I just had a gallery image pulled with a Thorne and Sarsa character for V3 - Minuete - typical naked Vicky in a temple - that was clearly marked "upper nudity" and I even made her breasts larger so she would look older. So, are all of Thorne and Sarsa's characters under 18???? I think vendors need to say the so-called age of their digital character so we artists do not get in trouble with the TOS folks - because there is no clear rule of which characters are over 18.

It is based on appearance. V3 can be morphed to most any age with the right products. You should contact the Staff for details.

ratscloset
aka John

Thorne & Sarsa make very good characters. However, they do normally have them appear to be in the teen bracket. When I saw Minuette, I thought they had put a young teen girls head on a womans body.  I personally wouldn't have put her in the nude as I know some people would find it a bit distasteful. This is the problem with making characters for V3. We assume she will be a fully grown woman, this appears to not be the case as it all seems to depend on her facial appearance.

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=1202802&Artist=Jules53757&Start=1&ByArtist=Yes

IMO, not the base character is the hint it's the appearence. If you look at this lady , beleave it or not, it's Laura 3 and the lady for sure doen't look like a preteen.

---

Ulli

"Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience!"

As stated before many times, each image is judged on its own merits and a majority opinion sought from staff before any action is taken.

The base character may serve as a general guide to age, but since all meshes are morphable, we cannot give a "blanket rule" for all images using that mesh.

Karen

---

"you are terrifying
and strange and beautiful
something not everyone knows how to love." - Warsan Shire

I've been wondering about that rule since it came into being, was it created as a response to complaints raised against the gallery? And if so, was 'virtual' child nudity an increasing problem before this rule was put into action?

The "no nudity on characters appearing underage" has been in the TOS for many years.
It was clarified around a year ago and at the same time changed to prevent topless shots of young girls.

The wording and rules were put in place in response to both complaints from members viewing the galleries, and a problem with increasing numbers of inappropriate images of children and/or inappropriate comments on images of children.

Karen

---

"you are terrifying
and strange and beautiful
something not everyone knows how to love." - Warsan Shire

We have never had a need to put the age on a character  because:

1. What it says in the store promo text has no bearing whatsoever on the subjective judments of the gallery admins.

2. The admin are going to "age" the doll by their own personal criteria, i.e., it is completely subjective to the viewers who decide these things. For example, Karen's cute little avatar picture here looks to me to be about 12 or 14, but then she isn't naked either. ;o)

3. There are many characters in the marketplace displayed nude (not ours), especially Aiko3 characters and some Miki's, that have very young faces; large breasts, bald pubes, or lack thereof notwithstanding. The Marketplace has said that Aiko is an adult figure and seems to understand the concept of anime. However, these same images would NEVER pass in the galleries because the galleries are still judged subjectively. I will certainly not point out which images or products because there are already plenty enough people to do that. Also I am not making judgements, only stating facts.  I utterly and completely respect Renderosity's right to make their own decisions on these things.

I suggest simply making another version that has the nipples covered. Then you would have "Nipple Covered Vickie in a Temple with a Sword", but at least it would probably be okay to post in the galleries here.  Alternately, please feel free to post tasteful, non-sexual nude images at http://www.faeriewylde.com of any of ours, or any other characters.

Lastly,  thank you very much, Drifterlee, for your purchase, and please understand we have no voice in these matters, even if we included their drivers licenses. ;o) Your image is welcomed at FaerieWylde, and with over 8,000 members would probably get more "first page" exposure anyway. ;o)

Hehehe, Thorne, people keep saying that, but I was 31 when that pic was taken :o)

---

"you are terrifying
and strange and beautiful
something not everyone knows how to love." - Warsan Shire

Quote - I've been wondering about that rule since it came into being, was it created as a response to complaints raised against the gallery? And if so, was 'virtual' child nudity an increasing problem before this rule was put into action?

I TOO second this question.  I TOO want to know.  This whole issue is very surrealistic.  I can buy David Hamilton's books, which involve REAL pubescent HUMAN females posed and photographed in the nude, at my local bookshop in Tel-Aviv; but 'I' or anybody else is forbidden to render similar images in Poser, which on comprises only the arrangement and rearrangement of digital values (As to whether I WANT to render any such image, that is STRICKLY my own affair, and not one I'm willing to give truck to anyone to tell me differently).  Frankly, this whole attitude as to what constitutes CP as regards to CG images is both overly officious, and insane. 
As things stand now, all I can say is: "Cupid, go get a G-String, you're in violation of TOS!"
David P. Hoadley

  STOP PALESTINIAN CHILD ABUSE!!!! ISLAMIC HATRED OF JEWS

Hi David, please read my post for an answer.

Karen

---

"you are terrifying
and strange and beautiful
something not everyone knows how to love." - Warsan Shire

To me computer generated pixels have no age.  So far as I'm concerned they are neutered barbies or "toons" regardless of how "real" they may look.

I am not into porn, especially involving computer generated pixels. However, I personally have nothing against seeing nude pixels, because like I said, they aren't real and no real person is being  "exploited".

I would rather a pedophile get their rocks off on a computer generated "Barbie/toon" that looks 12 years old, than for them to go and snatch a 12 year old girl off of the street.

But then again I take my clothes off to shower and sleep too   :b_unbelievable:  so what do I know.

"It is good to see ourselves as others see us. Try as we may, we are never
able to know ourselves fully as we are, especially the evil side of us.
This we can do only if we are not angry with our critics but will take in good
heart whatever they might have to say." - Ghandi

i think shes under 3 years old ;)

Quote - I would rather a pedophile get their rocks off on a computer generated "Barbie/toon" that looks 12 years old, than for them to go and snatch a 12 year old girl off of the street.

Being that I'm not in the psychiatric field I have no idea if one leads to the other. However, I think the common perception of the "average person" is that the presence of one will lead to the desire of the other. Hence the reason that any type of child porn, either "real" or "digital", is of concern.

karen1573: The wording and rules were put in place in response to both complaints from members viewing the galleries, and a problem with increasing numbers of inappropriate images of children and/or inappropriate comments on images of children.

Are you saying what I think you are saying that there was images of actual children in a sexual context posted in the poser-gallery? If not, then the claim above is a false one, as others have already pointed out.

I do also remember that about a year ago (I think) the new red text warning was placed in the "upload image" page, and there was a form of crackdown which followed where alot of old images were deleted due to containing 'inappropriate material'. One of them belonging to the most commented crowd and thus would unlikely have gone unnoticed before this.

The answer you gave was unfortunaly only a confirmation of what we already knew, if some material is deemed inappropriate for whatever reason then any rule that prohibits posting this material makes sense. But this isn't what was asked.

Deecey: However, I think the common perception of the "average person" is that the presence of one will lead to the desire of the other. Hence the reason that any type of child porn, either "real" or "digital", is of concern.

Is it also the perception of the average person that the existence of homosexual pornography will create more gay people? Isn't this just an appeal to popularity?

kinggoran ... I didn't say that is the way I felt, just my thoughts about why the laws might have been written the way they are.  In this case, the law was written to protect innocent children from harm.

And, yes, I would imagine that there are some people who think the existence of homosexual pornography creates gay people. I'm not one of them, but I'm sure there are some. 8-)

For the record, I love Thorne's work and find it strange that there might be some who think of it as "kiddie porn" ... but I didn't write the laws or the rules of various companies and Internet sites.  We all have different opinions on this issue, but whether we like them or not we have laws and rules to abide by. And each site owner interprets those laws and rules differently and errs on the side of caution in their own eyes.

kinggoran:

Are you saying what I think you are saying that there was images of actual children in a sexual context posted in the poser-gallery? If not, then the claim above is a false one, as others have already pointed out.

We wouldn't accept photos in the Poser gallery.
I referred to both photos and Poser images.
To what "claim" do you refer?

---

"you are terrifying
and strange and beautiful
something not everyone knows how to love." - Warsan Shire

I certainly never posted any "kiddie porn", considering I am a 55 year old mother of two grown daughters, three cats, two rabbits, one hamster and my Egyptian mare, Mindy. I just thought the character was pretty, and there was nothing sexual about the image. I think some of this TOS has gone in the wrong direction, quite honestly.

Deecey: kinggoran ... I didn't say that is the way I felt, just my thoughts about why the laws might have been written the way they are.  In this case, the law was written to protect innocent children from harm.

The interesting question here would be: Does it protect innocent children from harm? If no evidence of this can be produced then what are the laws/rules for? Obviously, as has been pointed out already, rules like these are impractical as they rely on a measurement of something that does not exist (the age of a Poser-figure). It's sort of like trying to determine the colours of the emperor's new clothes. :-)

Deecey: We all have different opinions on this issue, but whether we like them or not we have laws and rules to abide by.

Being foremost a fractal-artist, I don't have much of a choice as it is very difficult to create images of human beings using fractals. Just for the record, I have no intention whatsoever of breaking such rules, and I do not contest the owners of Renderosity's rights to create them. I am merely curious.

karen1573: To what "claim" do you refer?

The one that said that inappropriate images of children had been posed in the Poser-gallery.

kinggoran:
I said that inappropriate images of children had been posted in the galleries. I didn't specify which gallery, but in fact many genre galleries have had inappropriate images removed.
Let me rephrase...
"The wording and rules were put in place in response to both complaints from members viewing the galleries, and a problem with increasing numbers of inappropriate images of underage figures and/or inappropriate comments on images of underage figures."

*and for "underage figures" you can take that as both "human children" and "Poser meshes designed to look like children".

---

"you are terrifying
and strange and beautiful
something not everyone knows how to love." - Warsan Shire

drifterlee You didn't do anything wrong. I once thought a Vicky character I posted was only pretty and they pulled mine also. Nothing to be done about it since it's their call.

My brain is just a toy box filled with weird things

Why I was sure when I saw this thread's title that it surely would have a lot of answers...?

Why people open threads with the same endless questions?

Why I'm posting this here instead of wasting my time drawing some boobs?

(oofffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff...)

CASETTE
=======
"Poser isn't a SOFTWARE... it's a RELIGION!"

What I think is happening  here is only the beginning of what is to come.

There have been no changes to the gallery other than the "child /perceived child nudity" rules.  However, I suspect that it won't be long before a total "no nudity of any kind " will be introduced. This way there won't be any cause for debate or ho'ing and hum'ing about is it over/under 18?

I'm sure the moderators and admins are tired of having to make independent decisions, and I know we're tired of having someone look at something and tell us it's "dirty" or "inappropriate" and can't be posted "here" based on their own opinion; it's like my opinion has no merit.

There is a difference between "pornography" and "nudity" and "nude art".

Pornography involves sexual acts/poses for the purpose of sexual arousal.  The poses tend to be "out there" for maximum exposure and arousal.. such as "look at my genitals" or "look at my big boobies" type poses.

Nude(ity) is what we all are when we're born and what some of us continue to be when we shower, sleep, swim, or spend our days at home.

Nude Art is not meant to be sexually arousing. It's meant to celebrate the human form. Some of the greatest sculpturs and painters of our time and before have created beautiful nudes, that are still admired and coveted today....many of those depict children or what could be looked at as young teens.   These paintings and sculptures sit in private collections and public galleries and are admired.  The poses are casual, innocent, day-to-day living type, or erotic in a non sexual way (IE: a figure sleeping with the covers thrown off, a faery sitting on a flower with a bubble wand and butterflies, cupid flying around with a bow and arrow etc)

What is going on is that in some people's minds, these 3 genre's are being lumped into one, especially when it comes to perceived children.... or pixel "children".

As for nude images of  "children" in the galleries, I've seen many. Not everyone who posts their nude self portraits are of age.  You might want to browse around the art community to find out how many underage teens are exploiting themselves around the net in various galleries, including this one.

"It is good to see ourselves as others see us. Try as we may, we are never
able to know ourselves fully as we are, especially the evil side of us.
This we can do only if we are not angry with our critics but will take in good
heart whatever they might have to say." - Ghandi

Thorne,  if you are still looking in this post  -- following e-bot replies -- for the record: I love your dolls.  Sylfie has my heart as few characters have had for some time.  Thank you very much for your fine work.  Long live Sarsa and Thorne!

 

Best Wishes All,

Rªnce

y'all should complain to the congress of the united states of america, since that's where the laws get made that have sites like this one worried they might get in trouble if there is even a hint of what some prude out there considers inappropriate sexualizing of children. and there are many such prudes, so i don't blame individual US sites for getting their virtual knickers in a knot. what do you expect in a country that's so screwed up about anything that could even remotely be linked to sex, and that's been consistently moving to the right in the last decade? and really, it's not like it's 100% certain to determine what's "just nudity" and what's sexually arousing, since the latter is intensely personal, and people are aroused by the darndest things (have a look at the still active fetish thread). the line is impossible to draw firmly. and therefore the rules can't be firm either, but have to be flexible. and mods will err on the side of caution. it does little good to pound on the mods here, or even on the site owners. are you ready to carry the legal costs for them? i'm not. if i wanted to post nude childlike appearing figures, i'd do so on my own server, so the person responsible for it would be only myself. i recommend that to anyone who feels artistically suppressed here.

Quote - mods will err on the side of caution. it does little good to pound on the mods here, or even on the site owners. are you ready to carry the legal costs for them? i'm not. if i wanted to post nude childlike appearing figures, i'd do so on my own server, so the person responsible for it would be only myself. i recommend that to anyone who feels artistically suppressed here.

Easy to say and a sound business decision but what happens when they start cracking down on individuals as well? Just like the RIAA did going after each and every downloader?  Since art sites have buckled under to this pressure about the hypothetical age of pixels, what else are they going to cave into next?

If an ID card works to show proof of age for models in photos, why can't the same be applied to digital models? If they are going to apply child porn laws to CGI characters why not be consistent and apply the same ID card laws to them as well?

That would certainly solve the problem and avoid the judgement calls necessary for the case by case basis by having a consistent standard and save the mods a lot of work.

If some say that ID cards aren't valid for digital models than the same applies to trying to apply the child porn laws to them also, each makes the same amount of sense since they follow the same logical assumptions.

Click to get a printed and bound copy plus T-shirts, mugs and hats

If there is a "different" standard for the marketplace as opposed to the galleries, it seems there is a bit of hypocrisy going on but what else is new, money talks.  On the bright side, if there is one, perhaps it's better that they cater to the complaints.  The last thing we need is a group of "right-thinking" citizens starting a huge campaign against Poser "kiddie porn".

"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." - H. L. Mencken

Quote - Deecey: However, I think the common perception of the "average person" is that the presence of one will lead to the desire of the other. Hence the reason that any type of child porn, either "real" or "digital", is of concern.

Is it also the perception of the average person that the existence of homosexual pornography will create more gay people? Isn't this just an appeal to popularity?

I would lean more to an appeal to belief... but this would only be relavent if you were under the mistaken impression that logic of facts had any bearing in these discussions.

My Homepage - Free stuff and Galleries

what happens when they start cracking down on individuals as well? first they have to have jurisdiction, and not all of us are in the US. then it has to be worth it; this isn't quite the same thing as the RIAA, because nobody loses any money just because we render nude fairies. also, it is not at all certain that your average nude fairy constitutes child porn even in the US (i have read the relevant law) -- a lot of sites are completely overreacting IMO. if they want to come after me because they want to prove in a court of law that my nude fairies are child porn, let them bring it on. (of course i would first have to render some nude fairies. maybe i'll do it tonight, just to have an actual render at which somebody could get offended.) what do we do then? we do what people whose form of expression has been persecuted have always done. we go underground. we'll post anonymously on servers located in less prudish jurisdictions. don't get me wrong, i am not advocating we just roll over and give up. i am strongly in favour of banding together and standing up to this type of idiocy right here and now. i just don't necessarily expect a site like renderosity to stand up to it for us. i haven't been here long, but this site doesn't strike me as being a force for artistic expression, it strikes me primarily as a business, and the galleries are meant to bring in more business. nude fairy lovers have to look elsewhere for support.

Quote - i am strongly in favour of banding together and standing up to this type of idiocy right here and now. i just don't necessarily expect a site like renderosity to stand up to it for us. i haven't been here long, but this site doesn't strike me as being a force for artistic expression, it strikes me primarily as a business, and the galleries are meant to bring in more business. nude fairy lovers have to look elsewhere for support.

It won't help. The decision was made last year and had something to do with PayPal.

"It is good to see ourselves as others see us. Try as we may, we are never
able to know ourselves fully as we are, especially the evil side of us.
This we can do only if we are not angry with our critics but will take in good
heart whatever they might have to say." - Ghandi

Quote - It won't help. The decision was made last year and had something to do with PayPal.

*The trouble with that agument was it was never proved that the amount of  "chargebacks" on credit cards that Paypal was so worried about wouldn't happen with those "adult" guidelines they wanted to enforce in place, since it didn't do anything about stopping that kind of fraud.

In all other cases of child porn that Congress has dealt with, the photographers and distributers were required to have valid proof of age on file in the forms of indentification. If all they were worried about was the liability of being sued then that would be all they would have to do to conform to the letter of the law.  I'm certain that if photographers only went on a case by case basis to determine the age of their models by the judgement of the web site mods they would be leaving themselves wide open to lawsuits.

So both those arguements don't seem to provide solutions to the problems they say they want to fix.

Click to get a printed and bound copy plus T-shirts, mugs and hats

Quote - > Quote -

In all other cases of child porn that Congress has dealt with, the photographers and distributers were required to have valid proof of age on file in the forms of indentification. If all they were worried about was the liability of being sued then that would be all they would have to do to conform to the letter of the law.  I'm certain that if photographers only went on a case by case basis to determine the age of their models by the judgement of the web site mods they would be leaving themselves wide open to lawsuits.

And in the case of pixels, proof of age is not only impossible, but even ridiculous, hehe...so that should mean that computer generated pixels are exempt.  However, here they aren't.

"It is good to see ourselves as others see us. Try as we may, we are never
able to know ourselves fully as we are, especially the evil side of us.
This we can do only if we are not angry with our critics but will take in good
heart whatever they might have to say." - Ghandi

That's that whole point isn't it? If they aren't exempt from being considered child porn, then they have to be able to show proof of age in the form of ID.

You can't have one without the other since if you accept  they can be underage, then they have to be able to be of legal age at some point. If you concede that they can't show proof of age then they can't be considered underage or child porn at any point.

You would think any lawyer worth their salt could prove that if the procecution tries to prove child porn that they can show that proof of age is possible and if refuted on that point that it refutes the whole assumption.

What is still up for debate seems to be with the solutions that have been decided upon, are the problems what they have been telling the members? Since their seems to be a big difference in what they say the problem is and what effect of the solutions are.

Click to get a printed and bound copy plus T-shirts, mugs and hats

another thread like this?-_-

the limits to the gallery arent due to the law, it was ruled (in the servers area) that
computer generated pics weren't kiddie porn, the decision was "claimed" to be cuz paypal
yet i look at sites like CP, which allows paypal as well, and see promo pics that renderosity
wouldn't show, including some clearly underage, making the paypal excuse a bit useless

not allowing due to  innappropriate comments, and complaints? perhaps
but its an art site, art comes in all forms, i knew a guy who got a boner seeing his BOAT
behold the age of boat porn! oh man look at that engine! so strong! ......umm x_x

if people dont wish to see images, they dont have to look, but they choose to, to give
themselves something to complain about. those great paintings and statues that were made?
many people dont want them to be shown, but they were reconized as art, and in museums
do the people still complain? ofcourse

and on a side note about paypal, anyone checked out ebay lately?
ebay owns paypal, and ebay has some items that would fuel complaints for many years :P

Bored

(unsuscribing)

CASETTE
=======
"Poser isn't a SOFTWARE... it's a RELIGION!"

Quote - Hehehe, Thorne, people keep saying that, but I was 31 when that pic was taken :o)

In that case, given an image that looks exactly like that, one would have to say that the character looks 31 - because that's what a 31-year old woman looks like. This subjective judging is flawed because it makes no allowance for the wide range of human physiology, and furthermore, is strongly ethnocentric (I could phrase that more strongly).

Where "looks like under 18" has to be called for is in cases where a real person might be committing an offence. If a person who looks underage tries to buy alcohol, then the cashier does have to make a check because this is a real person who has a real age.

In the case of a digital image or even a drawing, there is no real age. So it is really far less important. There are three possible categories:

1. Figures that have to be under 18 (babies, small children).
2. Figures that have to be older than 18 (wrinkled faces).
3. Figures that, given the range in human aging and type, might or might not be under 18.

Now, I do not see why you have to judge all images in category 3 to be 1 and not 2. If an image could be over 18, could in fact be 31, then leave it. There is no real person committing a crime.

Quote - Hehehe, Thorne, people keep saying that, but I was 31 when that pic was taken :o)

I DON'T BELIEVE IT!  Tell the truth, you accidentally inverted the numbers, and really meant 13. 
David P. Hoadley

  STOP PALESTINIAN CHILD ABUSE!!!! ISLAMIC HATRED OF JEWS

LOL David.

Maybe I should start selling my  "age defying secrets"?

Of course, that pic was taken about 4 months before I became a mod here. I might look a little older now ;-)

---

"you are terrifying
and strange and beautiful
something not everyone knows how to love." - Warsan Shire

Dear Keren;
I read in another thread that you have a son, age 10.  Children are a blessing.  But I still think that you look like an agemate of my youngest daughter, who is in the tenth grade this year.
David

  STOP PALESTINIAN CHILD ABUSE!!!! ISLAMIC HATRED OF JEWS

Maybe it's my son who keeps me young!

Although he's getting to the age now where he's probably going to start making me prematurely old, instead :biggrin:

---

"you are terrifying
and strange and beautiful
something not everyone knows how to love." - Warsan Shire

Quote - Maybe it's my son who keeps me young!
Although he's getting to the age now where he's probably going to start making me prematurely old, instead :biggrin:

You mean that instead of 13, someday you might ACTUALLY look 14 or 15?
Nah!  I don't believe it.  Your's is the face that will remain ageless, unlike the rest of us.
David P. Hoadley

  STOP PALESTINIAN CHILD ABUSE!!!! ISLAMIC HATRED OF JEWS

Formal censorship is by its nature idiotic. I seem to be the only person who has noticed the new nanny switch on the forums, the Language button. I always click it, because somehow I always seem to be using language to post. So now we are censoring "language." Whatever that means. It means whatever you want it to mean, folks, like the Victorians who called the lower part of a chair its "limbs" to avoid vulgarity.

Seriously, WTF (EEeeekkkkk ! He said "F"!!!) does "language" mean? My mother reprimanded me nearly fifty years ago for saying something was "screwed up." My response was "You're kidding." She wasn't. She also whacked us for saying "Jeeez," "Cripes," and "Gol" because she knew what we mean. She had no problem with "catch a nigger by the toe," by the way. "Language" is not offensive unless it is meant to offend, a principle that the average boy figures out before he hits two digits.

Censorship depends on identifying intention. So when Garth Brooks puts an American flag on the butt of his jeans, that's Patriotic, but when Abby Hoffman does it, it's Treason. And that American Indian fancy dancer with his face painted red and white and blue? You know what we did to them, so they must hate us, so it must be an insult. Right.

Sexual aggression, like all forms of aggression, should be regulated by the authorities, and the penalites should take into account the helplessness of the victims. But pornography, however repulsive, is meta-sexual. If there is harm, it is to the models, and you can't traumatize a mesh. There may be a case for censoring images of explicit sex involving children, but trying to legislate the "offensiveness" of nudity is a crock. But yes, R'osity owns the crock, so the question is moot and they can forbid pictures of cows sensuously chewing cud if they want to.

What the censors want to do is control what you think. If you don't resist that, you are a fool. I don't know what you think.You don't know what I'm thinking (just as well), and even if I tell you, you will interpret it. That's why we have freedom of speech.

I find semi-adolescent "fairies" and manga kiddies with balloon boobs very unpleasant to look at, and David Hamilton's photos strike me is over the line. But it's MY line, and I don't want Hamilton's books burned, I just stay away from them. I am far more deeply offended by the demeaning caricatures of women that make up the preponderance of R'osity's gallery images than I am of a photo -- yes, even a photo -- of a child incidentally nude. And anyone who thinks naked children are "pornographic" is a very sick, sick individual, pedophile or not.

I think you should just give it up, its not going to change anything. The admin will carry on just as they see fit. if your not “in” you will get your images pull and be banned for a few days,. But others work will stay, only today an image was posted that showed a female that (imo) looked under age with under developed breasts, a one off maybe? But looking at the artists gallery there was another image very much like the 1st. also in the same gallery an image of a vampire with his hand on a woman’s breast, ok she did have a top on so that’s ok( as the admins say “ so long as the hand is supporting and not fondling its ok” but I wonder. Why is not ok to have a ribbon or some such other covering an under age botticelli? But ok to have a hand, alien probe going where the sun don’t shine? Mmm maybe you can if your “in”.

So I say give it up. They know best, after all they are the admins

i find i funny how people act like its kiddie porn, when no kiddie is involved

does this mean that kids with crayons are making kiddie porn too?
all the naked stick kids!! ahh!!! BAN THE CRAYONS!!!!!

ok had my morning laugh runs back to rendering boobies

Quote - i find i funny how people act like its kiddie porn, when no kiddie is involved

The court of public opinion gives no weight to what is legal nor what is logical.

The court of public opinion is only interested in giving knee jerk emotionaly charged overractions to sensationalized situations.

My Homepage - Free stuff and Galleries

The trouble is that businesses are alot more concerned with CYA so they bow to sensationlized situations even if they are only emotionally charged knee jerk overractions.

Click to get a printed and bound copy plus T-shirts, mugs and hats

Incidentally, it is common on "adult" sites, that operate on a similar basis to Renderosity, to forbid ALL depiction of children, clothed or otherwise. I think this is perfectly right. The argument is, that on a site the very purpose of which is overtly erotic, any image appearing is eroticised by implication.

The other side of the coin is that for a site that is not erotic (like Renderosity) the depiction of nakedness is simply the representation of the natural state of mankind, whether of children or adults. In image of a child with no clothes on should cause no more trouble than the countless paintings of the child Jesus that you can see in any art gallery.

Quote - The trouble is that businesses are alot more concerned with CYA so they bow to sensationlized situations even if they are only emotionally charged knee jerk overractions.

Unfortunatly there are some very real consequenses to these emotionally charged knee jerk overractions. How well a business covers their backside may be the diffrence between staying in business and being ruined financialy by lawsuits, and/or hardware confiscation.

 

My Homepage - Free stuff and Galleries

Attached Link: NoPants-LOGO

What we need is some grassroots movement.

Show your support for N.O. P.A.N.T.S.

N.O. P.A.N.T.S. is

Non-agers

Opposing

Panickers

And

Narrowminded goody

Two

Shoes.

Download the N.O. P.A.N.T.S. logo, and put it on the clothing the TOS forces you to use:

Show them that they can make you put cotton over your Faeries a**,

but not the wool over your eyes.

FAERIE LIB, NOW !

stahlratte

RIGHT ON, BROTHER!  RIGHT ON!!! Amen to that!

  STOP PALESTINIAN CHILD ABUSE!!!! ISLAMIC HATRED OF JEWS

Attached Link: Ready to join in Support

Sounds like something that other similar organizations can endorse wholeheartedly. FAERIE LIB  is a cause who's time has come. The battle is never-ending against the forces of repression of every kind.

Click to get a printed and bound copy plus T-shirts, mugs and hats

Doesn't matter what your opinion is, basically if you want to post in the gallery you will follow the tos or your image will be taken down. If I had a concern I would ask first, rather than waste the time arguing about it. These threads are a waste of space, since they will not change anyone's mind in one direction or another. They just keep showing up.

 

Quote - Doesn't matter what your opinion is, basically if you want to post in the gallery you will follow the tos or your image will be taken down. -  These threads are a waste of space, since they will not change anyone's mind in one direction or another. They just keep showing up.

this guys post is flamitory, disrespectful, and rude! not to mention killing the hopeful
thoughts that someday we may live in a community where we may be free to make/show art!
and his opinion is very offensive to me!

runs back to drawing crayon stick figure porn

jk with all the above, dont get grumpy :P <3

Quote - Doesn't matter what your opinion is, basically if you want to post in the gallery you will follow the tos or your image will be taken down. If I had a concern I would ask first, rather than waste the time arguing about it. These threads are a waste of space, since they will not change anyone's mind in one direction or another. They just keep showing up.

You should show more respect for the power of ideas to change human perspective.  Look at the history of the woman's Sufferage movement, at the Abolitionist movement, at the history of the cold War.  It's not that this particular thread, or that particular thread, will change a policy or a TOS; but that the cumulative weight of ALL the threads, like drops of water falling upon the hardest granite,  together will wear away resistance, and bring about change.
And even if they don't, at least we raised our voice, and didn't passively acquiesce to this usurpation of our RIGHTS to be the sole guardian of conscience, and to self expression.

  STOP PALESTINIAN CHILD ABUSE!!!! ISLAMIC HATRED OF JEWS

Quote - These threads are a waste of space, since they will not change anyone's mind in one direction or another. They just keep showing up.

Wasn't it threads on similar subjects that got the child nudity guidelines put in place?

I would guess that a motivation that effects the bottom line in a similar fashion would change it to something different.

The trouble is that artistic freedom doesn't put any money in peoples pockets. Something that would probably would make a change for the worse not better.

Click to get a printed and bound copy plus T-shirts, mugs and hats

Quite honestly, the strict guidelines are the result, I think, of the huge swing to the far Right here in the States. If Rosity was located in Holland or France, I doubt if bare breasts would be such an issue - correct me if I'm wrong. I'm afraid it is going to get worse here in the States. As a citizen, I think I am losing more and more of rights every day. I seem to recall that women can go topless at many beaches in Europe - like the French Riviera. Here, good old George W. would like to turn back the clock 100 years for women.

If I remember correctly it was money that started it since they have a tos to follow with the paypal folks. What does George Bush have to do with this??? There are quite a few posted topless beaches here in California and Oregon that I know of for sure....don't understand what that's got to do with the renderosity tos either.

well, considering DAZ is only about 10 years old (I think), they're all children..;)

Problem is, lawsuits and prosecutions aren't done by average people..;)

 

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

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

Quote - Incidentally, it is common on "adult" sites, that operate on a similar basis to Renderosity, to forbid ALL depiction of children, clothed or otherwise. I think this is perfectly right. The argument is, that on a site the very purpose of which is overtly erotic, any image appearing is eroticised by implication.

This makes perfect sense. The Coppertone girl (the toddler, not the newer parody) has a very different meaning displayed on a porn site. Let's stop calling them "adult" sites, shall we? Talk about Orwellian language!

Quote -
You should show more respect for the power of ideas to change human perspective.  Look at the history of the woman's Sufferage movement, at the Abolitionist movement, at the history of the cold War.  It's not that this particular thread, or that particular thread, will change a policy or a TOS; but that the cumulative weight of ALL the threads, like drops of water falling upon the hardest granite,  together will wear away resistance, and bring about change.
And even if they don't, at least we raised our voice, and didn't passively acquiesce to this usurpation of our RIGHTS to be the sole guardian of conscience, and to self expression.

Amen. There is the justification for every voice saying "Not me, you won't!" The world is full of compromises that degrade and acquiesences that perpetuated evil. Let the Neville Chamberlains peddle their piece, but don't buy.

M

Chamberlain waves in triumph the paper containing his submission to Hitler's demands on his return from Germany at Heston Airport in September 1938. He said:

"My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time."

The question that he WASN"T asked at the time was: 'Is it a real peace, or a piece of...'

 

  STOP PALESTINIAN CHILD ABUSE!!!! ISLAMIC HATRED OF JEWS

Child porn in whatever form... Photographic and Digital ......is wrong!  And whatever we can do to stop it should be done.

Art showing children in their natural state, as long as artistic and not pornographic isn't wrong.

I do agree though if a picture shows someone that looks over 18 then it should be allowed.

"I didn't lose my mind, it was mine to give away"

Funny, if you look at nudes from the 1300-1600's, they have no pubic hair. I guess pubic hair was considered "offensive". Thorne's idead of covering the nipples might solve some of the offense but maybe not. Interesting idea though. Funny how morality changes. In the US, men love big breasts, in Brasil, they love big butts. To each their own.

http://schuetzenpowder.com/sigs.jpg

Quote - Child porn in whatever form... Photographic and Digital ......is wrong!  And whatever we can do to stop it should be done.
Art showing children in their natural state, as long as artistic and not pornographic isn't wrong.
I do agree though if a picture shows someone that looks over 18 then it should be allowed.

The problem is that one man's ART is another man's Porn, and visa-vesa.  The best judge of what is porn and what is art is the artist himself, and in THAT it is best if he is left unfettered and untrammelled.  I AM THE BEST JUDGE AND GUARDIAN OF MY OWN CONSCIENCE!  And if, in the name of ARTISTIC FREEDOM, digital renders should be an interpreted as an advocacy for the right to perpetrate child porn, then so be it!
David P. Hoadley

  STOP PALESTINIAN CHILD ABUSE!!!! ISLAMIC HATRED OF JEWS

Pictures showing children in sexual acts is child porn.....and that is wrong no matter what.

"I didn't lose my mind, it was mine to give away"

Quote - Pictures showing children in sexual acts is child porn.....and that is wrong no matter what.

True!

http://schuetzenpowder.com/sigs.jpg

Attached Link: An Example of a wildly different perception

> Quote - Pictures showing children in sexual acts is child porn.....and that is wrong no matter what.

I haven't heard of anyone trying to post those here, but they haven't stopped at banning those, they have gone even farther in banning everything that is even remotely childlike and even slightly nude. To borrow the expression "It's throwing out the baby with the bathwater." > Quote - Art showing children in their natural state, as long as artistic and not pornographic isn't wrong. . The problem is that one man's ART is another man's Porn, and visa-vesa

That's exactly why judgement on a case by case basis is not a fair and consistent standard. The mods have seen a lot of stuff and know by and large what fits in the guidelines or not but there are some discrepanies where even a group of them are making mistakes on the close ones and that kind of thing can throw off the standard so that the fear is to not put the effort into any since they might not be acceptable. For example, someone (that went by the name of a senate majority leader that was kicked out no less) commented on the image and called it bestiality when the figure was only standing next to a horse. These are the kind of people that are the most vocal complaint that busuness are so afraid of the lawsuits from. Is it fair to have to kowtow to such just because of their perceptions?

Click to get a printed and bound copy plus T-shirts, mugs and hats

"Pictures showing children in sexual acts is child porn.....and that is wrong no matter what."

"True!"

Alright, you two know-it-alls, put you money where your mouths are: Define for me the difference between child porn, as opposed to artistic license with nude pre-teen models. 
Draw for me a description that includes both adolescent nudity and artistry, that someone prude wouldn't consider pornography.
I doubt  you can.  Which is why it is the ARTIST who must be the judge of these things, because censorship is simply intolerable in a FREE society.
David P. Hoadley

  STOP PALESTINIAN CHILD ABUSE!!!! ISLAMIC HATRED OF JEWS

Okay.......so if a person owns 100000s of pictures of kids doing something sexual that is grossly inapporpiate it's ok as long as your an artist?

Child porn no matter whether done in art form or not is wrong. FULL STOP...an under 16 shown, in any kind of image,  doing any kind of sexual act is wrong. Anyone who says different in   MY OPINION..is wrong and needs their head testing.

99.9% of "people" found to have child pornography on their computer/in their homes are paedophiles and who rape and murder our children.  I am not saying pictures of nude children are wrong as long as they are in their own natural environment....but personally and I am sure there are 1000s of other people who say the same .....I do not want to see 2 ten year olds in a sexual provacative act. It's not natural and again in MY OPINION...is downright sick.

I can now see the paedophiles who may come on this site (I am not saying that they do by the way....I am speaking theorectically) will now stand up in court, when caught, and say....."but it's ok your honour...I am an artist"

"I didn't lose my mind, it was mine to give away"

See what happens without a consistent standard? Who said anything about sexual acts, when the subject was about only nudity? Performing sexual acts wasn't why the character for V3 - Minuete was deleted, so why drag it into it?

It's those kind of overreactions that fuel the debate and skew it into the fear that keeps people avoiding the whole area since they figure why bother when someone somewhere is going to find something wrong with it.

Click to get a printed and bound copy plus T-shirts, mugs and hats

Argon....sorry I know the question about v3 wasn't about sexual acts.....but someone asked what defined child pornography and I gave my opinion further up. If you read my first post you will see what I put and therefore responded as so.

"I didn't lose my mind, it was mine to give away"

Who said anything about children engaged in sexual acts, and for that matter, define for me what does and what doesn't comprise a sexual act.  You have both failed to meet my test, which I predicted that you would do.  Now, exercise your grey cells, and give me a decent defanition which will incorporate all fo my above stated parameters.  You yourselves said that artistic child nudity was acceptable, NOW define it in black and white terms that we can all understand -AND QUITE PREVARICATING!  AND QITE DODGING THE ISSUE WITH RIDICULOUS RHETORIC!  And if you cannot define it, then leave us in peace to live and let live.  The ARTIST needs to be the final judge of what is ART, not a pack of philistine prudes.
David P. Hoadley

  STOP PALESTINIAN CHILD ABUSE!!!! ISLAMIC HATRED OF JEWS

Lmao DPHoadley I can assure you I am no prude in any sense or form. You should go take a peek at my gallery and then you will see what I mean. I am not against nudity at all. If you had used your grey cells and read my post properly you would have seen I said that child nudity isn't wrong as long as it isn't porn and I have said that in my opinion my defnintion of child pornography is showing children under 16 doing sexual/inappropiate acts.

If you are so clever why don't you tell us, the philistine prudes, what exactly defines child pornography in your eyes and art? I would love to see your answer.

And btw...I choose when to take a test...not to be ordered to :O)

"I didn't lose my mind, it was mine to give away"

"Okay.......so if a person owns 100000s of pictures of kids doing something sexual that is grossly inapporpiate it's ok as long as your an artist?"
Rhetoric!  Nothing more and nothing less than silly rhetoric!  It was just enough for me to read this tendencious one line to see little point in reading any further.

"If you are so clever why don't you tell us, the philistine prudes, what exactly defines child pornography in your eyes and art? I would love to see your answer."
I have no answer, but then I son't peresume to set myself up as a judge and jury over others.  I think it is the provenence of each man to be the guardian of his own conscience.
David P.  Hoadley
And by the way, I do have a name.

  STOP PALESTINIAN CHILD ABUSE!!!! ISLAMIC HATRED OF JEWS

Quote - You have both failed to meet my test, which I predicted that you would do.

What did you mean by you both? since I had only proposed an ID to satisfy the limits that others wanted impose.

 I don't peresume to set myself up as a judge and jury over others. I'd agree with that, but then why did you want to judge the definition? Also why jump to conclusions rush to judgement  about your supposed test?

Sexual acts of any kind have been banned here, male erect nudity, and child nudity also, some with good reasons and some with not. But by judging on a case by case basis by a group who knows what will be judged to be in a banned category until simply standing by a horse could be judged as beastiality?

Click to get a printed and bound copy plus T-shirts, mugs and hats

Right ok. I see. I am too tired to continue with this. I don't see any point really. You demand us to answer questions but then won't answer back. Last thing I will say is...I don't judge anyone. Anyone who knows me personally would tell you this. I have many friends from all genres of life and I take each and every person for their own individuality. The only people I do judge are the ones that hurt others intentionally.

"I didn't lose my mind, it was mine to give away"

I am probably gonna get flamed ALL to hell and back, but I agree with the TOS....I don't care if it IS just "pixels....I am a recovering sexual abuse victim..and I mean HORRENDOUS abuse....and trust me when I say....these sickos get off just as much on those "pixels" of nude children as they do a photo of them...I would rather BAN all child nudity...in "pixels" and in photographs on the internet than have the thoughts that some pervert is out there getting off on them.....wouldn't you? shrugs OH well.....I am out..and I am unsubscribing.. ;-)

Victims...aren't we all?

Before you ask, YES my avatar is a portrait of me painted by someone very dear to me, so don't even think of using yourself ...mmmkay????

Visit my site for all of my art Digital Deviant

(((((hugs))))))

"I didn't lose my mind, it was mine to give away"

Quote - (((((hugs))))))

 

smiles at the original kitten ;-)

Victims...aren't we all?

Before you ask, YES my avatar is a portrait of me painted by someone very dear to me, so don't even think of using yourself ...mmmkay????

Visit my site for all of my art Digital Deviant

The only people I do judge are the ones that hurt others intentionally. how is any child being harmed by a computer render of a nude virtual character?

I'm off to bed now.....but....If you read my posts correctly before commenting you would see I have nothing against nudity.

"I didn't lose my mind, it was mine to give away"

Quote - I am probably gonna get flamed ALL to hell and back, but I agree with the TOS....I don't care if it IS just "pixels....I am a recovering sexual abuse victim..and I mean HORRENDOUS abuse....and trust me when I say....these sickos get off just as much on those "pixels" of nude children as they do a photo of them...I would rather BAN all child nudity...in "pixels" and in photographs on the internet than have the thoughts that some pervert is out there getting off on them.....wouldn't you? shrugs OH well.....I am out..and I am unsubscribing.. ;-)

Isn't that the point I was trying to make? That truly is "throwing the baby out with the bathwater. "

If they are that sick that can get off on that, then they can do it with anything or nothing right?

It's not the "pixels" they are getting off on it's the ideas in their heads that they can twist into anything.

Why not just go to the source and ban the sickos instead of trying to mask the symptoms and make everyone else suffer for their damaged perceptions?

Click to get a printed and bound copy plus T-shirts, mugs and hats

originalkitten, i read your posts and found them somewhat unclear. i also want to step back from the confrontational tone the discussion took then, in order to find out just how you define your terms -- i believe it's not possible to have a fruitful discussion if the terms are unclear. the really interesting stuff happens in boundary conditions anyway. ok, so you do not think virtual nudity per se hurts anyone. does that include nudity of virtual children and teenagers? two little maddies splashing around in a bathtub, would that be ok to render? a group of young lauras and lukes skinny dipping on the first warm day of summer, is that ok? a 16-year-old nude aiko sunbathing on a beach on sylt (german paradise for naturists)? what about fairies; virtual imaginary characters? would a nude sylfie sleeping in a flower be ok?

In the US of A, the definition is embodied in Ttile 18 of the US Code:

"TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 110 > § 2256

§ 2256. Definitions for chapter
 
For the purposes of this chapter, the term—
(1) “minor” means any person under the age of eighteen years;
(2)
(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), “sexually explicit conduct” means actual or simulated—
(i) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex;
(ii) bestiality;
(iii) masturbation;
(iv) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
(v) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;

(B) For purposes of subsection 8(B) [1] of this section, “sexually explicit conduct” means—
(i) graphic sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex, or lascivious simulated sexual intercourse where the genitals, breast, or pubic area of any person is exhibited;
(ii) graphic or lascivious simulated;
(I) bestiality;
(II) masturbation; or
(III) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
(iii) graphic or simulated lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person"

Of course, this refers to actual children, not "pixels," see: http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/04/16/scotus.virtual.child.porn/

This was the pre Roberts/Alito court but since Justice O'Connor voted with the minority and Justice Thomas agreed with the majority, that opinion might well be upheld even today. 

'Rosity's rules clearly ban most and perhpas all of the proscribed depictions, even involving "adult" models.  In choosing to ban all depictions of nude "children," they are steering clear probably the most perilous area that exists.  Porn aside, many people, especially in the United States, feel strongly that any depiction of underage nudity is evil, perverted, etc.  The constituency who would defend the validity of such  on artistic or fee speech grounds is vanishing small by comparison. 

Even many of those who might agree are reluctant to stand up for fear of being branded as sickos.  On very rare occasions, people with deep pockets say "enough."  Barnes & Noble defended their right to sell photography books by Hamilton, Sturges, etc. and won.  The movie The Tin Drum  was ruled not to be child pornography after Christian fundamentalists in Oklahoma City attacked the film.

'Rosity is only doing what makes sense to them and protects their interests.  You might find some fault with them if you believe that they are really about art but does anyone really believe that?  The only dragon slayer here is Vicki and she has her hands full with people who want her to put clothes on.

"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." - H. L. Mencken

**pleonastic ......First of all in the Uk where I am, a teen can model nude from the age of 16 so the comment about a 16 year old aiko on a beach sunbathing nude I can't really answer as all my life I've been told it's ok. If I had daughters would I let my 16 year old sunbathe nude on the beach? No but I expect I wouldn't like my 22 year old year old either (i dont have 16 or 22 year olds again I am speaking theorectically). 

 But....I really don't know about the questions your asking. I think yes a nude sylfie on a flower fast asleep would be ok as there is no way, in my eyes, that picture could be taken as a sexual thrill by some pervert. The bathtub/skinny dipping is kinda hard to establish whether it would be ok. Because it could be taken sexually IMO. I don't render nudes of kids. Why? Because I wouldn't want some sexual predator taking them and getting pleasure out of something innocent.  I don't even put up pictures of my kids on the internet. I have them in one place and it's kinda secure and this has actualy reminded me to take them down as the people who I wanted to see them have seen them. It's wrong we cannot do this but evil people take our stuff and interpret them into something else. Something so innocent can be turned into something so evil. I was even cautious as I was bring up my boys who are now 7 and 11 (next mth) of letting them run around nude in our garden. Because in this day and age you never know who is watching. It's totally wrong....and shouldn't be. I mean we are born naked and there should be nothing wrong with it but unfortunately in this day and age we have to be careful and protect our young ones. 

What I was stating/arguing that was that a picture showing a child in some form of sexual activity is wrong. I hope you don't expect me to go into explicit detail because I won't and I hope you get the idea of what I mean.  I do apologise now if my answers are confusing because I haven't had sleep for at least 2 nights so kinda on autopilot atm.

Something someone said to me yesterday while debating this in private was that they thought it would be a good idea if merchants gave an age limit on their characters. I.e. this character is supposed to be under 18 etc. Or if Rosity gave guidelines for a character that could be classed as a child. I respect their decision to now allow any of the mil kids as nude and don't argue with that fact but if someone is cleary over 18 they should be allowed to present that picture.

Again I apologise if this is gobbledegook.
**

"I didn't lose my mind, it was mine to give away"

Quote - ...in this day and age you never know who is watching.

They are the same types of people who were there before.

My Homepage - Free stuff and Galleries

any pic, no matter whats in it, can be used by some pervert somewhere in the world
human, animal, boat -_^......doesnt matter, but by going too far over the line of not
allowing pics, takes away freedom of art and expression

if i take a pic from past history that is in museums, and clearly celebrated as art
for centuries, it would be taken down, because a baby boy has a nipple showing
a statue of cupid, hello stone! it would be taken down (2 were accually, not mine)
if a guy is going to get his jollies off on a statue, i couldnt care less

so even world wide recognised art gets taken down, and the same types of people
that look at them, have done so since they were made

the people who look at kids, same types of people have existed all through time
did the internet, or any of these pics, exist during the roman empire? no they didnt
were the same kind of people there? yep

tech may have changed to allow more people in the world to see things, but the people
are still the same as they have always been, and that wont change by taking pics down
and taking away everyones freedom, and until a society recognises that limiting
a persons freedom doesnt solve the problem, a society will never be as "free" and
"superior" as it claims to be, and after a point, the society falls from its own lies

most of my gallery has long time been deleted, i have no reason to put up pics here
i dont make anything remotely close to this (mostly portraits), but if freedoms are
limited due to a few narrow minded people who are after money, then i dont need to
post anything at all, doing so shows they have control of me, which they dont

Quote - did the internet, or any of these pics, exist during the roman empire? no they didnt

These types of depictions have been made throughout history. I ran across one in a history book several years ago. The Roman Empire would not have been immune.

 

My Homepage - Free stuff and Galleries

**it would be a good idea if merchants gave an age limit on their characters

****Isn't that what I've been saying all along? It would simplify things and clear up a lot of misunderstandings, if the characters had proof of age as required with an ID.

The only problem is that the artist can morph each image to be different than what the merchant supplied so there would have to be an ID supplied for each image.

Photographers and publishers routinely keep these kinds of records in the fashion industry so it shouldn't be that much trouble to set up such a system. Certainly much less hassle than wondering what the judgement is going to be after you put all the effort into it. That way you could tell beforehand if it was going to be acceptable.**

Click to get a printed and bound copy plus T-shirts, mugs and hats

I can't believe that people are getting their knickers in a twist over images which feature GCI reps of the human body.

Whether or not you agree with Rosity's rules, if you're here you have to abide by them. Whether or not you agree with your country's rules, you should abide by them if you want to stay out on the streets.

The only people I can see with an agenda here are kid fiddlers.  Flame me if you like; I'm really past caring.

Coppula eam se non posit acceptera jocularum.

My Store

My Gallery

o_O i dont swing that way, to me its eww, but so is the stuff in that still growing fetish thread
im scared to enter that thread......shrugs especially after i saw the word cockroach

i have NO interest in that, yet im here, saying its against freedom, so your theory blows :P no offence

**Isn't that what I've been saying all along? It would simplify things and clear up a lot of misunderstandings, if the characters had proof of age as required with an ID.

In a medium where a lot of the art we generate is fantasy, and the characters portrayed can be anywhere from infant to thousands of years old, I find it difficult to see how one can prove the age of a virtual character, no matter how old it appears to be. 8-)**

Quote - I find it difficult to see how one can prove the age of a virtual character, no matter how old it appears to be. 8-)

Then how can their be underage models and child porn in the 1st place with them? As I mentioned before you can't have one assumption without the other. Either they're both true or both false. If you disprove one of them then you can disprove the other with the same facts.

Everyone should know that appearances can be decieving, that's why the judgements on a case by case basis can be shaky and inconsistent. In order to prove a character is under age or of legal age then a valid ID must be possible.

Click to get a printed and bound copy plus T-shirts, mugs and hats

Quote -

I am probably gonna get flamed ALL to hell and back, but I agree with the TOS....I don't care if it IS just "pixels....I am a recovering sexual abuse victim..and I mean HORRENDOUS abuse....and trust me when I say....these sickos get off just as much on those "pixels" of nude children as they do a photo of them...I would rather BAN all child nudity...in "pixels" and in photographs on the internet than have the thoughts that some pervert is out there getting off on them.....wouldn't you? shrugs OH well.....I am out..and I am unsubscribing.. ;-)

xxxander, I truly sympathize with you and hope you find the equilibrium you seek and deserve. But there is a difference between the depiction of sexuality and the act itself. Child abuse is not, for the child, sexuality - it is brutal and manipulative, it is exploitation by a "responsible" adult of a person who is unable to assert his or her own human rights. I certainly wouldn't flame you for your personal beliefs, borne as they are from traumatic experience, and I'll say something that will be far more likely to get me flamed: I have no doubt that not all sexuality involving children is abuse. I'm sure that's not going to be a popular theory, but we are speaking about human beings here - we are, many of us, sexual creatures. Often, the ones who protest most loudly are the most sexual of all, but they have their own agendas to promote and either others' sexual agendas don't mesh with those, or they simply don't want other people to enjoy something that they themselves either can't or don't want to.

I don't think a 5-year-old has any business in a sexual situation. That doesn't mean that there aren't 11-year-olds that do enjoy and desire it, and even engage in it, with each other and with partners of vastly different ages. Are they mature enough to make that decision? Some are, and some aren't - again, it's the human nature that we don't all follow the same development schedule, either physically, intellectually or emotionally. The best thing that adults can do is to try to guide children in making smart decisions, and in most cases, that means deciding not to engage in sexuality at a young age. And it's hard for children, especially from that prototypical 11-year-old on up, to deny their sexuality, because while 'adults' are screaming about how our children need to be protected (because it's always better to seal someone away from something than it is to engage in intelligent and informative discussion, right?), they are also using that imagery to sell clothes, music, cell phones, make-up and even toys to those same children!!. We say how wrong it is to even think about children sexually while we sell schoolgirl and Girl Scout costumes to women - we say it's okay, it's only an "accessory," but what is really happening is the most gross form of hypocrisy; we don't bat an eye when we buy the DVDs and look through Playboy - a magazine where the minimum age of the models is 18, but the average age of the viewer is probably 50. So if we are going to claim that youthful sexuality is unforgivable, we are going to have to take a serious look at ourselves first.

If people find sexual satisfaction in digital simulation (and I suppose they probably engage in digital stimulation at the same time ;)), no one is being abused (okay, except for the self-abuse, and that's a stupid term, too, when you think about it). Child pornography laws need to exist to protect children from people who can't determine the difference between right and wrong - they do not need to exist to prevent people from thinking about children in a sexual way if that is all they do or will ever do. There's no proof that the average person will enact any fantasy that comes to his or her mind, sexual or otherwise - most people do know the distinction, and those who don't clearly aren't being restrained by the laws, are they? How often do we see on the news that some "sicko" has kidnapped a child, has abused that child and sometimes worse? The laws exist, but the only thing that they can do is prosecute someone who has already offended - they don't stop the people for whom this is an actual problem.

If people "get off" on pixel pixies, whether they be fairies or realistic CGI depictions of young teens doing more than making a sand castle, I'm okay with that - better that they do that than acquire photographs, because there is a likelihood that a child was abused in the creation of a photograph, while the only abuse going on in CGI is to the CPU. I say, the more realistic, the better, because whether one considers it perverted (I personally find bondage, latex and water sports perverted and sick, but they aren't illegal) and anti-social, the act of enjoying visual sexuality is not abusive of another human being, and if the audience finds the satisfaction of a realistic fantasy without the involvement and exploitation of a child, that's better than the law coming in after the fact, when a child has already been hurt, perhaps for life.

You say "Ban the perverts"...laughs saracastically HOW do YOU know they are perverts..the man who brutally raped/molested/abused me for SIX years.....from age FIVE to ELEVEN...was a CHURCH member....an "upstanding citizen"......you NEVER KNOW who the perverts are....and yeah I DO agree that a sick f**k can get off on ANY type of art....CG, photos, etc.....but WHY WHY WHY give them anything TO look at as far as children go?? What's the big deal...and WHY would anyone want to render/paint/photograph (for the public)..NAKED CHILDREN???? I have seen BEAUTIFUL child like faeries that are FULLY clothed..they don't have to be showing breasts..or God forbid...genitals!!!! 

I am now an advocate for sexually abused children..I ALSO go into chatrooms.....under other names portraying young boys and girls (to keep the real kids from those bastards)..and you would be FLOORED at how fast....this "child" gets bombarded with cam invites of OLDER MEN masturbating..or IM's asking for sex.......it makes me physically sick sometimes to have to talk to those pervs, BUT, if it keeps them from preying on REAL children..then I will suffer through.....it's a SAD, SICK world we live in.....and it's even more sad when people bitch and moan because they can't put art of naked babies on the internet.......Get over it!

Victims...aren't we all?

Before you ask, YES my avatar is a portrait of me painted by someone very dear to me, so don't even think of using yourself ...mmmkay????

Visit my site for all of my art Digital Deviant

Quote - Everyone should know that appearances can be decieving, that's why the judgements on a case by case basis can be shaky and inconsistent. In order to prove a character is under age or of legal age then a valid ID must be possible.

How can you have a valid ID for someone that isn't real? The age of the figure is about as valid for being "real" as the figure itself.

Let's say you use the millenium baby to create a one thousand year old gnome figure. The only thing you do is put gnome clothes on it. No major morphs or anything. How can you prove it was a thousand years old and not two months old?

Quote - > Quote -

I am probably gonna get flamed ALL to hell and back, but I agree with the TOS....I don't care if it IS just "pixels....I am a recovering sexual abuse victim..and I mean HORRENDOUS abuse....and trust me when I say....these sickos get off just as much on those "pixels" of nude children as they do a photo of them...I would rather BAN all child nudity...in "pixels" and in photographs on the internet than have the thoughts that some pervert is out there getting off on them.....wouldn't you? shrugs OH well.....I am out..and I am unsubscribing.. ;-)

xxxander, I truly sympathize with you and hope you find the equilibrium you seek and deserve. But there is a difference between the depiction of sexuality and the act itself. Child abuse is not, for the child, sexuality - it is brutal and manipulative, it is exploitation by a "responsible" adult of a person who is unable to assert his or her own human rights. I certainly wouldn't flame you for your personal beliefs, borne as they are from traumatic experience, and I'll say something that will be far more likely to get me flamed: I have no doubt that not all sexuality involving children is abuse. I'm sure that's not going to be a popular theory, but we are speaking about human beings here - we are, many of us, sexual creatures. Often, the ones who protest most loudly are the most sexual of all, but they have their own agendas to promote and either others' sexual agendas don't mesh with those, or they simply don't want other people to enjoy something that they themselves either can't or don't want to.

I don't think a 5-year-old has any business in a sexual situation. That doesn't mean that there aren't 11-year-olds that do enjoy and desire it, and even engage in it, with each other and with partners of vastly different ages. Are they mature enough to make that decision? Some are, and some aren't - again, it's the human nature that we don't all follow the same development schedule, either physically, intellectually or emotionally. The best thing that adults can do is to try to guide children in making smart decisions, and in most cases, that means deciding not to engage in sexuality at a young age. And it's hard for children, especially from that prototypical 11-year-old on up, to deny their sexuality, because while 'adults' are screaming about how our children need to be protected (because it's always better to seal someone away from something than it is to engage in intelligent and informative discussion, right?), they are also using that imagery to sell clothes, music, cell phones, make-up and even toys to those same children!!. We say how wrong it is to even think about children sexually while we sell schoolgirl and Girl Scout costumes to women - we say it's okay, it's only an "accessory," but what is really happening is the most gross form of hypocrisy; we don't bat an eye when we buy the DVDs and look through Playboy - a magazine where the minimum age of the models is 18, but the average age of the viewer is probably 50. So if we are going to claim that youthful sexuality is unforgivable, we are going to have to take a serious look at ourselves first.

If people find sexual satisfaction in digital simulation (and I suppose they probably engage in digital stimulation at the same time ;)), no one is being abused (okay, except for the self-abuse, and that's a stupid term, too, when you think about it). Child pornography laws need to exist to protect children from people who can't determine the difference between right and wrong - they do not need to exist to prevent people from thinking about children in a sexual way if that is all they do or will ever do. There's no proof that the average person will enact any fantasy that comes to his or her mind, sexual or otherwise - most people do know the distinction, and those who don't clearly aren't being restrained by the laws, are they? How often do we see on the news that some "sicko" has kidnapped a child, has abused that child and sometimes worse? The laws exist, but the only thing that they can do is prosecute someone who has already offended - they don't stop the people for whom this is an actual problem.

If people "get off" on pixel pixies, whether they be fairies or realistic CGI depictions of young teens doing more than making a sand castle, I'm okay with that - better that they do that than acquire photographs, because there is a likelihood that a child was abused in the creation of a photograph, while the only abuse going on in CGI is to the CPU. I say, the more realistic, the better, because whether one considers it perverted (I personally find bondage, latex and water sports perverted and sick, but they aren't illegal) and anti-social, the act of enjoying visual sexuality is not abusive of another human being, and if the audience finds the satisfaction of a realistic fantasy without the involvement and exploitation of a child, that's better than the law coming in after the fact, when a child has already been hurt, perhaps for life.

 

if TWO 11 year olds explore their sexuality together..that is FAR damn different than some sick pervert raping one OR staring at art work of a nude child and jacking off!!!! And you say that if they use "fantasies" about children sexually....it's better than the law coming in AFTER they have been hurt...WELL I am SORRY.....those people that have the "fantasies" ACT UPON THEM......they don't just use the art.....shakes head......I am sure everyone that is all for child nudity would feel really different if it happened to you...OR your child!!!!!!!

I am sorry after reading this crap....I have no words...........

I am SO done with this thread.....I hope all of you that think child nudity is  an "ok " thing can lay down and sleep at night!!

Victims...aren't we all?

Before you ask, YES my avatar is a portrait of me painted by someone very dear to me, so don't even think of using yourself ...mmmkay????

Visit my site for all of my art Digital Deviant

Quote - How can you have a valid ID for someone that isn't real? The age of the figure is about as valid for being "real" as the figure itself.

By the same token how can someone who isn't real be underage or child porn then? If you can't prove it's underage then how can it be considered to fall under that law? The whole question becomes moot under that assumption then doesn't it and all the child nudity guidelines are unecessary right?

That doesn't seem to stop them from having them so by those rules they should be able to provide some system to prove the age of the children under the guidelines which are underage and which are of legal age in order to have a consistent standard and not a subjective judgement.

Click to get a printed and bound copy plus T-shirts, mugs and hats

I am SO done with this thread.....I hope all of you that think child nudity is  an "ok " thing can lay down and sleep at night!!

There is definitely a difference between child nudity and child porn. This statement suggests that I would have to cover my six month old nephew when I give him a bath?

Quote - >>I am SO done with this thread.....I hope all of you that think child nudity is  an "ok " thing can lay down and sleep at night!!

There is definitely a difference between child nudity and child porn. This statement suggests that I would have to cover my six month old nephew when I give him a bath?

Please don't twist my words..you know EXACTLY what I was talking about....shakes head I have a four year old..that I bathe......come on!!!

I now see WHY I stay out of these threads.......this IS my last word on this subject..

Victims...aren't we all?

Before you ask, YES my avatar is a portrait of me painted by someone very dear to me, so don't even think of using yourself ...mmmkay????

Visit my site for all of my art Digital Deviant

Argon, I think you might be missing the point I was trying to make.

There is NO WAY to put an age on something that is virtual. You HAVE to go by appearance. And for this reason anything that has the APPEARANCE of being under age is not allowed to be shown in the nude.

There are two issues here that seem to be melded into one. There IS a difference between child nudity and child porn. However, there are also some people that cannot separate the difference ... and some who are stimulated by ANY child nudity. I am not arguing that fact.

What I am arguing is that you can't take a figure and put a virtual driver's license on it claiming its age. The only way you can judge is on a case by case basis. And even then, opinions will vary.

xxxander, not to put it too bluntly, but you aren't an impartial judge of what is right or wrong - this much is clear from the way you misconstrued what I said.

I agree 100% - two children exploring their sexuality is different from a "sick pervert" raping a child - I never said that the latter was a good idea, did I? I also said it's not a good idea for him to jack off to a photo of a nude child (one taken expressly as a sexual image, not the sort of artistic photos you can buy in a David Hamilton book), because he's part of the chain of abuse. But if he does so to a picture done completely in Poser, no one is being abused, and furthermore, there's absolutely no proof that anyone ever will be abused as a result. That's where you are off the track - while some people do act on their impulses, that's not the same thing as having certain erotic interests - no rational psychologist can prove that a person will act out any and every fantasy that occurs to him or her, and many psychologists will further say that people who find some sort of private release (and not just sexual, but aggression and others - child abuse is not just about sex, folks, it's about control, the same as rape) are less likely to degenerate into physical acts. My saying that, however, is not a statement that we should create digital child pornography to keep our streets safe - I'm just saying that people fail, either unintentionally or intentionally - to distinguish between thought and action, and between erotica and child pornography; if it's got real children in it, it's wrong, but there's no valid proof that visual stimulation of any sort leads to abusive actions in the real world.

If you're so concerned about sexual misconduct, xxxander, you might also want to consider changing your username - many people immediately associate "xxx" with hardcore pornography.

Quote - Argon, I think you might be missing the point I was trying to make.

There is NO WAY to put an age on something that is virtual. You HAVE to go by appearance. And for this reason anything that has the APPEARANCE of being under age is not allowed to be shown in the nude.

There are two issues here that seem to be melded into one. There IS a difference between child nudity and child porn. However, there are also some people that cannot separate the difference ... and some who are stimulated by ANY child nudity. I am not arguing that fact.

What I am arguing is that you can't take a figure and put a virtual driver's license on it claiming its age. The only way you can judge is on a case by case basis.

But the problem as you adimt is that even the people that stimulated by child nudity are subjectively percieving it as child porn. So how is a subjective judgement on the part of the people enforcing the guidelines helping to solve it? The judgements are most likely wildly different and it's the artist that have nothing to do with those that are stimulated being made to suffer for it.

If the subjective judgement is going to follow that course, how long until every phallic symbol is eliminated because of the perception it might effect?

In the mix of conflicting perceptions, how do you tell which IS valid? That's why if you're going to follow guidelines on child nudity, you have to have some VALID way of defining what a child is. All the laws they have require a proof of age in the form of an ID.

Click to get a printed and bound copy plus T-shirts, mugs and hats

**ptrope:  I agree wholeheartedly with xxxander.  I don't know who you are and I personally don't ever want to know. I feel sorry for you if you think child nudity in any way is OK!   It only provokes the *inevitable!  ***

You probably were not victimized as a child, held down and raped from behind for hours on end or forced to watch pornography while some man plays with himself and your private parts or forced to look at another child either in pictures or in a film getting brutally abused sexually were you? Do you have any idea what seeing a child nude does to people like us?? Do you even understand the velocity of the pain and emotional scaring this does on us?? I think not.... and until you can see it from eyes that experienced it, your opinions, to us mean nothing.

XXXANDER is a nickname for another name........ it has no relation to pornography you sick weirdo.  If you know anything about anything you'd realize that.

WHY give them anything TO look at as far as children go? my working theory is that fantasy can fill a role for some of those sick people, to help them to stay away from actual children. i'm sure that won't work for everyone. i'm equally sure that for some fantasy leads to acting out. i'm also sure that the latter isn't automatic, or true for a majority of people. i don't know whether it would have worked for the person who abused me as a child (my uncle, also an upstanding family man and church goer). when i tried to seek help i was the one who was at first not believed, and then blamed, because i was supposedly such an unruly and disobedient child that obviously i had to have been doing something wrong (yeah, a prepubescent child who had no clue about sex would come on to a grown man. feh). frankly, the abuse i got from my mother left deeper scars than that from my uncle; at least he didn't hit me or destroyed my feeble self-esteem. it took a fair bit of therapy (and divorcing my birth family) to come to terms with that background. but i have come to terms. and i think suppressing fantasies is not the way to go. i believe instead that making a much clearer distinction between fantasy and reality is called for, and that we need stronger boundaries, especially for children. no more blanket obeying of adults because they are adults. no more having to put up with cheek pinches from aunt hatty. no more spanking. that's how it starts, for a child -- not being allowed to say NO! to being touched by an adult, not having their body respected. i have some fantasies that i would never, ever, want to live out in reality, because reality couldn't be like what i imagine. (most of those fantasies are not sexual, though some are, and none of them involve children, nude or otherwise.) they allow me to vent aspects of my life that are negative. they allow me to engage in wish fulfillment. fantasies are IMO only harmful if they a) take over somebody's life so they no longer function well in reality, or b) are pushed into reality and onto other, real people by somebody who does not respect boundaries. my fantasies are not of that kind. they do not hurt anyone, including myself. digital images do not hurt anyone either. conflating nudity and sex hurts a lot of people. it took me a long time to become comfortable with my nude body (my family consisted, aside from that upstanding family man and church goes mentioned above, mostly of religious zealots for whom there was hardly a human trait free of sin). now i believe there is nothing whatsoever wrong with nudity, and that includes, of course, children -- we're born nude. what could possibly be wrong with a nude baby? nothing. the nude human body can be so beautiful. and i am not talking about airbrushed models in playboy, i am talking about the line of my chubby partner's hip in the morning sun, or the delighted splashing of the neighbour's 3 year old in the new wading pool. there's also nothing wrong with consensual sex; it's hopefully fun, and sometimes beautiful. oh, and it happens to propagate the species -- how can that be wrong per se? nope, don't buy that. i wouldn't necessarily take pictures of my partner or the neighbour's kid (with permission) to share as art on the net, because that goes against my sense of privacy. but i see nothing whatsoever wrong in recreating such images and moods in poser, and sharing those. will they be looked at by perverts? probably. ANYTHING will be looked at by people who sexualize it. if y'all have read that long fetish thread, you know about the breadth of human sexuality. people get turned on by the strangest things. perverts will get off on it. prudes will get upset by it. it's not for me to judge, unless they force it on me. the fantasies of perverts don't hurt me. the self-righteous indignation of prudes doesn't hurt me. my raping uncle hurt me -- his fantasies crossed over into my world and tried to mold me according to his will. the laws of prudes hurt me -- their imaginations cross over into my world and try to mold me acccording to their will. i am vehemently opposed to both. keep it in your head.

(to blacq_nyght_vampyre ) You're right .. you don't know me. I wasn't victimized as a child, so I don't have that unique perspective. All I can say is what I know and observe about people, about their interpretations of events and ideas, and of how I see them act and react constantly, in real life. I don't doubt that a person who has been abused - or has been an abuser - interprets things differently than I do. I have no urge to abuse a child or to seduce one, and I don't think it's right to do these things. I've said as much. My argument is against people who insist that what a person thinks and what a person does, in areas both legal and ethical, are one and the same thing; they aren't. You automatically assume things about me because I try to maintain a rational perspective that doesn't happen to conform to an extreme set of experiences and perceptions, that I defend or even entertain abuse of children, even to the point of employing thought police. I don't have to experience it to have an opinion, nor to make rational observations that there is no established cause and effect at work in people's assumptions and assertions. No one, especially not myself, said anything about condoning abuse - I even specifically spoke out against it, but apparently that is not my right to do so and still address the issue at hand, which is not abuse, but the impossibility of establishing either a valid yardstick to the "age" of digital characters or that depicting them in anything other than the most wholesome terms is related to a despicable act such as child abuse. I see hundreds of Poser pix depicting the torture and degradation (in my opinion) of adults, but it is because they are depicted as adults that no one does anything but shake their heads and say, "That's not for me," and never make claims that these depictions will definitely lead to the actual torture and worse of living human beings. Why? Because it's not part of their own experience, or it's not part of their agenda.

Would we be better of if there simply weren't any young figures available for Poser? Probably. And why is that? Because while they are created seemingly with the best of intentions, they are not supported with the very things that will allow people to use them in much other than erotic imagery - no one seems interested in making clothing for the teen figures, but they seem damned interested in making sure that they aren't rendered without them. Do you not see the paradox there? The outright hypocrisy? And at the same time, we create, sell and buy modifications and clothing that make the adult figures look younger.

I'm clearly not the only person with issues.

And while xxxander may simply be a nickname, with no intentions of impropriety, this entire thread is about how people perceive and respond to implied, or more to the point, inferred sexual cues, even when none are present. We see "XXX" constantly related to the seediest, darkest aspects of sexuality; don't deny it. So saying that it was not intended to be sexual means nothing to the people who seek out sexual implications, good or bad, and will do nothing to prevent them from doing so - exactly the same way pictures will do. All I did was point this fact out; it's relevant to the attitude of this discussion.

Quote - If you're so concerned about sexual misconduct, xxxander, you might also want to consider changing your username - many people immediately associate "xxx" with hardcore pornography.

You know..I said I was done with this God forsaken thread...but someone linked me and told me to read....let me tell you a couple of things.....

ONE YOU can stop bolding my name and acting like I am something sick or sinister...my name does NOT mean anything sexual BUT even if it did I am a GOD DAMN consenting adult..who ONLY plays with and gets off with other ADULTS period. Don't fucking assume anything about me.....

TWO No I am NOT impartial and I never will be, and I will ALWAYS speak out against this kind of bullshit.....if any of you wanna get off on photos, renders, paintings of nude children....then there's not a damn thing I can do about it..BUT keep it off the forums...NO ONE wants to know about it.....and IF you put it on here..ALWAYS expect VICTIMS like myself to speak out against you....sheesh......and yes...MOST of the time these people DO act out on their "fantasies".....READ UP about pedophiles...also..they can ever be "cured" they ALWAYS re-offend.......so FORGIVE me for standing up for what I believe is right.....

Everyone carry on with this ignorant debate..I am almost done with this site as it it....shakes head

And PLEASE no one link me back here......I don't CARE ....

Victims...aren't we all?

Before you ask, YES my avatar is a portrait of me painted by someone very dear to me, so don't even think of using yourself ...mmmkay????

Visit my site for all of my art Digital Deviant

You certainly did make a point .... and as for the "adult situations" in poser images.... I find them somewhat disturbing but not as bad as seeing a child depicted in an image even if the child is chasing butterflies in a field fully clothed. I think you miss most of the point expressed... AND it is difficult to place an age on 99% of the images portrayed.... but the obvious is the obvious. XXXANDER may very well have 3 X's but on this particular site,  that is certainly not the issue. I feel you are grasping for something in which you assume too much. You know what ASS U ME means I am sure. You have your opinion and I have mine..... I am going away now. This entire topic has made me recall unpleasant images and moments in my life so do with it as you will....

I am out...

 

 

 

xxxander, will you just shut up and listen for one minute? Don't make assumptions, don't make accusations, because you've been wrong every time you've done either.

I bolded your name because it's your username, and I do that as a habit on every BBS - I consider it proper netiquette to give the users the respect of making their names distinct from the rest of the text, especially since so many users have names that sometimes fall into the regular vocabulary. I meant no comments about you nor did I make any, and I'm somewhat concerned that you perceivemy actions as such. Surely you're not so inexperienced online - you claim to spend a lot of time on it masquerading as someone else in order to save children from abuse - that you don't know anything about this practice. I'm certainly not going to apologize for trying to afford you the same respect I do for anyone else I address on this board.

I made an observation about how other people may perceive you because of your chosen expression - I made no observation about you. Get the f*** off your high horse and learn the difference - give people the respect of listening to what they say, and not what you want to hear.

xxxander, i had a girlfriend who was raped, and nearly died, was in the hospital for 4 months

her favorite thing after which (and during accually) were little cupid statues, and a few pics
she rendered of cupid, having just a lion cloth (or whatever is it) on. and sometimes faeries
then people label everything child porn, and they're deleted, when the pics were far from it
cupid holding a bow is on countless valentines day cards, so we're giving our kids baby porn?
should we take away every card like that simply because it has a baby's nipples showing?

the baby is not naked, but because it has a nipple showing, people like you who want it all
banned, label it child porn, and it gets taken down

and true while sick people go into these chat rooms, so do kids, you can go after the ones who
arents kids, while at the same time, ignoring the kids, and leaving them to join the rooms
its a 2 way street, sure some rooms are made for kids, kids belong there, but majority of
parents do nothing to see if its a "clean" room, do (usually) nothing to teach their kids not
to talk to those kids of people, and the rooms which were made for adults, have just as
many (and accually more) kids joining when they shouldnt, than adults joining kids rooms

NOT taking any blame away from the sick adults,  but when a parent does next to nothing
to stop their kids from joining in the first place, or in the case of kids rooms, teaching their
kids that bad people might be in them, then the parent is also at fault a bit

if a lion has cubs, but leaves them to wander in a meadow, and doesnt teach them to run
when there is danger, and they get eaten, who is at fault? obviously the one who ate them
as "they cant help themselves", but also the parents for not teaching

the danger will always exist, pics of nudity or lack thereof, will not change it, taking away
the freedoms of others who have nothing to do with it, will not change it, the danger remains
nudity isnt porn, hell theres probably porn with people fully clothed -_^
so to ban a pic that has no "naughty sexy touchy"stuff in it (vague limit to porn) is against art
and takes away freedom of expression

"As for the "adult situations" in poser images.... I find them somewhat disturbing but not as bad as seeing a child depicted in an image even if the child is chasing butterflies in a field fully clothed."

So any depiction of children is demonised?   An innocent picture is exactly that:  innocent.   That it allegedly awakens painful memories in a certain minority doesn't alter the fact of its innocence.   Should this be put on a bonfire?

Quote - You say "Ban the perverts"...laughs saracastically HOW do YOU know they are perverts..the man who brutally raped/molested/abused me for SIX years.....from age FIVE to ELEVEN...was a CHURCH member...

Church member ain't nothing to do with it, far as I am concerned.  I would gleefully K to the I to the double L anyone who harmed a child, should I ever know about it.

Naked children is one thing - and the CGI representation thereof - real action is something else.

Coppula eam se non posit acceptera jocularum.

My Store

My Gallery

true, is no cure, but not everyone released, will reoffend, thats been proven, you say otherwise
you can say perhaps a MAJORITY, but not ALL

simple proof to just a few cases, some of the males got their balls chopped off with surgery
while a bit drastic in some cases perhaps -_^ they dont reoffend
there is injections, that while not perfect, do inhibit (a bit) the feeling and desire

many people would like to believe many things to be uncurable, and unfixable, to help
themselves justify their actions, which are more than often, a bit extreme
now am i saying i want them on the street? no, id be happy with burning them at a stake :P
but i can act without being overly extreme, and would never be in favor of a rule that would
punish/limit the innocent

Quote - Whether or not you agree with Rosity's rules, if you're here you have to abide by them. Whether or not you agree with your country's rules, you should abide by them if you want to stay out on the streets.

But this is America, rules mean nothing. And there's some 12 Million here who intend to prove it on May 1st....

"...they ALWAYS re-offend.......so FORGIVE me for standing up for what I believe is right....."

 

Some interesting data and expert opinion:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm#recidivism

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11164933/#storyContinued

not that data will change anyone's views on such a charged topic - we believes what we believes and so it shall be.  Germany went through a traumatic experience with Nazism and to this day bans anything that they feel glorifies or promotes that sick philosophy.  Still, skinheads and fascists seem to be enjoying a new resurgence there.  It's much easier to attack bogeymn and scapegoats than it is to solve the real problems that plague society.  Bannine faeries isn't going to reduce pedophilia any more than burning Mein Kampf is going to eradicate fascism but it makes people feel better I suppose.

"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." - H. L. Mencken

wow the numbers are accually lower than i thought o_O way way more than i prefer
but still lower than i thought

Quote - It's much easier to attack bogeymn and scapegoats than it is to solve the real problems that plague society.  Bannine faeries isn't going to reduce pedophilia any more than burning Mein Kampf is going to eradicate fascism but it makes people feel better I suppose.

Good point and given that it doesn't solve the problem, you begin to wonder if the policies they do implement gets something else done, more than just making them feel better about it?

Click to get a printed and bound copy plus T-shirts, mugs and hats

Quote - The "no nudity on characters appearing underage" has been in the TOS for many years.
It was clarified around a year ago and at the same time changed to prevent topless shots of young girls.

It's only been around for a year, maybe a year and a half.

There was a time when this site had hardcore porn images with 3D figures made to look very youthful. Then the hardcore went away and it was limited to softcore, but any age - this is about the same period that R-otica was made. For a year or so though, links between these two sites were on the pages of both.

That lasted for most of the site's history. Many artists in here did faerie work, and others noted such things as cupids, romeo and juliet, a lot of rennaissance art, and paintings by Rockwell. All of that stalled the fundamentalist crowd for a while, but sometimes in 04 or 05 it changed.

While I'm glad the hardcore violent and or underage is gone, I think the switch in the other direction has gone a little too far if even Rockwell would be banned here...

Truth has no value without backing by unfounded belief.
Renderosity Gallery

damn it showed a page 5 and no post -_- i just  a mod made me miss somethin >.>

Enough of this. People are becoming upset, angry and hurt. I have no wish to have to hand out warnings.

This is not the place for debating root causes of paedophilia or rehabilitation rates. If you want to debate the wider issues, please do so on a more appropriate site.

---

"you are terrifying
and strange and beautiful
something not everyone knows how to love." - Warsan Shire