I agree with you electricaardvark. Those little 12 year old fairies that authors claim are 400 years old just don't cut it. For me, a 400 year old anything would have a cigarette hanging out of the corner of their mouth and be jaded to beat the band and certainly wouldn't act like a 12 year old. A boss/friend of mine had this Final Fantasy picture book sitting in his office. While chatting I was perusing it and I come across the picture of a very young girl (like 12) earing nothing except a gun belt. When I asked he said it was a 400 year old fairy and that she was wearing a leotard that happened to be "skin colored". Err yeah right. If this young girl as fairy thing isn't an issue then would people object if I put out a bunch of pics of really young boys wearing nothing or skimpy outfits and claim they are 400 years old?

Well of course it goes without saying that if you're from the UK you're repressed. Where do you think America learned it from? LOL! Kidding. Seriously, there are those who argue that the actual harm to real children is only part of the damage this kind of thing does. While I'll not support the idea of thought crimes, it's true that permissiveness toward a concept gives it a means to flourish. The next thing you know, you have people arguing that if it's okay to think about this stuff, to make fictitious images of it, then maybe there is something redeeming to it after all. Some people will start to romanticize it and project all kinds of seemingly healthy "virtues" onto it, like NAMBLA. But it's not okay, it's just legal. Just because something is not illegal and shouldnt be made illegal doesnt make it right, good or moral; just as there are a good many things now that are illegal that shouldn't be (I'm sure if we all think really hard we might think of one or two. Fortunately, its not (in most cases anyway) the governments job to tell us what is moral and good, only what the majority of people think of as being tolerably sociable behavior. That still doesnt mean that these are not aberrant thoughts which should be subdued (by the individual). The same could be said for images of extreme violence made for entertainment. Currently, these are perfectly legal and feature in many excellent video games. This only makes them legal, not necessarily good. Please understand that Im not taking a stand toward censorship. I don't think that any kind of artistic expression should be criminalized. I do think that motivations should be scrutinized, immoral concepts shunned and maladjusted individuals helped to find healthier, more sociable means of gratification.

For me, a 400 year old anything would have a cigarette hanging out of the corner of their mouth and be jaded to beat the band and certainly wouldn't act like a 12 year old. ROFLMAO...That sounded like it came out of MY mouth. Well stated! ~EA

I hate to be a killjoy, but has not a picture already been deleted from the gallery simply because it showed a young girl naked? No sexual situation involved as far as I know. If it's the one I'm thinking of, it was classically beautiful. All I'm saying is, if the rule exists, state it openly. If the rule sounds too unfair or impolitic to put it in print-- maybe it shouldn't exist. Emily who only feels like she's 400 years old

Okay, Ifinally found the image that started this whole thread! Dude. It never would have occurred to me to think of that as a pre-teen. All I asked was: Where's the cigarette? No I just think she's got small breasts. Youngish, yes but definitely sexually mature. Definitely not a child. But still, great thread huh?

Interesting, since I started the thread, and didn't mention any images. I would be interested in seeing what image you are refering to. ~EA

My mistake. It was queri that mentioned one. Oops.

And then I saw the rest of the person's gallery and thought: hmmm, icky.

Okay, so where is this image? I seriously never go into the galleries all that much anymore. (damnable curiousity got to me...) /P

EA, Hiram - dunno whether to thank you for IM'ing me the answers, or curse at ye. :) The ouija board one was definately borderline... I'm surpised it's still up. The beach image could stand to have the girl's shorts stand out a bit more, otherwise it looks largely innocent. (please, no mas... I'm almost scared of what'll pop up next.) /P

Actually, the image I mentioned is gone, so you can't have seen it since the start of this thread. Other images by this artist like it have also been removed, though I suspect at the artist's initiative in response to the admin. action. I haven't got permission to mention who it is, but this artist is well known at this site, and none of the artwork comes within the legal definition of child pornography, let alone the legal definition of regular pornography. Interestingly, as I type this, this artist's goods, including youthful body morphs, are still for sale in the MP, advertised by an image no more or less pornographic than the banned image. R'osity's Terms of Service ban: Posting Unacceptable Images which include; 1. Depictions of physical arousal or sexual acts. 2. Genital contact with ANY object, other than sitting or clothing. 3. Rape or torture of any living or dead creature. The image to which I am referring did not fall into any of these categories; it involved a youthful figure, topless, but no genatalia showing. No sex act involved. So the membership is left to wonder whether there is a new unposted standard, or whether images are being deleted on the subjective whims of admins.

That should be "genitalia." Sorry.

"or whether images are being deleted on the subjective whims of admins" Or perhaps only when they generate enough concern to be mentioned. Which is fairly civilized if you think about it.

Well, you know, that raises a whole slew of issues onto itself. Remember a few months back when someone (tonymouse, I think) posted an image of two guys in the shower and it was deleted because the gallery admin immediately assumed that, because one guy had his back the other, they were doing the wild thing? Even though images of heterosexuals in the same position barely merit a concern? It all got straightened out (so to speak), and the image was allowed to stay, but if the issue hadn't been raised (uh... again, so to speak), it would have disappeared and that would have been that.

I very much doubt that was the case with the image I am discussing, as the same artist had been posting similar images for months without any negative comment, to my knowledge. Looking in the gallery today, I note that at least one image is protesting the banning of the I image I am discussing, which suggests that the concern, at least the public concern, is on the other side.

Also, R'osity Terms of Service do not state that images will be removed when an admin gets a certain number of complaints. It is the subjective nature of such actions that sparked the whole controversy with Legume, and gave birth to the Magic Pink Pony, which was a silver lining to me, but not to others.

Ah, the MPP. Legume, where are you these days? How's the Golden Pony and Mr. Fluffers and His Crack Whore? (sigh)

Hey, give Legume a break! It's hard to subvert the Establishment once your artisitc activism gets you named AOM ;-) And yet I'll bet he could still do it...

"The Supreme Court is not likely to support a ban on computer generated porn, adult or otherwise..." - Wanna bet? "...maladjusted individuals helped to find healthier, more sociable means of gratification." - Will they be given the option to remain 'maladjusted,' or will this be mandatory? "If it's the one I'm thinking of, it was classically beautiful." - This issue is so controversial and emotionally charged (and an easy vote getter for demagogues-read politicians), that very few people are going to be willing to take the heat. As soon as you say 'child' and 'nude' in the same sentence, it's CYA time. If the image is as described, then it should be protected but I certainly couldn't blame someone for pulling it. Given some of the truly grotesque legal consequences people have suffered for things which were clearly not pornographic, that's understandable. You can whistle up a crowd to protest just about anything but not many folks are going to publicly support the right of someone to create even classically beautiful images of nude children, real or virtual. As a result, even a small, but vocal minority can succeed in imposing their view of morality on antire society.

"Wanna Bet?" Yeah, my money's on the Supreme Court bending over backwards on that Zero Tolerance thing. "classically beautiful" in a literal way-- what classical picture-- I'm thinking Poussin and up into the baroque-- was complete without a few naked toddlers strewn about? To reflect the light probably. I'm probably the most angry now because this issue has made me feel and think like a pervert-- what else is it when we try to put our minds in that gutter to figure out what is wrong or not, when really wrong, really twisted, sets the internal alarms off without even trying. See, I agree totally with you VirtualSite-- I just don't think it's a workable rule of law. In the best of all possible worlds-- that one in which I have a backbone-- Child pornography, even totally digitally produced, whould be a cear picture of a child being sexually abused, or obviously inticed into being sexually abused. And even the latter -- if they were cautionary tales and very tame [your cliched guy with a bag of candy] --might be all right. Maybe. Oh probably not.

In some respects, I can't help but feel that our society brought this onto itself. We lived through the sexually repressed 50s, then pretty much blew the barn doors off in the 60s and 70s, and never looked back. But we forgot, as we always do, that with freedom comes responsibility. We never gave ourselves the chance to learn, as the Europeans have known for decades, a healthy appreciation for sex: instead, in the Great American Way, it became a platform for politics and merchandizing -- and when was the last time you saw either a politician or a Madison Avenue product exhibit responsibility? :) So we muddle this ill-thought-out idea about sex and sexuality and couple it with our great societal standby: "individual freedom over all" -- and this is what we get as a result. By the time someone noticed there was something slightly amiss, it was way too late, and now we're all trying to figure out what's right and wrong and appropriate and not -- and so we wind up with judges in Vancouver declaring child-porn-S&M stories as "meaningful". So when some "artiste" says, "Hey, I'm just celebrating the beauty of the female form, like all the great artists!", I say, "Pardon me, but that's a lot of bullcrap, and you know it, bud." While I'm sure some of them are genuine in their intent, far more of them are getting their jollies off in public, and they get away with it pretty much because we let them. "I'm just displaying the innocence of a child." Like hell you are, and don't try to pull that line on me. I don't know what the answer is, but I know one thing for sure: we have to all start taking some more responsibility for ourselves around here. I know how much we all loathe trolling in the galleries, but dammit, if we don't speak up and voice our concerns when images in dubious taste show up, we might as well just say screw it and make this place another Renderotica and Thralldom. We're practically there now, in light of some of the stuff in the gallery, and I don't think anyone here can deny that. And before the flames begin, this doesn't even begin to imply some kind of "no nudity" rule, even though I can tell you right now there will be some knee-jerk reactionary out there who will assume otherwise. You wanna do nothing but naked women? Fine, go for it. In Poser it's a snap, and we all know it. But while you're celebrating the beauty of the female form, let's make sure it's a true celebration, okay?

VS, I've totally got your back on this one. Folks, the Emperor is f***ing naked. You can't find one "classically beautiful" image of a sexy toddler or pre-teen prior to the 20th century. "Fairies," or "faeries" if you prefer, were not imagined as sexy little pre-teens with wings before the 20th century, in adult fantasy literature. Blame Disney. He's the one who gave us Tinkerbell, who was not modeled after Marilyn Monroe, by the way, but the pinup girls of the WWII era. If you want to do sexy pre-teens, fine, but keep them to yourself and out of a public forum. And we all know sexy when we see it. Many of these "fairy" images look more like JonBenet Ramsey than anything else: sexualized youngsters. Not all of them mind you, but we all have enough sense to know damn good and well which ones are provacative. We can defend all this crap with any of the pathetic excuses that VS has outlined above, or others, but I'll tell you, if the people who are trying to push these censorship laws through came in here and looked around, this site would get shut down so fast it'd make your motherboard sizzle and fry. If we don't govern ourselves, they'll do it for us.

Wow. VS, I can't help but agree here. It'll be hard at first, since you'll have legions of people flaming back at you about being prudish or such... after all, lots of people in real life have tried to shut exactly this sort of thing down, and not just over children, either. I usually don't mush around in the galleries all that much these days, but I do see it as a challenge. You've seen it (and have proven it) yourself- T&A unfortunately rules the Poser gallery... and unfortunately, most of the T&A kiddies are going to want a certain idealized image to fill their collections with. I do see one problem, though it isn't a short-term one. Let me explain, albeit in a brutally honest way: Given the evidence we have so far (70k+ members but damned few actually contribute anything at all), the bulk of R'osity's membership IMHO is comprised of folks who don't give a shout in Hell about art, they just came to see Vicky's tits and gum up their keyboards. Given this, what would happen if we all jumped in and got aggressive about discouraging this sort of thing? Would R'osity begin unleashing the bans against us if their membership were to drop because of the proportional drop in T&A in their galleries? Note that I'm not accusing R'osity of encouraging any sort of soft porn here, but I am saying that if we jump in and do this, and the membership begins to drop as a result, how would R'osity react? Once the complaints from these 'artistes' start reaching the staff, then what? Don't think that this isn't far-fetched... I am convinced that once the T&A factor is successfully discouraged in the galleries, that the hits will begin to drop, and then the membership numbers. Once that happens, we will all find ourselves at a rather ugly crossroads. As for my part, I have already removed all the images from my own submission pile that even hint at gratuitous T&A. I cna only hope that anyone else who is alarmed at the degredation of the galleries can do the same. /P

Well........This started out as Poser related. But it's grown into a whole "What's wrong wth the sytem" kinda thing. So technically. I have to move this to the OT forum. I was hoping it would die on it's own. So I wouldn't have to move it. But since people want to keep talking about it.........

I don't think R'osity wil give a rat's ass if membership drops. Membership is free. They make their money (correct me if I'm wrong here) off of the community that buys stuff here. That's us. If we get really unhappy about pervs pissing in our pool, they'll back us up 'cause they need our revenue. It is, after all, a business. Now if revenues start dropping as a result of the membership dropping, then they have a quandry: Artist's Community or Risky Softcore Porn Depot? I think they've made their preference clear in the TOS, it's just that some folks are trying to see how far they can push it. We need to let them know how far.

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/gallery.ez?ByArtist=Y&Artist=leomax

I got NO idea where leomax is coming from-- I think you have to speak in tongues to understand his/her?? work?? But when was this about T&A? I have this powerful need arising in me to do nudes nothing but nudes! Quite honestly I do not see any degradation of the gallery--quite the opposite. I used to think the Poser galleries were lame-o, this could possibly be before I got Poser, what do you think? However, I do think the quality is vastly higher than it was. I don't go nuts over the majority of it, but that's the nature of taste. I still think the quality of postings has improved over the last year. I was hoping if the mods did anything, it would be to tell us to stop worrying the Poster gallery mods are working on the standards issue. But instead they throw us to Off-topic. I'm not sanguine about this. Throw that in Babelfish for a treat. I can't find my beautiful fat lady bellydancing or she'd be up by now. Maybe I should try a pre-school faery instead. Oh, Sexually alluring child faeries are NOT the invention of the 20th century. Every heard of Charles Dodgson, he took pictures of his Alice --naked--before he sent her down the rabbit hole. And there's this painting of Cupid hugging himself that makes him a poster child for every chicken hawk out there. And don't get me started on Caraveggio! A Bishop bought his Eros Triumphant and kept it behind a curtained recess for "special friends." 20th century is responsible for the perfection of genocide, TV and Nuclear Annihilation, we did not invent pedophiles. Emily None of this, by the way stops me from admiring Caravaggio's work or loving Alice in Wonderland.

I never said we invented pedophiles. Puti aren't portrayed as sexy. Pedophiles will be drawn to naked children regardless of how they are portrayed, but when portay them, it's usually obviously sexualized, as in the gallery linked to above. Alice wasn't a fairy, she was a real girl. (photos taken in late 1800s) And don't even compare anyone on this site with Caravaggio. I agree that the technical quality of the work has improved, but the subject matter has gone to T&A, and then some. I shudder to think what we wil do when "holodeck" technology is a reality. I think that our early pioneering in consumer-accesible virtual reality is an indicator: Holo-brothels where you can shag kids.

I'll agree that the vast majority of posing is more Alma-Tadema or Lord Leighton, both masters of Victorian T and A. But I do still insist that sexy preteen fairies-- better spelling?-- have their roots in Victorian repression. As do we. I don't want to see Jon-Benet Ramsey in the galleries either. I don't think there is anything "cute" about kids dressed up like streetwalkers or Vegas showgirls. But the picture that was deleted in no way resembled that kind of portrayal. What in the heck is so darn wrong about T&A that restricting your viewing to pictures that don't contain nudity can not Fix! Emily

This IS an interesting thread, and I'm glad to see it's gone so long without any problems. Bravo. Now, topically, I have several opinions of my own, just like anyone. However, let me address some thing from the point of view of how I see the effect of these subjects on the site as a whole. The staff of renderosity are also waiting to see the particular outcome fo these debated laws. In the meantime, the safest thing for our membership is to adopt an attitude of possibly erring on the safe side. While we have not yet hammered out a hard and fast rule, we have been working on it. The difficulty lies in the changing nature of laws- if the courts of the land are having difficulty with this one, you can imagine it won't be a breeze for us, either. We are trying to maintain the greatest possible freedom here for everyone- the freedom of artists to post, as well as the freedom of people to browse without serious offense to their principles. All of this must be done in a manner which takes into account the laws of the land, and the regulations of the site. Pleae be patient if it seems that we are working things out in a case by case manner at the moment. If we did immediately make a new rule, that would be a knee-jerk reaction which ignored the needs and opinions of the membership, so many of which have been eloquently stated here. Where am I going with all this? Just to say this- give us time. We are trying to work within the bounds of the laws as they will be to reach the fairest solution for everyone. This is why your input is valuable, and if there is a particular issue which anyone thinks should be addressed right away, please contact me or one of the other mods directly. Thanks!

Since the thread has began branching out to T&A, I am compelled to "jump" in again with comments. I'm sure they won't be as elequent as many others I have read (sure wish I had the writing talent they do...grin). Everyone has made good points all around. Hence the good debate. Now, I'm crtainly not artistically gifted. I haven't even had time lately to add to my 2-pic gallery. But, I certainly keep buying things and intending to...grin. But when hear (read) that the "team" is looking at possibly changing the TOS as it relates to nudity, it bothers me. I purchased Poser (et al) to do something I can't do easily in the real world in photography...and that is to have a model that I can use as nude as I want to. Certainly, I've taken enough photos of my wife...hehe. I don't think my renders are (and neither will they be) what I would consider gratuitous T&A. But I get worried stuff like that won't be allowed if the frenzy get too fevered. As far as T&A goes, Boris, Frank, and others have concentrated on that topic and their work is sold mainstream and, as far as I know, appreciated. Should some of you be writing them letters and complaining their work is nothing but T&A? Pin-ups have also been around for ages. If we want to get in the gutter, California is the biggest legal producer of triple-x rated videos in the world. Note I said legal. If none of the above interest you, then I suppose you don't bother purchasing any of them. As someone else above said, turning nudity off is a good idea if you don't like it or think there is too much of it in the galleries. What I DO get upset about is people who DON'T want to view those kinds of things feeling some sort of need to make sure that that no one else gets to view it either. Having spent nearly 10 years in other parts of the world, I may have a different, perhaps (if I may be so bold), viewpoint of nudity than other people who are more, hmmmm, born-and-raised American. Which brings me, sort of, back to the original topic. When visiting FKK places in Germany, or other such nude beaches in Holland, Belgium, Denmark, and Sweeden, I saw all ages of people enjoying the sun and water. Families completely nude. While, I must admit to looking at 14-year-old girls and marveling at how they were turning into a woman, my overwhelming thought was how really cool it was that a family could do something like that and think nothing of it. I wished the US was more that way. Or the people IN the US. (one fond memory I have is talking to a group of (late) teenagers in Holland for some directions and one of the girls asking if she could get in the back of the van and change to dry clothes out of her bathing suit. I didn't look in the rear-view mirror for a peak, instead I marveled at how some one could hop into a stranger's car and change clothes like it was nothing!) The topic goes deep. Nudity, sexuality, etc. Arguments abound about how it leads to rape, etc. But I believe every European country has less per capita rape stats than we do in America. Discussions about how it leads to the objectification of females and belittles them. Fat -vs- thin (and anarexia...sp?). And, of course, child pornography and abuse. I don't know that it can ever be done, but I don't believe the answer is to "curb" or ban explicit nudity. IMHO, the answer lies in getting people to understand, for example, a woman can be beautiful and sexy and still be the best mystery writer (etc) around. I looked at Leomax's gallery. I didn't really find much wrong with it. The statue pic, tho the girls pictured are "older" than my daughter, reminded me of the time she first noticed a difference between herself and her brothers. And, naturally asked about it. I took that completely as curious innocence. And I considered that when I viewed the "statue" pic as well. Other pics of his seemed to convey "messages" that I thought were well within reason...not a one of them catering to any prurient part of me. I especially liked the one from the future. I suppose my comment will be unpopular. But the thread has be civil so far and I can certainly take constructive disagreement. I guess I have rambled long enough...hehe.

I think you've made some excellent points. The only thing I wanted to be certain to be considered was the fact that as mods, we can't judge things like that based on our values, perceptions and similar. We have to consider what the current laws are, and try to reach a compromise between the freedoms of our artists and protection against possible retributive actions. It isn't a personal decision, nor is it an easy one.

Tks, Micheleh. I realize it's not any kind of an easy decision, especially when the forum is one for artists. Certainly, as I posted in (my) reply number 44, legal experts have been trying to define the limits for SOME time now. And even the existing law, as I tried to point out (feebly, maybe), leaves a lot to be interpreted. A comment above, by someone, suggested "erring" on the safe side when forming rules. Perhaps that is the prudent thing to do. I just get worried when people say that 'cause I figure it's going to be overkill. I think R'city has an acceptable TOS as it is. Not having read all of it again for the purpose of this thread, I would like to say that giving the "authorities" to right to remove any picture they think improper should be enough. I certainly trust the people in charge to decide, not only for the sake of their membership, but for the more far-reaching things that we are discussing here. I'm sure R'City will have enough morals to remove anything that they feel is improper without regard to dwindling membership. One final comment I "touched" on in my latest reply...I have now reviewed every render on Leomax's site (at my pathetic 28 baud speed...ugh) and I gotta say, s/he doesn't give me any impression whatsoever that s/he is obsessed with producing work that is intended to evoke any kind of sexually titulating (sp?) response. I am reminded of a joke (hears moans from the crowd): A patient of a psychaitrist (ugh, I need spell check) was asked to undergo a simple Rorshach (there goes my spelling again) test. The doctor drew a straight horizontal line and asked the patient to tell him what it suggested. The patient replied, "A naked woman lying down." The doctor then drew another line, this one vertical. The patient responded it looked like a naked woman standing up. Frustrated, the doctor then drew an oblique line. The patient responded that it looked like a naked woman getting ready to lay down. The doctor threw up his hands and proclaimed the patient had a dirty mind. The patient replied, "Me? Hey, you're the one drawing all the dirty pictures!" Hopefully, that old joke somehow made a point...grin.

The question of virtual child porn is being decided by the Supreme Court tonight. At least on 'First Monday' on CBS. The promo promises that the results will "shock you." Sigh, and I want to watch 'The McGlaughlin Group' so I'll probably switch back and forth and miss the best parts.

Well, I just tuned in and it seems to deal more with doctoring photographs as opposed to CGI. But, more may follow. Tks for the alert.

I turned my perv antenna on high and looked at the leomax gallery. I thought the teddy bear was cute. "Campaign in a museum" was quirky and because of the contact (even with a statue), I could see pulling it both for safety's sake and because I can understand some people being offended by it. I'm afraid I found none of them in any way arousing. It seems that the true feelings of some people go beyond images of nude children. They appear to have fundamental objections to nudity in any image - which is fine. The "T&A" content of the galleries seems to indicate that many of the people who post images do not agree with this view. The issue of children is legitimate and needs to be dealt with. Objections over too much nudity on a site devoted to art (and chiefly to a product whose raison d'etre is modeling the human figure), just seems a little, perhaps unrealistic. It's a rare Poser related site without nudity. If Renderosity were to ban nudity (including in the store and free offerings to be consistent), I certainly wouldn't leave, but I think it would be a mistake. A better solution would be a seperate gallery and text only links, troublesome though that would be. Perhaps that would satisfy those who object to T&A and the rest of us as well.

"I think R'city has an acceptable TOS as it is. Not having read all of it again for the purpose of this thread, I would like to say that giving the "authorities" to right to remove any picture they think improper should be enough. I certainly trust the people in charge to decide, not only for the sake of their membership, but for the more far-reaching things that we are discussing here. I'm sure R'City will have enough morals to remove anything that they feel is improper without regard to dwindling membership." Commendable, but not universal. There ar many who see going on our own judgement as "going by unwritten rules" and "operating behind the scenes" and so on. So we try to be as up front about things as we can, as well as we can.

For deciding to take your time to see what the climate is here as well as the--bound-to-be massively ambiguous--decisions from the Supreme Court. Why do I say that? Because any legal decision regarding what is sexually impermissable has always been subjective and hard to interpret let alone enforce. And we're dealing in Poser with unreal images of people who don't exist. So. . .good grief, the most we could be accused of is stimulating someone with fantasies-- like that has never happened in the galleries up till now. Like that isn't a big part of any kind of art-- high, low, or cr*p-- in the first place. I like the rules so far. They are very clear. And they are not enforced with steel-tipped boots. Thank you again. Emily

I just finished "First Monday" and, as usual, it had good points on both sides. Certainly a dramatic point being made at the end to sway the vote to overturn the earlier decision. The show made points that I get worried about (in other words...): Make that decision about child nudity (etc.) and you effectively eliminate sex education books dealing with the adolescent child, recognized works of (video) art like "Taxi Driver", etc. And as the series also explained, the decision in no way "endorsed" child pornograghy. Nor do I. But banning everything that the lowest common denominator might find an objection with is not the answer...because the lowest common denominator might be the same kind of people (men) we learned about in Afganistan. The answer is in educating as best as can be done. I certainly feel that I am as open and as honest as I can be with our daughter...age 7 now. She is overly friendly, not shy at all (a good thing, but something that needs to be watched). We have emphasized over and over the obvious things: strangers in cars, friends in cars, friends when we are not around, good touching and bad touching, etc. (all the usual). And from age 3, we taught her that she had a vagina and boys had a penis, instead of "tootoo", "tushy", etc. She still walks across the house after a bath while drying to tell us something and I love that innocence about her. She doesn't think a thing about it and I'm so glad she can be like that. I have taken pictures of her (I think when she was 5 or 6) sitting on the bed with the sheets over her legs and I think they are beautiful. I would have posted them on our family website, but my wife suggested someone might turn us in for child pornography because her (5/6-year old) chest was bare. (instead, we posted from the neck up because her expression was so great, and the main point of the whole photograph). But we refrained from posting what both of us agreed was a great picture because "fanatics" exist.

Nothing wrong with that- she's wearing a quilt.

Very cute

But you see what I mean? As others would suggest, and not without good reason (LadySilverMage), I suppose, some people would use my pic to "get off on", or search out the child in question and "do something". I certainly don't claim to be an authority on just what pedophiles do, but if I had to make a guess, it's a rare event that pedophiles search out 6-year-old girls they have seen on a website and take advantage of them. Usually, IMHO, they usually seek out family members and close friends. THAT is the bigger problem, I think. My main concern in not posting the "full" pic was that someone would report me. And that is a shame.

As an interesting aside, Chuck, in 1999, the Los Angeles Police Department funded a special unit to investigate links between sex crimes and pornography. The results were conclusive, and many studies since have backed it up from many different samplings. 83% of all cases involving the molestation of children, also involved child pornography, or photographs that pictured children either nude or lightly clothed. Interestingly enough, the LAPD conclusion was that use of child pornography/images of the nature involved lowered inhibitions and blurred the line of acceptibility in people, making them more likely to act on those impulses. Personally, I analyze the statistic and think, pedophiles are just very likely to obtain those images. I'm not going to say either way on this issue, but I DO think that Renderosity is allowed to set it's own standards, regardless of legal clarification. While a lot of people would no doubt get angry about the censorship involved, even more would get angry if an outside organization came in and began screaming and putting pressure on Bondware. Against the law or not, I personally would support Renderosity covering it's ass on this one. Regards, Paul

Entropic: As you describe it, the LAPD study is worthless in establishing a causal link between kiddy porn and pedophilia as the population sampled are pedophiles, and did not include non-pedophiles. Only an unbiased sample of both groups would have a chance of establishing any connection that is statistically reliable. In fact, the Feds have been unable to produce for the Courts any valid study that makes a link between pornography and sex crimes. What other reliable studies exist on the subject that have been submitted in court show no causal connection. Other variables impacting on pedophilia, as you described it, were likely not included, such as the pedophiles child and family history. From a statistical point of view it would have been equally invalid to associate pedophilia with wearing shoes, drinking water or beer, walking, driving, or reading ability.

If I may try to add to what Houlong has said, in my feeble way, statistics can be misleading. Sometimes, they are done in a biased fashion based on who is doing them and just what the "intent" to prove was to begin with. Frequently, you hear that eating (fill in the blank) increases the liklihood of getting cancer by 500%! It sounds sensational. BUT, if the 1 person in 100,000 got it without eating that (fill in the blank), it is now only 5 out of 100,000 (or is it 6? grin). I think what he might have been saying is how many people collect child porn (or any kind of porn) and never perform/execute any kind of activity (rape, molestation, etc) at all. To me, it seems to be a given that anyone who has the uncontrolable urge to act on their thoughts would also collect porn of a similar nature. So which came first, the chicken or the egg? In other words, were they destined to become molesters regardless of collecting porn, or did the act of collecting porn "make" them act on their thoughts? Who really knows. But I know that statistics can be skewed to prove a point that someone set out to prove in the first place. I'm not defending pedophiles. Just trying to make some points on just how much a picture like I posted drives someone to do it.

Statistics can only be twisted to prove/disprove/etc a point to those who do not understand statistics. The level of understanding of statistics needed to defrock misuse of statistics isn't that arcane or obtuse. A book back in the fifties "How to Lie with Statistics" is enough. Some basic notions: You have to have large numbers to get a reliable relation between variables. To say that four of five Feeblics use Dunstan Downovers is useless if only five Feeblics were asked. It normally would take several hundred. A relation between variables may be that one causes the other, the two are related to a third cause, or the relation is accidental. For years there was a near perfect relation between the stork populations and the birth rate in Stockholm .... leading to the old adage. The common factor was weather and what one does when there are long cold nights. In pedophilia, it is more likely that pedophiles gravitate to pedophilia because of their condition than the other way around. Few managers in the world today know how to count. While one and one make two, it's important to clearly establish what a one and a two are. Is one bunch of bananas and one bunch of grapes make two banapples? Two fruits? Lawyers are fearful of numbers. It makes them look stoopider. Conservative lawyers particularly as they rant and rave against the use of numbers in race discrimination cases, not realizing that the numbers, statistically, are useless. None, to my knowledge, has ever introduced scholarly studies on how to use/trust numbers. A statistician takes care to define the size of the population to be tested to ensuer random sampling and unintended bias. The pollsters in the Truman-Dewey presidential race used phone books to determine that Dewey beat Truman in 1948. Too bad those without phones voted for Truman. The belief that exposure of media that portrays bad things leads inexorably to the acting out of those bad things is at the foundation of tyranny. Those subjects singled out for bad thing repression fall in three categories: Sex, Politics, and Religion. And in all three, the death penalty has been exacted for violations of the selected badness index .... The Jews were denounced as degenerate, as proven by their art. Possession of the Bible in Saudi Arabia is a serious crime. And reactionaries were shot in a lot of countries ascribing to the Communist faith. I lean to an absolutist view of the Right of Expression. Hate crimes, Sign Ordinances, rules against offensive speech, laws against porn, et al are violations of the rights of man and in the US - unconstitutional. Only expression which DO NOT or ARE NOT offensive, upsetting, obscene, DO NOT require the protection of Law, certainly a constitutional guarantee

I cant be bothered to read all of this, but I just have to make a remark here; Isn't it so, so sad that this question has to be asked at all!? - I have a toddling girl, and another on the way, and the thought that anyone would consider me a mollester or abuser or just plain perverted if i took a picture of them in the bath, naked, or partially clothed makes my toes curl, and I see red!!!!! - Should I decide to create a rendering of them now, or at some point in there childhood, again, looking natural, then I will! - from where I see it, you fit into 1 of 3 categories on this issue: 1) You are turned on by pictures of children (EVEN CGI!?!?!?) and evidently need castrating! 2) You are on a mission as Mr/Mrs Goodytwoshoes to question any individual simply because they dared to show a pic of someone young, and shock horror, they were naked!!!!! 3) You are as gobsmacked and as disturbed by either sides viewpoint and just want to live a normal, healthy, natural life with as few hangups and fears as possible since there is already enough to worry about!!

Glad I didn't bet Huolong. Either a sudden surge of rationality has hit or the Supremes are smoking some really good s**t in their chambers.