The people at Raunchy seem very nice, easy going, and open minded. Friendly place. Much better quality work for the most part than at 'otica in my opinion (please no offense anyone).

Pakled, for the very longest time I did nudes because I didn't have a machine capable of running a figure and clothes for it in the same scene :) Then of course the figures and some great hair are free but good clothes cost money.

Reverting to the originating post:

"I hope I am not stepping on any toes but it seems strange to me that there is so little discussing of the erotic possibilities that come from creating adult artwork in poser.  I have no qualms admitting that the ONLY reason I spend so much money on poser add-ons is that they allow me to explore an erotic side that can only exist in fantasy.

Poser and the various characters allow me to play out adult fantasies and explore the "other side to my midnight". 

Any others share my feelings? "

Yup! I do.

I like to create scenes with naked/skimpily-clad/transparently-clothed females.

Not in close-up, not explicit, but as a suggestion of what might be about to happen..

I'm not sure what "film" category my few semi-successful renders would be put in, but probably most of them would be "Parental Guidence" (as long as the parents where somewhat liberal-minded).

Mostly, I don't post my stuff in galleries. Certainly not here (just in case..), but also 'cos I usually don't think it's good enough to display. Occasionally I've slipped and posted at one of the above-mentioned other sites.

I can't see any harm in it. Others think they can. I just try to stay out of the vision of those others, 'cos often they resort to violence (OK, mostly verbal, but violence none the less)  to try to impose their views on my morality-set. Yeah, I'm a coward. I don't like confrontation. Mainly 'cos if I get confronted, I tend to react with anger, and that's not a good thing! So I try to avoid all that..

IMHO, violence (and I'm not talking about BDSM/consenting inflicted pain etc, more about imposed pain) is much worse than (even explicit) consnting pornography

Ummm... I think I'm rambling a bit. I'd better shut up.... too many beers...

Diolma <- looks for big rock in nudist beach to hide under, with pair of binoculars at the ready...

Cheers,
Diolma

I think Drafter mislead us, perhaps not intentionally, in his initial post.

His post gave the impression that he was talking about adult fantasy art, the kind you would find at some of the more risque sites like Renderotica.

However, he left a comment on 2 of my gallery images,  Ashley in a wistful pose, and Alley Cat a biker chick,  both of which  are fully clothed and said he liked the "erotica".

Now I'm either unclear about what the term "adult fantasy"  involves, or he is.

Not neccesarily, Erotica, as with Porn, is in the eye of the beholder. Anything that evokes an erotic emotion from someone can be called Erotica. Hence my comment regarding watching Cloth drape a nekkid figure in the cloth room. The Peepshow effect can be someone interesting at times. And these are figures being put into clothing. ;)

Acadia,

What someone finds erotic/arousing is (fairly obviously) subjective.

Erotic: "Pertaining to sexual love, amatory, amorous" (Chambers Dictionary).
Which leaves a plethora of options open, no?

You (or I, for that matter) could create a picture which to your (or my) mind was sexually innocent. But others might not view it that way...

There's no "black/white" rules (or even guide-lines).

Which is why I don't post in the galleries here...:-))

Cheers,
Diolma

I misled no one!

The two pics in your gallery are very erotic.  One shows a woman in a leather skirt that come up to her ass wearing leather clothing and her pose pretty much says: "Wanna Play?"

The second pic shows your female in a semi-see-thru dress in a very provocative pose. 

Both are very erotic and sexually provocative in their content or suggestiveness. 

Quote - I think Drafter mislead us, perhaps not intentionally, in his initial post.

His post gave the impression that he was talking about adult fantasy art, the kind you would find at some of the more risque sites like Renderotica.

However, he left a comment on 2 of my gallery images,  Ashley in a wistful pose, and Alley Cat a biker chick,  both of which  are fully clothed and said he liked the "erotica".

Now I'm either unclear about what the term "adult fantasy"  involves, or he is.

Quote - The second pic shows your female in a semi-see-thru dress in a very provocative pose.

The dress is the "Posh Dress" and is only shear from the knees down .... see the following link, 5th texture down:

http://www.morphography.uk.vu/dlposhv3.html

As for the pose?  If you consider a pose meant to depict someone stopping to check the heel on their shoe "very provocative", I strongly suggest that you stay away from places such as Renderotica et al.  By the sounds of it you meant something totally different in your initial post that what it came across like.  Do a google search for some of the terms you used.... you'll find out what  true "adult fantasy" is.

I suggest that Erotica has very personal definitions.  Your picture show a woman in a slightly erotic pose.  Your other picture show a woman in a very erotic pose.   No one said the pictures are pornographic or obscene; mearly erotic. 

When you look at the gallery page and choose the most viewed you get a collection of pictures (art) that are erotic and a large nuymber are nude. 

My original post talks about the use of Poser as a tool to express "erotic" fantasy.  You keep wanting to change my words to pornographic.  I am a member of Renderotica as well as Raunchyminds and I am very aware of what represents erotic and what is pornographic.

Sorry if it offends you but the two pictures in your gallery meet my definition of "erotic".  You could have chosen less provocative clothing and poses and yet you made a choice in each element of your artwork and most of those choices seemed focused on the erotic.

I have no intention of discussing pornography. I create it and I love it. It allows me to express in fantasy what can never be in reality.  While I do not care for some of the violent artwork I do accept that they have a place and are legitimate art.

Erotic; violent; pornographic are seperate catagories and should not be mixed.  I find your art to be erotic. I suggest you deal with it or stop creating your style of artwork.

Quote - > Quote - The second pic shows your female in a semi-see-thru dress in a very provocative pose.

The dress is the "Posh Dress" and is only shear from the knees down .... see the following link, 5th texture down:

http://www.morphography.uk.vu/dlposhv3.html

As for the pose?  If you consider a pose meant to depict someone stopping to check the heel on their shoe "very provocative", I strongly suggest that you stay away from places such as Renderotica et al.  By the sounds of it you meant something totally different in your initial post that what it came across like.  Do a google search for some of the terms you used.... you'll find out what  true "adult fantasy" is.

Quote - I find your art to be erotic. I suggest you deal with it or stop creating your style of artwork.

I never said it wasn't :)

I enjoy soft and sensual art; both looking at it and creating it. I have no wish, want or desire to look at blatant nudes for the sake of nudes, or computer generated pixels posed in sexual positions alone or "together".

"Erotic" is tasteful and covert with connotations and hints, if they are picked up on.

"Porn" is raunchy and "out there" leaving nothing to the imagination and serves only one purpose.

However, going back again to your initial post, you used the following phrases:

• erotic possibilities that come from creating adult artwork in poser.
• allow me to play out adult fantasies
• explore the "other side to my midnight".

To me your description, whether you like it or not, fits the "Getting off on Porn" catagory, which is why people were telling you to go discuss it at Renderotica, and not here. 

I would hardly consider those 2 images of mine that you have chosen to use as a platform for your cause here, to be "adult".  Are they sensual?  One is most certainly, and I created it to be that way.  The other is simply a pretty girl wearing an elegant dress and stopping to check her heel.  Erotic?  Not to my mind.

However, I would have no problem letting a young child look at either one of those images either. They are fully clothed, no private parts are showing and you see far more, less, worse in a shopping mall or on a public beach.

As I said earlier, while you may not have meant to, it's apparent by the statements in your initial post, that you exagerated what you were talking about.  You came across as wanting to discuss "Porn", when in fact it seems you were referring to erotic/sensual art instead.  I suggest you deal with that and perhaps pick your words a bit more wisely in the future.

Ok, Both of you go to your rooms and take a time out! :tt2:

But seriously, can we all just agree that erotic doesn't have a clear cut definition and is pretty much 50/50 what the viewer sees as well as what the artist intended? Sometimes the two are not the same. Also, the checking the heel image, while it sounds like it was "Sensually" posed, doesn't sound erotic to "Me". Though similar in meaning, "Sensual" and "Erotic" are still two different things.

Quote - Ok, Both of you go to your rooms and take a time out! :tt2:

But seriously, can we all just agree that erotic doesn't have a clear cut definition and is pretty much 50/50 what the viewer sees as well as what the artist intended? Sometimes the two are not the same. Also, the checking the heel image, while it sounds like it was "Sensually" posed, doesn't sound erotic to "Me". Though similar in meaning, "Sensual" and "Erotic" are still two different things.

I'll agree with that :)

This discussion is getting pointless.

The various views are subjective, so cannot be accepted by one faction or defended by another.
All have already made up their mind, and for each, it is truth. Trying to change that point of view is bound to fail, since each only holds an opinion, not an incontravertable fact, able to be backed up with forensic evidence. It's just a difference of interpretation.

So there can be no conclusion, except, perhaps, an agreement to differ.

Can be fun, for a while, but sooner or later it becomes boring. (Well, at least, to me it does - but  then that's just my opinion, which I will not try to impose on anyone else..)

:-))

Cheers,
Diolma

drafter69, i don't think you misled "us" -- i certainly don't feel misled in the least. i appreciate people who speak for themselves. I suggest that Erotica has very personal definitions. ding. but in the very next sentences, you screw up this promising start: Your picture show a woman in a slightly erotic pose. Your other picture show a woman in a very erotic pose. you need to be more precise in your choice of words, and i suspect your thoughts might need a little alignment too. saying "it is erotic" implies not a personal, but a generic eroticism. while that may exist (though i sure wouldn't want to define it), we're pretty obviously outside of it here. and if erotica is so personal, claiming a specific woman is depicted in an erotic pose is stepping outside the personal realm -- you might find it erotic, but other people (including the artist) might not. and pounding on them saying "no matter what you call it, it is erotic" is disrespectful -- it's personal, get it? she could have chosen other clothes? whatever for? she doesn't find this getup erotic! she doesn't have to find it erotic. 9 out of 10 sex therapists might not find it erotic. you do, and that's good enough for you to enjoy it -- nothing wrong with the enjoyment. just don't push your personal interpretation on the artist (or anyone else). that is the sort of crap that leads to "she asked for it, just look at how she dressed". bad idea. say "i find that pose erotic" instead of generalizing from your personal interpretation. you're both generalizing, you and acadia, and it's not surprising you're at loggerheads. you see a come-hither attitude in an image where she sees somebody fixing a shoe. that's what "it's personal" means -- you simply have very different interpretations of the same scene. neither of you is right. neither of you is wrong. i think that's probably the salient point to "it's personal"; there is no right or wrong in erotic appreciation. furthermore, let it go. acadia seems convinced that you want icky porn while her art is "soft and sensual". best to walk away from discussions with people who don't recognize their own judgmentalism.

Quote - furthermore, let it go. acadia seems convinced that you want icky porn while her art is "soft and sensual". best to walk away from discussions with people who sling thinly veiled judgmentalism at you for pointing at the shady underside of the beast which they've dressed up all clean and wholesome with pastel colours and flowers, and just a wee bit of transparency below the knees of the burqa.

I totally agree with your post for the most part. 

However, I must correct you on the "thinly veiled" part. I don't make "veiled" judgements.  I put it right out there front and centre.  I stated several times that in my opinion that the way he phrased his post that it comes across as referring too porn. Nothing veiled about it. 

Did I make a judgement? Sure I did, but so did others.  Which is why people told him to go to Renderotica if he was looking for that "type" of "art".

No one is saying that what he thinks or does is a bad thing.  However I am saying that he isn't clear on the concept of terms, and as other pointed out, it's a purely subjective interpretation anyway.

As for the "burqa" statement?  I'm not even going to speak on it. I think it clearly states what your opinion is of women.

Acadia, you're beating a dead horse.  As you so rightly repremanded me in the exchange with whatsisname: 'Let it go.'
I myself found one pose to be highly erotic (I could swear that I've met that woman standing under a streetlamp after midnight somewhere -Oh yes, it was in the Old central bus station in Tel-Aviv, she was a single mother from Russia, raising two kid all by herself.  I rather admired her courage and fortitude.)
The other picture is just TOO dark for me to see any real detail at all, erotic or otherwise.  But then my aging eyes, and aging monitor aren't what they use to be.
David P. Hoadley

How about I end this silly discussion.  It is obvious that you can't stand the idea that anyone might see any erotic qualities to  your artwork. The woman standing in the leather shorts is a sight that people see everyday so how could there possibly be anything erotic about it?   In fact there are several women around here dressed like that who hang around the corner most evenings.

 You are right.....  You are right...... You are right.   There that should finally make your feel vindicated in your need. 

I'll look forward to seeing what else you post to your gallery.

Quote - > Quote - furthermore, let it go. acadia seems convinced that you want icky porn while her art is "soft and sensual". best to walk away from discussions with people who sling thinly veiled judgmentalism at you for pointing at the shady underside of the beast which they've dressed up all clean and wholesome with pastel colours and flowers, and just a wee bit of transparency below the knees of the burqa.

I totally agree with your post for the most part. 

However, I must correct you on the "thinly veiled" part. I don't make "veiled" judgements.  I put it right out there front and centre.  I stated several times that in my opinion that the way he phrased his post that it comes across as referring too porn. Nothing veiled about it. 

Did I make a judgement? Sure I did, but so did others.  Which is why people told him to go to Renderotica if he was looking for that "type" of "art".

No one is saying that what he thinks or does is a bad thing.  However I am saying that he isn't clear on the concept of terms, and as other pointed out, it's a purely subjective interpretation anyway.

As for the "burqa" statement?  I'm not even going to speak on it. I think it clearly states what your opinion is of women.

drafter, I think that you should let it go too.  You've more than adequately made your point.  I agree with you, the women standing if front of the brick wall wearing micro-mini hot pants is erotic.  Her face is definately an invitation for fun-n-games.  As to the other, it's just too dark to tell what she was looking at over her shoulder.  In fact I couldn't even see that was looking over her shoulder -it looked to me that she was looking off to her side.  As for inspecting the heel of her shoe, who can say?  I didn't even know she was wearing shoes, until Acadia said she was.  For me, it was all too dark to see either shoes, feet, OR Transparent hemline of dress.
Maybe if I had a newer monitor, things might be different.  Whatever ...when push comes to shove, erotica is where you find it.  For me, one of the most erotic images I ever saw was of a pregnant young woman inspecting her belly, but then I having fathered five children (three of whom hav epresented me with grandchildren), I guess you could say that I have a fertility fetish.

eh..I'm slightly constrained by the corporate world; lunchtime 'rosity is on their dime, after all. I don' care what others do..I think in 5 years I've done 3 n*des..all joke pics, and all deleted..;) May get around to it someday, but the missus might have a problem with that..;) s'ok..;)

Quote - It is obvious that you can't stand the idea that anyone might see any erotic qualities to  your artwork.The woman standing in the leather shorts is a sight that people see everyday so how could there possibly be anything erotic about it?   In fact there are several women around here dressed like that who hang around the corner most evenings.

Ummm, go back and read my post on page 2.

Oh yes, manipulating characters in 3D space gets me sooooo horny. Tweak those joint parameters, you dirty thing! Oh, you sexy thing, adjust the hue and saturation on your monitor. Unf unf unf. :rolleyes:

Jolly good show, Sarte, jolly good show!  Oh boy, oh boy, I can feel NIRVANA approaching!**
**

acadia, you said: if I want to explore my erotic side, I'd rather do it up close and personal with the love of my life and not vicariously through computer generated pixels. just for the record, this is what i read as thinly veiled judgment. at best it was carelessly worded; it was certainly not deeply thought out, and it really raised my eyebrows. what's with the false dichotomy? why assume those who enjoy 3D erotica don't also have a love of their life with whom to explore things? they're not all sitting furtively cowering in XXX theatres, dressed in semen-stained trenchcoats. why is 3D erotica by definition vicarious? and what if somebody doesn't have a love of their life? nice for you that you do; what are they supposed to, twiddle their thumbs until somebody shows up? this sounded to me like a judgment on people whose erotic senses are touched by pixels on a screen, like you were better than they, and you pitied them. there was more along similar lines in two other posts. you say you didn't mean to be intentionally hurtful, and i believe you; your posts generally are helpful and kind. but this was a statement that could easily hurt nonetheless (and did), and you might want to rethink it; i didn't see you twigging even a little bit to what was actually problematic about that statement. my burqa quip was a jab at your "dress with transparency only below the knees". i thought better of it and edited it out to be less snarky, but it was not a reflection of how i feel about women (chuckle), but of how i feel about "my erotica is more wholesome than yours". anyway. enough. this is really boring now, and i am a little peeved because this thread could have been interesting -- a few people tried to discuss the subject from various angles in good faith, and i was hoping for more of that. i think i go and render some dirty old women in trenchcoats now.

Now that we've all cleared the air, and everybody has vented their spleen on one thing and another, could we discuss positions now, which one most graphically rings our bell?  I think that that would be (tee-hee0 TITILATING!
(Actually, mine is the ... I better NOT say, I'll probably be in violation of TOS).

Well, risking to revive this beaten-to-death-horse of a thread...

Yes, I'm turned on occasionally by Poser pictures.

Not always, and not always the same sort of pictures, but some of them definately works. And that goes for some of the pics I produce myself as well.

And yes, I do render gasp porn.

Again: not always, but... actually.. most of the time. Because I like to look at good looking nude male figures. So that's what I render. Being a female heterosexual, looking at nude women does absolutely nothing for me, wuite the contrary. All that the various Vickies do to me is remind me that I really SHOULD go on a diet...

So I look at male poser characters. mostly nude. And whaddayaknow: I'm not even ashamed to admit it!

Then again I do live in a country where porn usually mostly provokes a yawn. Denmark was the first country to allow picture pornography, back in 1969 (hehe she said sixtynine....) and ever since we've been so surrounded by it that it hardly raises an eyebrow anymore. I do realize that it's different for some people though.

Positions, huh? I do think THAT part of the debate is better suited for Raunchyminds ;)

I was looking at your gallery at Raunchyminds yesterday, and feeling extremely envious of your artistic ability.  I thought your look alike standing in a pond of water was very sensuous, very erotic.  But my all time favorite is the NVIATWAS climbing up the wall afraid of a mouse.  That was hilarious.  And then there's your nude Alan Rickman pinup (with its very carefully posistioned hands).  Far Out, as we used t say way back when I was young in the 70's.
More Power to You!
David P. Hoadley

What?!? You looked at her RM Gallery and not Mine? Pshaw! You get a D+ for the day!

I didn't know that you had one there, you should tell me these things.  Yes I'll look at your gallery too.  Tell me (pant, pant), does it have some rally JUICY stuff.  I'm going, I'm going to look at your stuff! 
(Some time later) ".... ooooo that's so wicked...I love it!"

It's only juicy if you like the guys. :tt2:

I actually did go and look at them. 
Technically: they're fantastic works of art.
Sexually: they're no QUITE my cup of tea.

Hehehe, that's cool. We don't all like green tea or gay sex. At least we can enjoy art.

Green tea?  No, I'm not Japanese, although intellectually I can appreciate the esthetic beauty of a 'Cha-no-you' (I think that's the name).  Actually, living in the Middle East, I've developed a taste for thick, black, and extremely sweet Turkish Coffee.
I have a nephew who's gay, he'd probably appreciate your art on a more viseral level than I do.  For myself, only the technical aspect of the play of light and shadow on flesh was the most I could derive from it.
Haveing done a Stephanie Swift clone in Eve 4, I'm now workingf on a Ron Jeremy clone for Dork.  If you like, when I'm done I'll send you a copy to play around with. 

LOL! Are you making him Anatomically Correct? I never found Ron Jeremy attractive, or even watched his porn. I don't think he ever did any gay porn in anycase. I hear he's got Amazing equipment though. LOL!

Attached Link: Link to wikipedia's article on Ron Jeremy

Neither has Alan Rickman, but that hasn't stopped Trekki from paring him up with 'Whathisname;' and no, while Ron's never done any gay porn, but with some of the things that he does to himself, who needs partner, gay or othewise?

LOL! I'm afraid to even ask what he does to himself, I'm sure it would break the TOS if you told me in anycase! That link seems to be down at the moment.

I'm glad you liked my pictures :m_grin: and I must admit the NWIATWASAAM is one of my personal favourites. I can just see it happen. Not that I can really understand what makes people panic over a mouse?! Mice are cute (when they're not crapping in your flour at least) and Mousie doubly so :o)

And yeah, for those who didn't know,  I do mostly gay pics. Can't see anything wrong with it personally, since it's perfectly accepted when men do pictures with two women... and I definately prefer to look at males myself :o)

Besides, I have a lot of gay friends, and they're just great people to be around!

While serving at some lonely outposts while on IDF reserve duty, I occassionally found myself freaked out by a few rats.  but for me, it wasn't fear of the creature itself, as that it might be a carrier of rabies.

Oh but rats are ...well sewer rats are nasty at least. Pet rats are cute. And as with the mice in your food supply, they're only cute when they're not being a menace :o)

I didn't know rats could carry rabies btw. I know bats can, but I didn't know about rats. Eww...

Attached Link: Link to Ron Jeremy

Trekki, I could tell you a few things about rats that would sprout hair on a bald man's pate, but then I'd be in violation of TOS.
Hope that Mizrael find the link on Ron Jeremy ...er...broadening.

And... when does the clone for Dork get done for our posing pleasure - ack, ducks !

That's quite close, but I'd say the eyebrow region needs adjustment yet, and I'd give him the thicker neck and under-chin.  Nice going.  I don't know about that 9+ inch appendage .....

Attached Link: Another stupid question: Is there an easy way to copy a face in posette?

If it is not for re-distribution, I'm certain one may - without changing the number of vertices - take the head mesh into a 3D Modelling program ( a real one, not Poser !) and sculpt the features there, and re-export.  Or am I already stating what's been said and done... whoops. 

Dormus has turn out very nice, speaking of the Dork.

whoa, nice!  i'm not a ron jeremy fan (and i am ethically uncomfortable with look-alikes), but your work on these is getting better and better.

Quote - i'm not a ron jeremy fan

I've never heard of him so I did a google.ca search.

All I can say is "That  :blink: guy stars in adult films?!"  :blink: :blink: :blink:

He did with Porn what Sean Connery did with espionage, and Alan Rickman does with HP.  Believe it or not, he has a BA in theater.

aww he's CUTE!

I gotta find some movies with him GG

And you're getting very close there David! Nice job! The upper lip is too thick but other than that, it's VERY close!