matter how innocently benign and nonsexual, upsets the moderators of that contest. The image in question was two toon guys in a loose embrace, both fully clothed, both turned toward the camera with small smiles on their faces, for a book called "The Chelsea Boy's Book of Love". Well, apparently, according to messages from one of the contest moderators, this caused no end of discussion because they were concerned that some families looking at it might find it... hmm... difficult. Bear in mind that this thing met all the rules and regulations, as outlined on the contest page. It was classy, clean, took a sense of humour about itself, and, as with all my other work on the sites above, about as offensive as a Family Circus cartoon. But somehow it was "political" and needed to be "modified" (although exactly how was never specified, unless the moderator thought one of the guys should be a girl) and therefore quite possibly "dangerous" because it could be... eww.. icky for some people to look at. Naturally, when I was told of the reason for its possible disqualification, I got a little teed off. It's not the first time I've had to deal with bone headed dufflebags around here, but this one seemed especially ludicrous, in light of the moderator's claims about how entries were to be submitted to the monthly contests. Apparently, when it comes to things like this, positive role models are be shoved into whatever dark corner we can shove them, because they might offend the uber Christian, super moral families whose children will never ever see a gay man in their whole entire lives. So here's the unspoken rule, gang, in case you're considering ever enterring a Renderosity monthly challenge: Make sure it's got a heterosexual in it because gay men, no matter how unthreatening they may be in presentation, scare the horses. Bear in mind that, no, I am not saying we should open the flood gates to any and all imagery. But when one cannot tell the difference between a simple little embrace and a hot monkey session, perhaps one should learn a little more about the world around one.

well..not sure what to say. With the recent climate, both on the site, and out in the real world, it's hard to say what flies anymore..I know there are other sites out there that are more accepting of subject matter of 'the love that dares not speak it's name'..;) Renderotica (I know it's a pain, but I can't give a link, TOS rules) and others. There's other sites out there that may be more accepting. When you want to do things in that vein, there's alternatives. Hope you find a place you can do what you want. Some folks can tell the 'difference', but unfortunately, in this legal climate, the 'common sense' rule has been invalidated..what a world..

Well, that raises an interesting point, Pakled: is everything to be seen through sexual eyes? If, for example, the image had been two young women in a friendly embrace and the title was "The Chelsea Girl's Book", would that have caused alarm? Further to that, does this mean that now, in our current climate of fear and social paranoia, the only "appropriate" place for gay male imagery is sex sites like Rotica? I'm asking only to engender discussion, because I see this as a question meriting it.

At first I thought if two women had been in the same scene, there wouldn't have been any controversy over the image. Women, straight and gay, can fondly embrace without anyone necessarily thinking deep into it. But then I started to wonder if it really was the image that caused the problems. What if the problem might be the title of the book: "The Chelsea Boy's Book of Love," because there is a huge defense mechanism against pedophiles. You know, and I know, that two adult men engaged in a relationship are not pedophiles. But we need to realize that, although adults call themselves ridiculously girls and boys, the term "girl" and "boy" refer more commonly to a much younger group of people. Your book title wasn't: "The Chelsea Men's Book of Love." I don't know if that would have been allowed or not but I would have had less problems with it (not that my opinion matters...I'm just stating what my opinion is). For the record, I'd have the same problem with: "The Chelsea Girl's Book of Love." Boy and girl are terms that may refer to very young people, too young to engage in sex. And you can argue that love doesn't equal sex, and I would agree. But a lot of people would see the title of the book as including a sexual component, one that would include, perhaps, young children. Is it possible the book title triggered concern more than the illustration? It may be a marginal as a concern, but the moderators end up examinging things on a micro level because of the complaints they get over such concerns. Just a thought. I don't really know.

bump

Sean, First, I do want to apologize for the stress that this situation has caused you. It is not, in any way, our policy at Renderosity to deny an image in the challenge based on either the sexual orientation of the artist or the supposed orientation of those in the image. With your permission, I would like to reinstate your image to the challenge, but only with your permission. If you do not want it added at this time, I can understand your reasons behind it. Your image is in compliance with the rules and our TOS. Sincerely, MorriganShadow Poser Coordinator/Poser Challenge Manager

Many thanks, Morrigan. My apologies if any of the mods (well, with one exception) felt I acted out of line, but I'm glad to see some common sense at play. To respond to dialyn: What if the problem might be the title of the book: "The Chelsea Boy's Book of Love," because there is a huge defense mechanism against pedophiles Simply because men who live in the Chelsea neighbourhood refer to themselves and are referred to as "Chelsea boys". Once again, it's being aware of those around you instead of acting out of fear and paranoia. And that's not a political statement, just a statement of fact.

Honestly, it's not a problem. I can see why you would have felt dejected, and I wanted to make it clear that it is not policy here to discriminate against members for any reason, unless they're breaking the TOS or the law. MorriganShadow Poser Coord.

Many thanks again, Morrigan. Dailyn, sorry, you said something else, so allow me to address it: >> Is it possible the book title triggered concern more than the illustration? If so, then everything becomes suspect, and at some point we have to stop and say, "Look, this is ridiculous. Keep your smutty little thoughts to yourself, because I'm really not interested in hearing them." Frankly, we've allowed this kind of societal highjacking for far too long, and I'm glad to see Morrigan displaying the type of commmon sense that should be in play right now.

"they were concerned that some families looking at it might find it... hmm... difficult." This is the problem: if you fear that SOMEONE will find an image, idea or concept offensive, I assure you that, out there in this wonderful world of us, someone has ALREADY found that offensive... This is the idiocy of the "political correctness": you try to not stomp on anyone toes, just to find that you've stomped on all the toes already. I feel sad seeing your country freedom slide down the gutter an inch at a time... :(

It's a bad sign when I'm less shocked that R'osity deleted a good image than when they apologize and offer to fix what they did wrong. SeanMartin, I'm glad this can be fixed.

It's a bad sign when I'm less shocked that R'osity deleted a good image than when they apologize and offer to fix what they did wrong. Ditto. bonni

I happen to agree with Rowan & Bonni. I am just glad that someone with the authority to do so did the Right thing in this case. Meredith

no intent to offend..I don't make the rules..glad it got cleared up.

Yep I'm glad this got solved although this should be not even questionable! pitklad

Glad the right thing happened. Will wonders never cease... ;)

I'm also glad to see them change their minds. Good job.

Attached Link: http://www.cw.ua.edu/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/12/02/41aeb40d4edb0

I just heard there's a law making it's way through the Alabama legislature: "Under the bill, literary works with gay characters or written by gay authors would be banned from pubic and school libraries. Textbooks that reference homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle also would not be allowed. Similarly, theater groups, such as those at public universities and schools, could not perform plays penned by gay authors or containing homosexuality-related subject matter "at a state-supported institution." Taliban style public executions should be coming soon as well I imagine.