Does any one know of a product, preferably a morph, that could give some sort of sexual, okay I'm looking to give my Millinium kids some sort of genetalia.  Before you ask this is not for porn, just for realism.  I already have the Fay (if that's how its spelled) inj morph for break for Laura, now I need to give Luke and the Pre-teens something.  It can be here or at renderotica, I just need something to make them look more whole. 

Thanky you.

You won't find anything like that hosted here.  But you might try Renderotica or bBay

Your best bet will probably be to use a scaled down M3 gen.

the only one i have seen that might fit luke is Satinica's gen (i think) at renderotica and you have to buy the base then the expansion and download an "add on" or something like that. I think overall it ends up costing like $40-$50.

Attached Link: http://www.adzan.co.uk/

jhmcd2, please give us more details on the project you have that requires
realistic childrens' genitals, as well as the site where you'll be posting renders
of said items, so that the experts will be better able to advise you.  it might also
be helpful to search this forum for previous discussions of childrens' genitals, as
the question was asked several times in the past here.

Quote - jhmcd2, please give us more details on the project you have that requires
realistic childrens' genitals, as well as the site where you'll be posting renders
of said items, so that the experts will be better able to advise you.  it might also
be helpful to search this forum for previous discussions of childrens' genitals, as
the question was asked several times in the past here.

I don't understand... jhmcd2 only asked for children genitalia and he (she?) told the matter isn't porn. Why he must give more details?

I remember some years ago a poor dude asked for the same thing and all the community called him PERVERT and the worst words... until he explained he was a doctor and he wanted them for a professional book

NOT ALL PEOPLE WHO DRAW CHILDREN GENITALIA ARE NECESSARILY PERVERTS...

>> NOT ALL PEOPLE WHO DRAW CHILDREN GENITALIA ARE NECESSARILY PERVERTS...

... but the people who suspect them of it probably are. :-)

Well, this one is on its way to lockage......

You won't find anything like that on Renderotica either.

if you want strict realism, genitals aren't your only problem. especially for the younger figures.  i'd say spend time on the bodies and faces first.  oh, and if you're going artistic with the nudity (like, say, renaissance or other fine art references), i hate to say it, but i think you should probably do it yourself from references from representative artwork.

I used a nude baby figure for my Madonna of the Polygons piece, and I ran into the same problem. It's going to step on your plans, but I really doubt you'll be able to find it and the Mike gens won't translate well.  I recommend strategic posing, like I did, and perhaps throwing a drop cloth over the figure's loin area so that it isn't so obvious that you're going without.

Seriously, it doesn't matter how artful your intent is, people get very squeamish about kid-bits when they don't know you personally.  I got the gasps and lynching vibe when I asked around, and I'm a mom; I cleaned kid bits for years.  Even if you do manage to render it, your reception will suffer for the inclusion, the concern being that while you may not be a pedo, authentic pedos can use your picture For Evil.

Good luck.

>> authentic pedos can use your picture For Evil.

Authentic pedos probably look at the McDonalds website and find something evil. I mean, really, at some point, we have to stop living in a world that's sheltered off just because a few wingnuts want to take advantage of it. If they do, they do, and there's really nothing anyone can do about it. They'll find it anywhere they want. But does that mean we have to live in perpetual fear of "mights" and "maybes"?

It just gets so tedious sometimes. It's a naked kid -- okay, fine, big deal. Move on. There are far worse things in the world to worry about.

Hey, I agree with you.  I'm just sayin'.  First comes the baby bits, and then the lynching.

I'm sure. I've been here a long time, and it seems the way things are a lot of the time. And it also just seems so silly sometimes. "OH MY GOD! A NAKED CHILD! WE ARE ALL DOOOOOOOOMED!!!"

Lord, give me patience.

It's so good to know that we've solved world hunger and differences between cultures and ended all wars and finally seen that day when we all get the flying cars they promised us twenty years ago. I guess now we can finally start dealing with the, you know, important stuff... :-)

he!  yeah, it's interesting. one of my favorite artists here left abruptly and deleted his gallery.  once he vanished, i suspected it was due to child nudity issues, since he had been in the middle of series dealing with the souls of babies.  mind you, i thought about this after he left, but not before.  his work was all based on Renaissance art, and classically nude minors haven't registered since my parents first took me to the Met in NYC when i was 4 or 5.  i think it's interesting that sites like this feel comfortable with mods making all sorts of  qualitative judgments about artwork (like determining the age of a figure with an adult default), but not about child nudity.  i mean, i understand legally and all that, and i'm sympathetic to the role moderators need to take, but there's a certain irony to the fact that people are touting the Web as a tool for free expression while, in general, online gallery rules are far more restrictive than a brick and mortar rules, where groups of school children tour daily.

Well, in Rosity's defence, it's not their fault. They're just trying to adhere to Nashville's "community standards" as well as restrictions put on them by the folks who handle their credit card transactions.  The mods here may be perfectly okay with it, because I'm sure they understand the issue just as well as everyone else... but sadly, because of the puritanical turn the country overall has taken in the last decade, there's not a whole lot they can do about it.

Wait ten more years, and this will probably be a non-issue altogether.

oh, i know.  and all gallery sites i know of have the same rules, so i don't think Rendo is unique or uniquely responsible.  personally, i wouldn't say it has to do with Puritanical attitudes.  the porn and sex industries are far more legitimate industry ever before,  and prime time goes much further than when i was a kid.  to say nothing of premium cable channels.  i think the problem is much more basic than that.  i think the U.S. has created  a culture where someone is  always responsible if something negative happens, and you should always prevent negative things from happening.  combine that with the fact that the whole Web media revolution is about untrained, average individuals posting and commenting on work, and you have a situation where sites have to account for the most flagrant offenders and the most easily and wildly offended.  there's no concept that people should be responsible for their own viewing habits, and certainly none that maybe being shocked or uncomfortable when viewing art isn't necessarily a negative.

This is a thorny issue all of the way around, folks.  Best to treat the subject like it's radioactive (which it is).

BTW - Pete Townshend was "doing research".  Aren't they all?

Quote - grow themselves some spine and tell the prudes to take a hike.

Go to Renderotica and make that suggestion -- in regards to this specific subject.  I.....doubt that it'll be well-received.

[Edit] - heh.  The post that I was responding to ain't there no more.  Good.

>> Go to Renderotica and make that suggestion -- in regards to this specific subject.  I.....doubt that it'll be well-received.

Except that That Place That We Cant Link To has a very different (and very well known) persona. C'mon, face it: the intent of an image of a naked kid there is very different from the intent of one here, in theory anyway. Rotica positioned itself in such a way that an innocent image of a cherub would last about six seconds before it was turned into something else. I'm not syaing this place has all high and mighty morals, but the limits of intent are well understood. Rotica views those very differently and should be seen in that light.

yeah, i think you're mixing apples and oranges.  for instance, i have 2 great books of (fine art) nude photographs.  one of the best and most heartwarming is the huge belly of a very pregnant woman and her lively and also naked 2 year old (i'm guessing).  it's just wonderful, and would be completely inappropriate for an erotic photo collection.

Oh my.
I wasn't talking about Renderotica at all.

Actually they are even bigger hipocrites than all the other galleries.
Mutilation, maiming, torture, pain, denigration, all is A.O.K to them as long as it makes them some $$$, but don't you dare show a square inch of underage skin and they all get puritan on you.

Nope, sorry to dissapoint you, but there is still a lone Poser site out there that still sticks to the "Old tyme spirit" and allows artistical nudity regardless of age.

AND they are located in Nashville.
AND they have a marketplace,

So all the "Them evil CC-companies made us do it" mantra is just bllx.

Anyway, just to piss a certain kind of people off who LOVE to listen to themselves pontificating about the ZEITGEIST in general:

Custom made and very high quality private parts for Matt and Maddie are out there which could easily be adapted for the teens, too.
Just send me a sitemail and I'll steer you in the general direction.

There are -- technically prurient - images here, too.  So it's best to avoid any potential confusion as to what's intended in a given picture, when the subject is underage.

Just like at Rotica -- and for some (although not all) of the same underlying reasons.

BTW - People talk about classical art as if everyone living back then were all prudish.  Now that's truly funny.  :lol:  Medieval & 'classical' cherubs weren't always so innocently intended.  Read some medieval literature.  For whatever reasons, this current generation pridefully thinks that it invented......uh......'amorality'.  When the fact is that it's existed for as long as we can look back & have knowledge.  In fact, many ancient civilizations were far more outré than we pride ourselves on being now.

But, it's a fact that we're gradually getting there -- back to it.  Read some more ancient history to see what happens next.

Quote - Oh my.
I wasn't talking about Renderotica at all.

No one said that you were.  The point remains.

Quote - Actually they are even bigger hipocrites than all the other galleries.

Are you telling us that they feature hippopotamuses in their galleries?  Or perhaps they have images of Hippocrates?  Or perhaps they're just hip?

I gotta admit that hypocrisy is handy, though.  It makes a great excuse for the chief wielders of the word every time that they use it.

Quote - a certain kind of people off who LOVE to listen to themselves pontificating about the ZEITGEIST in general:

snort  :lol:  Where's that circling arrow smiley when you need it........?  A mirror smiley might do.......... :biggrin:

Quote - There are -- technically prurient - images here, too.  So it's best to avoid any potential confusion as to what's intended in a given picture, when the subject is underage.

Just like at Rotica -- and for some (although not all) of the same underlying reasons.

BTW - People talk about classical art as if everyone living back then were all prudish.  Now that's truly funny.  :lol:  Medieval & 'classical' cherubs weren't always so innocently intended.  Read some medieval literature.  For whatever reasons, this current generation pridefully thinks that it invented......uh......'amorality'.  When the fact is that it's existed for as long as we can look back & have knowledge.  In fact, many ancient civilizations were far more outré than we pride ourselves on being now.

But, it's a fact that we're gradually getting there -- back to it.  Read some more ancient history to see what happens next.

first off, i never said anything about classical art being prudish.  second, i never mentioned cherubs (though Sean did, were you addressing him?).  third, in this context, it's not about the original intent, but the modern interpretation and impression.  the point being, many enjoy art today with nude minors in ways that are not prurient, work from that perspective, and have others view their work this way.   so i'm not sure what point you're trying to make with the lecture and the assumption of ignorance.

yes, there are prurient images here, but i disagree with your huge assumption that it's best to be safe and completely unambiguous to all viewers when it comes to art.   i could go into the myriad negative effects in this community and our society at large that i see, but i really don't see a point to that.  you have your opinion, and Rendo has it's policy, and nothing will change either.  might as well let it be.

and wait, if you're saying that you weren't saying JoePublic was talking about Renderotica, why did you bring it up in response to his now vanished post?  i mean, wouldn't that make Renderotica's policies entirely irrelevant to what he was talking about?  not to make a point, it just actually confused me.

Actually you wont see any kid images at Renderotica at all. Thats one of the  two things that cant be posted there, not even a kid fully clothed can be posted there, so you wont find much help there either.

Quote - first off, i never said anything about classical art being prudish.  second, i never mentioned cherubs (though Sean did, were you addressing him?).  third, in this context, it's not about the original intent, but the modern interpretation and impression.  the point being, many enjoy art today with nude minors in ways that are not prurient, work from that perspective, and have others view their work this way.   so i'm not sure what point you're trying to make with the lecture and the assumption of ignorance.

First off, I've often seen the point made that "the current rules make classical art verboten".  I was merely pointing out that not all underage nudes in "classical art" were intended as images of innocence upon their original creation.

And I'm not sure what point you are trying to make with the lecture and the 'assumption of ignorance' -- whatever that means.

Quote - yes, there are prurient images here, but i disagree with your huge assumption that it's best to be safe and completely unambiguous to all viewers when it comes to art.   i could go into the myriad negative effects in this community and our society at large that i see, but i really don't see a point to that.  you have your opinion, and Rendo has it's policy, and nothing will change either.  might as well let it be.

As for "huge assumptions" -- I wasn't talking about "art" in general.  I was talking about this website in particular.  And, yes -- it's best to follow the mores than its best to follow.  Especially when it comes around to this topic.

I could go into myriad negative effects that I see in the world at large.  But right now I just don't have much time to play verbal marbles......there's a big project due out.  So I'll have to let it be.

But I do have some cat's eye boulders to call upon at need.

Quote - and wait, if you're saying that you weren't saying JoePublic was talking about Renderotica, why did you bring it up in response to his now vanished post?  i mean, wouldn't that make Renderotica's policies entirely irrelevant to what he was talking about? 

Odd, that.  It's to miss the point just as effectively as some others did.

The central thrust of the point wasn't whether or not someone else was or was not referring directly to Renderotica -- that's immaterial & a red herring.  The point was that the same rules which obtain here also obtain there, with some differences.  In fact, as dasquid has so helpfully pointed out to us -- Rotica's rules re:underage images are even more strict than the rules are here.  And as I've already mentioned: for some of the same (good) reasons.

>> So all the "Them evil CC-companies made us do it" mantra is just bllx.

Well, sorry, bud, but it is the Official Line. If you wish to dispute it, your choice, of course, but there we are. It's what we're told, anyway. And the site you elude to... well, who knows what their story is. If anyone cares, anyway.

And the way this thread is going just underscores what I said earlier: dont we have anything better to worry about? Yes, Rotica is in a bit of a hypocritical position vis-a-vis its attitudes about open sexuality... until it starts to approach something that endanger their line of credit. But is that any different from the porn industry in general? I guess I'm just over this whole "we have to protect the children!!!" as the one-size-fits-all excuse for everything involving sex. As someone else pointed out, a kid can walk into any movie theatre or watch any amount of TV and see far worse in a single night. Illusion is everything, I suppose.

But what I find a little... well, amusing, in a sad kind of way... is how quickly this thread slid from an innocent request to a discussion of the hypocricy of porn.

Just as a gentle reminder -- a site like Rotica could stand to lose a whole lot more than their line of credit were there to be any hint of a question over the types of images that they'll allow when it comes to underage subjects.  So they've wisely dealt with the issue by making it into a non-issue for them.

Quote - the hypocricy of porn

It's inevitable that threads like this one will turn into a debate over the subject.  Efforts to stop the downhill thread slide are about as effective as efforts to institute a 'new tone' in Washington.

The 'new tone' always ends up sounding a lot like the old tone.  Only perhaps louder & more dissonant.

going backwards...

pardon, but so what if Renderotica's rules are more stringent?  i mean, that's like the little kid saying it's fine to do something because his friends did.  not that i'm taking sides between the two of you, it's just that it has absolutely nothing to do with any of JoePublic's points.  his point was: hey, there's a site with different rules and it works, both commercially and artistically.  i have no clue what site he's talking about, but bringing a third site into the mix is entirely irrelevant and has no bearing on anything he said.  i think there's definitely an argument against what he's saying, i just don't see how anything you wrote did so.

as for the lecturing, see the long bit about classical art and culture and telling us to go educate ourselves, all of which assumes we're working from a delusional vision of  a pure past.  i know i wasn't.

"And, yes -- it's best to follow the mores than its best to follow."  um, that, simply doesn't make sense grammatically.  i'm not sure what you're trying to say.  should "than" be "that?"  

i wasn't talking about just art in general either, i was talking about art here, too.  hence, " myriad negative effects in this community."  as for "cat's eye boulders," i think we should both pass on that.  to be honest, i don't think either of us see any validity or weight in the proof or facts we provide each other, no matter what the topic.  besides, i'm not feeling well, and i'll be going home soon and probably sleeping.  

sorry, that sounds snippy.  i really do think we should just say we disagree and leave it at that.  good luck on your project. 

it's a difficult subject to discuss objectively, but it appears from this thread that there are
currently no known poser sites that allow poser renders of anatomically correct children's
genitals.  there was at least 1 site that allowed this in the past, indicating an increase in
opposition to such renders.  there may have been other such sites, but I was never able to
access (or even locate) their galleries.

just to remind: in the states, the supreme court ruled that it's legal to post 3d renders of
nude children.  I don't know if all the major poser sites are in the states, nor the specific
reasons why none of 'em allow nudie pix of kids.

well JoePublic apparently knows a site.

Quote - besides, i'm not feeling well, and i'll be going home soon and probably sleeping.

Sorry to hear that you are feeling ill, cobalt.  Rest well.  And I mean that.

I'm not able to get "into it" to any great degree right now, either -- as we have rather important clients breathing down our collective necks at the office.  So I'm afraid that for now: they -- along with other RW matters -- will have to take precedence over this thread.

that goes without saying.  as i said, good luck with your project.  hope it all goes smoothly.

I don't think you've really made it as an artist here unless you've had one of your works censored.  Back in my younger, less patient Rosity days (been here awhile), I had a good row with Teh Authoritahs over a series of nude women I did with the hairy bits showing because I don't agree with the idea that breasts are okay to exploit, penises can be tolerated if they aren't erect, but girl genitals are diiirty.  I lost the fight, of course, and got over it because I wanted to display my portfolio more than I wanted to make a political statement with art that was never intended to be a political statement.

Artists have to make these kinds of choices all the time, and yes, with brick-and-mortar galleries as well.  If I did a series of nakkie kids with bits showing,  they'd have to be done a very certain way or a gallerist would decline to host them due to lack of saleability.  However, if a person of color from a third-world country  was doing nakkie kids pics, the work would likely be readily accepted, because as every privileged American knowns, brown people from poor countries are savages who don't know any better, and it's fine to appreciate that aesthetically.  The art world is riddled with cultural jackwittery like that; it isn't just Rosity or the intertubes.

As long as artists are beholden to the public -- and we always are -- that's the way it will be.  Now, if you want to make your baby picture and keep it for your private portfolio, once you're famous or dead, it will become another shining example of your brilliance.  So don't let the dumb stop you from making your work, you just might want to consider holding onto it.

Children have no genitalia and adults don't have anus!.

*adults don't have anus!.
*Then how do they fart?

Attached Link: http://www.bakerradio.com/learn/showthread.php?t=77110

Women don't fart.

OMG!  The rumors are true!

Quote - "Then how do they fart?"

Women don't fart.

LIES!!!!! Women fart just as nasty as men  sometimes WORSE!!!!

That subject here is actually one that caused me to lose quite a bit of interest in the site as a whole.  Simply put it is not an art site.  It's a marketplace.  Art is here only to promote the marketplace.  I can not even dare to look for any classical artworks and not come across nude minors.
I do not believe in anyway shape or form that pediphiles are created by viewing nude children, rather they are created and then view nude children. 

On the other hand it is such a tight rope to walk in internet communities.  So many people without any sense at all.  And then who is it that gets to determine where lines are drawn.  If it's good enough, and it's real art vs child porn it will probably get recognized somehow in the world of real art. 

I had  a series that I did that depicted a mother breastfeeding a nude child.  I nursed all three of my children and am pretty darn sure that there wasn't anything perverted going on.  Yet it couldn't be posted here or anywhere.  To me, one of the most beautiful things in the world - is a banned "evil".

It's sad.  But I guess as my dad used to say "Lifes hard, get a helmet" another way of saying "lifes not fair"  indeed it isn't when pediphiles are the reason rules are made.

If wasn't enough that adults haven't anus, their penis bends in a strange form!!!
God did something wrong!, why we are not born with clothes???

jhmcd2 there is a Magic G Vagina morph for the millenium kids pre-teen but its no longer sold ! your best bet would be to scale down the Magic G  Prop for victoria 3 (it can be got here www.arduino.net/Product/Showproduct.asp)

Im partial to my prop for solving this dilema, though I have no idea at all how well it would fit a child, I do know it would look right younger.  site mail for more info or check the sig

As for nudity in the USA,  The only acceptible form of nudity is two or more people engaged in consensual sex.  The internet porn industry is proof.  BTW here in the USA nudity is to be kept in the cabinet under the bathroom sink or in the top drawer of a dresser or in hidden folders on ones computer. 

Why is that the only acceptible form,  because watching individuals debase themselves in gratuitous sexual intercourse(porn) gives one a sense of self importance and power. 

See,  here in the USA we have a slogan "The one who dies with the most toys* wins".  A whole generation grew up with this competitive attitude and collectively have a deep seeded need to see others debased, defamed and defeated in order to reassure their self importance and give them the power to say"  Haha you're a loser and I'm a winner!"  To them seeing naked figures not engaged in gratuitous sex denies them this.  To them denial equates defeat.  To them they would rather project the potential for gratuitous debased sex(porn) upon the nude figure rather than admit defeat and lose their sense of self importance and power.

Now,  for the fine artist,  the nude figure, sans the debased sex(porn), represents honesty and innocence,  self confidence and courage,  the divine spark or soul.

But,  since a whole generation has been corrupted and their attitudes and "needs" are prevailent in the USA the children in the plain folk line of figures will not have genitalia nor will the adults have the potential to be morphed into children.

*By toys I mean;  designer clothes, jewelry and shoes,  ipods, cellphones, laptops,  gas guzzling SUV's,( got to keep the soldiers busy, you know)  stock portfolios, university degrees and a custom designed home, mortgage to the hilt etc.  Everything that makes someone who they are at least in their minds.

Attached Link: http://www.faeriewylde.com

We agree (and don't go nuts on me for doing so, please).

For the original poster, a trip to Faeriewylde (link above) will provide a resource forum filled with some resources (though not all) that may help.

Renderotica probably wouldn't be able to help, because we have no genitalia figures that morph down that far (nor would BBay, I suspect). The PoserPros store did have a baby figure w/ genitalia that could possibly be transplanted and morphed-up, but the store is closed (and is @ DAZ Artzone now).

Children genitalia is not only for kids, how do you make a rennassaince statue?

Quote -
Go to Renderotica and make that suggestion -- in regards to this specific subject.  I.....doubt that it'll be well-received.

Err, there's a damned good reason why we don't allow pics or representations of naked kids @ Renderotica. C'mon, Xeno... think about this for a second. :)

Funny enough, DTG (Diane's company - R'otica's parent) also hosts Faeriewylde, and they do renders of innocent naked kids all the time.

--

Quote - Rotica positioned itself in such a way that an innocent image of a cherub would last about six seconds before it was turned into something else.

Umm, that just came out way the hell wrong (we don't do kiddie porn, PERIOD). Cobaltdream summed up my thoughts nicely in response:

Quote - yeah, i think you're mixing apples and oranges.  for instance, i have 2 great books of (fine art) nude photographs.  one of the best and most heartwarming is the huge belly of a very pregnant woman and her lively and also naked 2 year old (i'm guessing).  it's just wonderful, and would be completely inappropriate for an erotic photo collection.

--

Quote - Nope, sorry to dissapoint you, but there is still a lone Poser site out there that still sticks to the "Old tyme spirit" and allows artistical nudity regardless of age.

AND they are located in Nashville.
AND they have a marketplace,

Faeriewylde is what you're speaking of. OTOH, their forum/gallery servers are located in California, and their store is on a separate domain and site completely.

--

Quote -

LIES!!!!! Women fart just as nasty as men  sometimes WORSE!!!!

As a man who is married now and was formerly married to another, I can vouch for this statement in spades. Women can have the raunchiest, most foul-smelling nether-gases on the friggin' planet at times.

--

Quote - That subject here is actually one that caused me to lose quite a bit of interest in the site as a whole.  Simply put it is not an art site.  It's a marketplace.  Art is here only to promote the marketplace.  I can not even dare to look for any classical artworks and not come across nude minors.

• Yep - you nailed it.

• I went to the Portland Art Museum last night for the first time (did you know they have actual Renoirs, Monets, Matisse, and Rodin works in there? Neither did I until last night... I'm going back next weekend - I simply couldn't take it all in w/ just the two hours the missus and I slotted time for before our dinner reservation). Naked kids all over the joint... and strangely enough, none of them were doing anything sexual. Go Figure (sarcasm was directed elsewhere, I promise :) ).

--

sigh... back to the database-hammering with me...

/P

Thank you to, well almost all of you taht replied.  I was hoping to find something that wouldn't require to much post work, but alas.  As for the one or two naysayers I saw, I needed it because certain clothing items tend to gridp diffrently over clothing.  And since I am using wardrobe wizzard for most of my character clothing, I wanted it to more realistically grip my characters.  the gentailia itself was't to be heavily visual, if at all, but I wanted the option to air on the side of realism.   And I do have this to say.  People, get your minds out the gutter!  I am so sick and tired of people always jumping to their little perverted thoughts everytime someone mentions child and genetal in the same sentance.  You know I've worked at day camps over the summer and I noticed that not one of thouse children had a problem stripping down nude in front of any one.  It is people like you that place these stupid misconceptions in people's minds that ends up getting people even more screwed up than they were before.  Most kids up till about the age of puberty have little to no care about appearing nude in front of any one else!  FACE IT!  And if you honestly think there's still a problem with puttin a feature such as genatals, that is natural to ever last person on the planet, on child  figures, than I refer you to any art work made by anyone from before the nineteen hundred, especialy renesance work. 

PS.. THIS WAS NEVER FOR PORN SO STOP BRINGING IT UP!!!!!!!!!

Quote - I wanted it to more realistically grip my characters.  the gentailia itself was't to be heavily visual, if at all, but I wanted the option to air on the side of realism.

Have you perhaps thought of using primitive spheres (scaled x,y,z) to accomplish the same effect? You get up a few spheres, scale them to about the right bulge (male or female), position them on the body, parent them to the body part they're sticking to, and then fit your clothes.

/P

*And if you honestly think there's still a problem with puttin a feature such as genatals, that is natural to ever last person on the planet, on child  figures, than I refer you to any art work made by anyone from before the nineteen hundred, especialy renesance work. 

Not a problem,  it's either or.  Either I place genitals on childlike figures and through the EULA ban the figures use in pornographic images with a threat of civil and criminal prosecution Or I simply don't include them.

Now,  you're choice is equally simple;  use another figure, postwork the details, or model your own.

BTW don't ever try and exert control over me.  Those that seek to control others, by definition are tyrants.