OK, I already know I'm nutz, so forget that. But, has anyone else noticed the recently increasing number of Poser images, where the nude Vickie, or Steph is looking aweful young. Not that you can say a 3D character is under 18, but some of the renders I've seen lately are getting danferously close to going over that line. If some already haven't. Is it illeagel to post nude 3D images of 14 year old girls...even if they are just 3D models? That is a direction I wish not to venture. ~EA

I understand your point, EA. Often I've noticed some suspiciously young looking renders on here..particularly the angels and stuff...BUT, I'm not gonna judge anyone unless its obviously crude. Most of the stuff is not graphic and is simply nude pics of young looking girls. It's not illegal to depict young girls (of any age) -- but it is illegal to depict young girls (rendered or not) in sexually provocative poses.

Well leagly they are all under 18yrs old. Poser hasn't been out that long. And what is the age of puberty for a fairy?

Concider yourself pardoned. My point is/was: "has anyone else noticed " Thus making it kind of stupid to post images for them. ~EA

I went into the gallery and looked at the first two What's New Pages. I didn't see anything like what was mentioned. That's far enough for me.

That's all I'm asking...your opinion. BTW: I wasn't necessaraly speaking of the galleries. It was more of a generized comment. ~EA

I know what you were speaking of, and I agree. It's unnecessary and gratuitous.

with a 3D model surely it's a question of personal perception. In the real world there are people who look 40 when they are only 20 and there are people who are 30 who only look 15. It comes down the admins to make the decision and the way things are at this site these days I feel sure that anything that could possible cause legal repurcussions for the site and, therefore, loss in revenue would immediately be deleted. I think I fit into the former category :(

ElectricAardvark, Yes-yes and I thought the very same thing EA. You have to really watch this. Even if they are sweet and nice works of art. There has been many cases where parents were arrested in some states by just taking very reg baby in bath photos. This is why I do adult fairies. To me it's just common sense, do not do nude's under 18. Even if they are art, some prefert might be getting a kick out of it. 2=== I have noticed a bunch of very tastless posts. that belong in RENDEROTICA because they are sexual acts. Not just nudes. Hell I like sexy nudes. but the ones I'm talking about are more than that. 3- Speaking of Renderotica they do not put up any young people. They are very careful with that.(at less they use to be.) haven't been there in months. Your not nuts EA.

Love is Grandchildren.

which part? The legal repurcussions, or the 20 looking 40. lol. I have looked the exact same since I was 17. Have for eons, probably alway will. If I shave, I still get ID'd for smokes. hehe ~EA

just a remark: You are speaking about legal contents. I'm living in europe and US law are not applied here. People could say "this pic is illegal" but other could say it's legal cause the law is different. In France you can still take pic of your baby/litle kid in "adam suit" without any problem for exemple. Legal/illegal about nude/youg pic is a very hard to define without a good referencial. I hope i'm clear (english is not my language) Laurent

I've noticed a few, I think I know the ones you're talking about. I saw a few in the MarketPlace that made me do a double take. The legalities are that even virtual images can be considered actionable if they portray or appear to portray minors in sexual situations or lewdly displaying their genitals. I have seen some of what I would consider close to erotic images featuring mature-but-petite bodied figures with patently underage-looking faces. (and the hits go pouring in to the MarketPlace) I haven't seen anything I personally find objectionable but I agree the limit is being nudged. But I'm against censorship in all forms and that most certainly includes fictional images that never involved real people. As the old saying goes: I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend your right to say it. Title 18 of the United States Code governs child pornography. See Chapter 110, Sexual Exploitation and Other Abuse of Children. 18 U.S.C. 2256 defines "Child pornography" as: "any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where - (A) the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; (B) such visual depiction is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; (C) such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or (D) such visual depiction is advertised, promoted, presented, described, or distributed in such a manner that conveys the impression that the material is or contains a visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct . . ."

Hiram, thanks for that list. I also like my freedom and everyone eles too. :O) I wasn't trying to say we ought to be Judges and be delete happy with everything we don't like personaly.

Love is Grandchildren.

Oh, I wasn't responding to anyone in particular, Turtle. In fact, everything below post 8. was made while I was researching/writing mine.

Hiram wrote:"I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend your right to say it" I couldn't agree more, however, that doesn't mean you have the right to sayit where ever you want to. Having said that (Ducks flaming arrows) I don't think we need to go deleting things either. Just that some people think that there freedom of speech ( US Constitution) allows them to be major a-holes and everyone has to accept it 'cause there protected under the constitution, and that simply isn't so. ~EA

It's the way of the world these days, EA. (insert resigned shrug here)

The portion of the child-porn law pertaining to computer-generated images that Hiram quotes is currently under review by the U.S. supreme court, after having been overturned in a lower court as being unconstitutionally vague. The decision is, as far as I know, still pending. My own view is that all that language about "appearing" and "conveying the impression" leaves law enforcement with insanely broad powers; it means, essentially, that the makers of main-stream movies, say, who cast adults in teen-age roles, could be convicted as child-pornographers if even the movie trailer depicts said adult actors having simulated sex. It basically creates a new class of thought crime, in which a concept is determined to be illegal. It's almost unprecedented in this country--I find it much more disturbing that any mildly eroticsed images of borderline teenage girls.

Well, the code in question seems to center around one requirement, "sexually expicit conduct". What is that? Does standing naked fall in that category? Or are they implying sexual activity (similar to what Bill Clinton denied)? I can tell you right now, I bought a copy of (one of) David Hamilton's books. If you know his work, you know most of the models to be under 18 (most, I would judge between 14-16). Yet the book is sold in the US. I guess the photgraphs are not depicting "sexually explicit conduct". As to the comment from France, I agree. Renderosity is worldwide. The laws on ages and such differ in all countries. And having been to about 25 countries (most of them in Europe), I can tell you we Americans come pretty close to making the top of the "prude list". So, IF anyone is suggesting some slight censorship, I guess we had better make it according to the lowest common denominator (say, the Vatican...grin) and not just assume thngs have to always be tailored for the US.

With fairies that are based on the Millenium girls, we got problems. What is mildly eroticised? For some people ANY nudity is eroticised-- I think, they have a problem since art is, and has been for 9000 yrs, centered around nudes. But they also have a voice. This is a very very subjective area. I, for one, would like specific rules. I'm going to be working with fairies soon. Just bought Ziza. I don't want to be slammed for something I didn't know was wrong. For instance, is the Conforming Ivy prop out of bounds? Are convenient flowers, on an otherwise naked body, out of bounds-?- I'm speaking of a figure based on the Mil PreTeen figure, I don't consider faeries built on standard Victoria to be other than adult. And I'm not talking about sexual situations that involve touching, just nudity or the impression of nudity-- since that seems to be the same thing in the galleries now. And, is nudity on a preteen fairy, out of bounds period? No matter how innocent it appears? It doesn't matter that I don't think it should be out of bounds, I'll live with whatever rules are set up-- my real concern is that the rules are clear and easy to understand. Emily

I've noticed that on occasion. It's kind of funny - the two major 'subgenres' of naked poser babes are 1)naked poser babes with enormous hooters and a size 2 waist and 2) naked poser babes with no chest and very young looking bodies There is a well known maker of fairies who makes the youngest looking poser girls I've seen around - and needless to say any time I see them in an erotic image I cringe. Our best solution? as usual - just don't look!

Well, I'll bite -- tell me why the obsession for creating "eroticized" images of girls that young in the first place. I'm sure the responses will be just enlightening as all hell. :)

VirtualSite-- if you tell me what an eroticised picture is, I might be able to respond. I would be interested in doing atmospheric nudes or seminudes of younger girls to picture my own childhood. I'm female, I turned off on my body rather early-- some of these pictures feel empowering to me and most of them evoke innocence. Needless to say, I'm not planning to do sexual pictures, but I don't equate nudity with sexuality-- I never have. The two can overlap, but they are not the same thing. We are back in the area of what is in the artist's head and the viewer's head, may not, in fact rarely is, the same thing. Emily

I believe -- anyone feel free to correct me, as these are not my predelictions -- that the allure is possibly in the projected "fresh innocence" and that a man would feel that his masculinity and control was unquestionable. An inexperienced young girl (or boy) has no, or limited, basis for comparison. I'll admit to being attracted to girls who are as young as my daughter (who is 25) but there is a difference, I feel, in being aroused by someone of a pre-sexual age and being attracted to a young firm, healthy physique. I don't get it, personally. I think it's an immature and insecure impulse.

I'm just wondering how any computer generated (and I frankly think that was meant to broadly cover the use of digital cameras and photo doctoring of adding a head of a child to a pornographic image) art "involves the use of a minor" in all technical aspects it does not involve the use of a minor, a senior, a middle aged woman or any person at all.

If they say a computer generated image as in the manner in which we create images - than any painter on canvas should also most assuredly fall into the same category if they decide to recreate botticelli or michelangelo etc... Frankly I am waiting for the outcome of this ruling - then if it passes I am waiting for the first instance of a completely unreal image (that in no way uses or depicts an actual person) being held up against this law and watching that concept of the law fall flat on it's face.

Furthermore if they decree a poser character to be legitimate than I would like to start the Society for the Advancement of Mythical Creatures having laws passed against their misuse as well and have a law passed regarding the use of centaurs, griffons and such in sexual scenes as that is pushing the edge of bestiality...

Images of violence should also be banned they show/encourage the rape and torture of women, the abuse of humans as a whole. And anti-political images encourage political traitors (an offense that is still hangable lol)

Art has always depicted nude young figures as they symbolize purity and innocence it doesn't make a creator a pervert. I'm also familiar with various folklore - fairies were erotic creatures - just like mermaids, who tantalised and teased mortal men. They were childlike and sexual.

I have a dear friend who is 43 and has the body of a 12 year old, she is small with no real curves and certainly no breasts - her boyfriend adores her and finds her quite attractive. She isn't a child, but she could resemble one in digital art - hell the woman even has a little pixie face...

Thus far I have never yet seen an image of an overly young girl in a sexually explicit pose. But I also don't flip out at the idea of a mid-teenaged girl in a sexually explicit image - but then again I was a sexually active teenaged girl - married my first husband at 16 ;-)

As for which law governs Renderosity, if they are an American company they fall under the jursidiction of american law, no matter what nationality their members are.

3-D Arena | Instagram | Facebook

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.
-Galileo

if you tell me what an eroticised picture is, I might be able to respond Emily, I daresay that two minutes wandering in the Poser gallery would tell you exactly what it is. And insofar as what might be in the artist's head... well, sometimes it's far more obvious than the artist probably wishes it were. There's a world of difference between the images in your gallery (and quite nice ones they are, too, if I may say so) and the barely-disguised little erotic fantasies of some people around here. You're right: there's a big difference between nudity and blatant sexuality. Sometimes that chick in the temple can be fully clothed and exude all kinds of sexuality. But my issue goes a little deeper than that right now. We hear all the time about the "celebration of the human body" that these "artists" hoist as their standard and banner. Uh-huh. If one were really celebrating the human body, it would be in all its various forms, not just the Budweiser Swedish Massage Team. Someone laughably posted a long time ago that, if aliens were look at our Poser gallery, they would go away with a very skewed sense of people and women in particular. I guess the "celebration" is confined to pretty much just gender and just one body type and just one skin colour and, as EA points out, pretty much just one age bracket. And that's so lamely predictable, on many levels. Even more so, these days, it seems. We've become such a sexually obsessed society here in North America -- not in the way the Europeans see it, which is a far more healthy POV, IMHO -- but in a merchandised, sell/sell/sell kind of way that reduces everything to its sexual component. Seen the new ads for Bridgestone Tires? We're talking tires here. You know, for cars. The new campaign zeroes right in on the under 21 bracket and turns automotive tires into a 30-second sexual frenzy. And they ain't the only ones: everything, from 0911 on down, is turned into a sexual platform, as if we can't express ourselves any other way anymore. It is indeed the dumbing-down of America.

What worries me is a point that Turtle made earlier. The artist may be thinking entirely of the aesthetics of his picture, but some pervert out there may be enjoying it for totally different reasons. Lots of people may like Wyrmmaster's art because of his obvious breast fixation (nothing inherently wrong with that), but that may not be the intent behind his pictures(I use him as an example purely because I like his stuff). So if an image has a child-like nude figure in it, who exactly is 'tuning in' to look at it. The catogories that Lyrra referred to plainly exist. Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating censorship here, nor am I totally against it, but true freedom of speech exists only as a concept. Otherwise we would not have laws against racial hatred, encitement to riot or child porn. No biggie, I like it that way. Remember, anyone with a PC and a modem can access the internet.

VirtualSite-- I understand what you're saying but it ultimately doesn't help too very much. It puts us back to "I know pornography when I see it." I always wanted to respond, "and do you see it on a regular basis?" I really think we need clear-as-day rules. I just revisited the pic that started my antennas quivering last night. Preteen girl on a Ouija board, scary as heck, sexy, hell yes, in a terrifying way. Out of bounds?? I don't know. I only know I found it inspiring! And, I have no idea if this sort of thing is going to be off-limits imminently. That's the problem. Pervs, like the poor, are with us always. And it doesn't matter how tame you make your pictures, pervs will get off on them. Well, maybe not the nude I post tonight, but she's a big gal and definetly over 18-- I referring to her dress size, if she were wearing one. Don't expect many hits, and don't care. I think I'm more put-off by the blank stares in the Poser gallery and the lack of expression than any of the nudity, male or female. Some of the renders are so darn tasteful they are soulless. I'm pleasantly surprised that I like most of the VV pictures and will probably get the package, though I doubt I'll be scaling her up to double Ds. Emily

Oh, and I mean no personal criticism towards VirtualSite or anybody else who wants to see the place porn free. I only mean good intentions won't do it, clear rules will. And though the rules are very clear now-- although, renders keep pushing them right to the edge and beyond-- it seems most people feel a different standard should be used for underaged models. Even if they only exist in mesh. If so, then those rules should also be in black and white. No guessing. I seem to remember the rules on teen nudity at Renderotica is more stringent than here-- but I haven't been there in awhile and could be wrong. Emily

Hey, can I be the "bordeline underage" mod? Can I? Please?

I don't have a problem with everything seeming like it revolves around sex in America. It's about time we begin to crawl out from under our puritan rock. Up until the last 30 years sex and sexuality was a taboo subject for the most part. That has been changing slowly since the sexual revolution, but since the inception of the internet that has changed. 10 years ago, PORN, was a subject that was occasionally joked about by men when they gathered together. Thanks to pop-ups, tv commercials and movies, sex is become more and more of an open subject. I'd hardly call it a dumbing down, more like an awakening in many respects. As with all things it will take time for the balance to be found. I'm sure I'm going to get trounced for this but in my opinion a pic of a young girl, with no/little breasts and no pubic hair is wrong. I don't care if you slap wings on her and call her the bunjy fairy. If she is nude it gives a serious impression of child porn wether the artist intended it or not. In the last several week I've only run into a few pics that gave that impression. I figure the admins will do something about it if it crosses the legal line.

LadySilverMage: I certaianly don't claim to be an authority on business law in a global setting, but as an ex-holder of Amazon stock, I read the news excerpts on them regularly. Tho an American company, they had to comply with laws in their foreign places of presence. So did E-Bay. Most memerable among these was the selling of WW2 memorabilia in Germany--strictly verbotten! Both of these companies had to wrestle with code that did not allow certain things to be purchased in foreign countries while continuing to make them available in other countries. I even believe there were legal threats made if those companies continued to allow it. So, again, not saying I'm all-knowing in this field, but if Renderosity, tho operating in the US as a US entity, got unhappy scrutiny from a foreign government, I believe they would have to "knuckle under" so to speak. Or else somehow (difficult) exclude accounts from the complaining country.

I only mean good intentions won't do it, clear rules will. But, as you and I both know, clear rules are impossible, particularly when it comes to matters of morality. What's perfectly acceptable to me may be wildly out of bounds for you, and vice versa. It makes it all terribly subjective and therefore impossible to rein in, no matter if both you and I look at it and go, "Now wait a minute here!". And so what do we get? These "borderline" cases, which IMHO serve no purpose except to get someone's jollies off on a Saturday night. Oh, and yeah, it's "art" -- can't forget that, right? :) It's just the way of the world, I guess. Over 35? Don't look like a supermodel? Lady, forget now about marriage. Not hung to your knees? No cleft chin? Bud, better stay home Saturday night. What a pathetic way to have our society enframed. And yes -- based not just on our dear Poser gallery but things reflective of society in general these days -- that's how it is. Logan's Run does indeed live. One other note to the "I'm only celebrating the human body, like the Great Masters did!" artists. Take a look at DaVinci's notebooks sometimes and tell me how many nubile young things he drew in his studies. Then look at the amazing range of humanity he did capture. Same with Raphael. Same with Michaelangelo. Even the Greeks, who idealized the human form in their art, gave it variety and personality and style. These guys all figured out early on that there was more to the human figure than DD boobs.

VirtualSite-- DaVinci and Michaelangelo weren't overly interested in the double D variety so perhaps that isn't the best example.:))) I do respectfully disagree that clear rules are impossible. People will break them, but at least then they know they're doing so and can be told that is happening. They will also disagree with them, but as far as I know nobody's got an inalienable right to post at Renderosity. I still submit that it's the hidden unspoken rules that get you every time. Now, the other problem is being the mouse who'll bell the cat. Who wants to step up and be the "prude" who lays down the law? You see, until there is a clear rule-- all we can voice concerning teen nudity is "opinions." We all know who has those and what else they have in common. I can't believe I'm arguing for censorship. Yeah, I can, cause I don't want to be the ugly test case. Emily

How can we judge the age of 3d figures when people have a hard time judging the age of real people. I was still getting carded at 40. No joke. I had some refuse to sell my beer because I didn't look over 21 and thought that my Driver licence was a fake. The manager told me if I was going to get a fake ID to at least make it realistic. On the same note, a few years earlier I was at a bar with a friend. He and I noticed a couple of young women and being single kind guys walked over and offered to buy them a drink and dinner. They said that buying dinner was fine if we ate early because they had a curfew, and had to be home 10. They couldn't accept the drink because they were both under 18! One was 15 and the other was 16. They had snuck with a crowd that had came in a few moments before. My friend and i beat a hasty retreat. He and I both had thought that the two girls had to be in their mid to late 20's. And don't forget Tracy Lords. She almost shut down the adult film industry for a time when her real age came out.

DaVinci and Michaelangelo weren't overly interested in the double D variety When it comes to DaVinci, that's popular rumour, I think, although you're probably right about Michaelangelo. Still, in Raphael's case, there's no equivocation: the guy was straight as an arrow. Maybe the best way to get "clear rules" is to suggest them. What would you recommend?

Well, I tried to answer and the computer ate my message which I choose to regard as a Message from God--in the Blues Bros sense. I'm sure 'rocity knows a good lawyer and they will come up with something. I was going to split the difference and say no bottomless, since, that young, there ain't no top. Emily

Wierd...same thing happened to me! dodo do do dodo do do (Twilight Zone music) ~EA

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=166262&Start=1&Artist=Penguinisto&ByArtist=Yes

Wow- r'osity ate mine too... jacked me straight to the forums list. I just wanted to interject that yes, I do have nudes based on the Milgirl PT mesh. However, I also want to say that they are either WIP or preliminary renders, and none of them are in any sexual situation whatsoever. BTW - VS, speaking of most renders in here being of one gender and one race, I wish to offer you a breath of fresh air... that link up top. I'm nearly finished with her skin texture :)

The U.S. Supreme Court may have something to say about guidelines. They will probably have a decision by July, so the Justices can go on vacation. But it's not a sure thing...after all, it was Justice Potter Stewart who coined the phrase "I know it when I see it," which fortunately is not the law of the land. I've written about the law in question at length in at least one other thread, and won't rehash the issue here, except to note that LadySilverMage is correct about the law being intended to apply more toward Photoshop-type cut and paste jobs than to Poser renders, though the law would apply to both, as both are CGI. While pure CGI does not involve the use of a minor, they can "appear" to do so under the law under review, as Hiram's quotation shows. However, an "unreal" image seems to fall outside the scope of the law; hackwork (and probably most faerie pics) would be legally protected, even if the Supremes uphold the law. The purpose of the law is to prevent pedophiles from using realistic CGI as a tool to convince their prospective victims that the conduct shown in the "photographs" are acceptable. It is also true that R'osity, as a private entity, is free to have stricter standards than those imposed by law. Of course, they are in the unenviable position of having to balance such concerns against lost membership and business for a site that primarily caters to artists. I would add that one of the better artists here recently had an image removed from the poser gallery, supposedly because the model looked too young, though the image was certainly not pornographic under any reasonable reading of the Supreme Court's decisions in Miller v. California, New York v. Ferber, and their progeny. It did not depict any sexual activity, and the model was not lewdly exhibiting its computer-generated genitals...indeed, it did not display its genitals at all. In fact, the banned image was largely similar to the vast majority of images posted by this same artist, none of which were banned in the gallery when posted...though all of them appear to be gone now (by action of the artist, I would bet). So it would be advisable to develop guidelines...once the Supremes have had a chance to set the minimum. Otherwise, it seems like at least one of the decisions to remove an image here was basically arbitrary.

Moonbiter: do you avoid the art of the classics such as Michelangelo due to the nudity of his cherubs? I'm really curious about that since they are small toddler children with wings thrown on, how about botticelli? Like michelangelo - and many others he had small naked "children with wings" in paintings with full grown naked adults..... or is it just nude fairies, what about child centaurs? How about naked baby pictures that parents show to friends? where do you draw that line? at the lack of pubic hair?? at girls with no breasts? Many women (even tiny childlike ones) shave their pubic hair. Many would never be mistaken as a child, but it could be said that men who prefer it shaved prefer children - it's a matter of extreme thinking... Many women have little or no breasts as well. What about boys? Do you find images of naked boys swimming in a "watering hole" wrong as well? I'm not picking on you, I really want to know where the line is drawn. I don't do images of nude children or childlike fairies, as well I own/operate MAMBA - Mothers Against Man Boy Abuse (http://mambaonline.org), an anti pedophile site (currently in need of some updates - in a good way!) so it is safe to say that neither do I condone pedophilia or images that are used to convince children sexual behaviour at their age is normal. I am however also not an extremist - that is a dangerous road to take imho as eventually it becomes a witch hunt. Chuck, in regards to sales and purchasing, no comapny may ship goods that are illegal to the place where it is banned, that occurs in the USA as well where some things are banned in some states and not in others. That is the price of business. In regards to online viewing of an image however the company falls under the regulation of the state/country where the busines resides. In this case if naked fairies were illegal in britain (just an example EG) and a brit could view naked fairies on sites that were american or german based nothing could be done. However if the same company were to ship that same naked fairy image to Britain as a poster - that would be illegal. In this case I mentioned that 'rosity would fall under american law as a comment that the US is so much more uptight about sexuality and therefore american sites must meet those stricter guidelines. Although all countries outlaw child pornography. Kbades comment of "The purpose of the law is to prevent pedophiles from using realistic CGI as a tool to convince their prospective victims that the conduct shown in the "photographs" are acceptable." is also correct, but I did not address that, because if a child molestor used an image found here of a little naked fairy and printed it up to convince a child to get naked - the pedophile and not the artist would be cited. However if the artist IS the pedophile that would be different as the law would make an "assumption" of intent and the material would be considered child pornography. It is the assumption of intent on which pornography laws are based.

3-D Arena | Instagram | Facebook

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.
-Galileo

On a side note: do you realize that if you post images of your children on your website that you may actually be aiding a child molestor? Often times pedophiles distribute child porn across the internet via email - special boards etc. unfortunately they often times use the faces/heads of children from those sites which post images of their children. By putting those heads on their images they hide the identity of the actual victim - making it almost impossible for law enforcement to find the victim and therefore the pedophile. In at least one case a family was investigated, but it was discovered the face had been lifted of their website where they were showing images of their children. Furthermore, I have frequented the boards of these pedophiles as part of an online watchdog group, they will refer each other to links of family sites where there are photos of small children playing nude together. But never have I seen a post referring to a cgi image. I have further managed to convince several schools to not post pictures and names of children on their webpages when giving news about awards. Pedophiles get the name, the school and grade adn therefore the general vicinity of where the child lives. They become obsessed with children from image more often than you'd think, and if they become obsessed with one form a school page they know where to find that child and they tell other pedophiles to go there to look at the "natural" pictures of the kids. So while this concern is helpful to a degree, there are dangers on the web to our children that are far more serious and common and the true enablers are the parents (who post pictures and addresses or photos of their homes and state the city and state where they live) and grandparents and the schools with their bragging images that give out far more information than they shold. after all the number one rule that children are taught in regards to netsafety is to never ever give out personal information - but then their parents and schools do it for them....

3-D Arena | Instagram | Facebook

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.
-Galileo

This issue seems to come up every few months. It's always interesting to see what people's views are. The reference to David Hamilton reminds me of the case a few years ago, where Barnes & Noble was hauled into court for selling Hamilton's photography books. Ironically, the Rev. Jerry Falwell was also burned when it turned out that the student bookstore at his Liberty University was selling the same books. Hamilton, Barnes & Noble and Falwell were all free at last report. While guidelines seem good in theory, I find it difficult to see how they could be formulated without being subjective. As has been pointed out, even 'carding' real people is problematic. How on earth can one determine if a Poser figure is 18 or 15 years of age? Obviously in the case of the figures which were designed as children, it's easy, but a morphed Vicky? Practically speaking, I think the that only thing that could be done is banning any "sexual" (if you can define that) image of any kind regardless of "age." A merely nude image of any figure isn't in my opinion pornographic or obscene. Unfortunately, for anyone trying to make these calls, some people will consider any nude image offensive. Some will find bare breasts OK but the pubic area off limits. One person's cute fairie is another's pre-teen sex object and on it goes. Frankly, what I find a little disturbing is the idea of self-censorship based on trying to divine what some hypothetical pervert might see in an image. Sexuality is perhaps the most diverse aspect of human nature, and someone will be turned on by just about anything imaginable. I certainly understand wanting to err on the side of caution, but it still seems like this whole thing has become just a little insane and I'm not sure who's running the asylum. Then again, people used to think their kids were safe in church.

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

"(B) such visual depiction is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;" Re: Hiram's post of a (proposed) law... For all those thinking of proposing rules/guidelines, here is one being considered now. This one supposedly being created with the help of legal experts. I submit to the audience of this thread: YOU tell me if item (B) will be appicable to a Poser character...the keywords seeming to be, "or appears to be". Secondly, for enthusiastic readers of this thread (trans: those who have had enough interest to respond), please tell me, without any room to "wiggle" just exactly what "sexually explicit conduct" means. I'm asking because I can't figure it out myself. The word I "trip" on most is "conduct". Which one might think infers some sort of activity or action. Clinton denied having had sexual activity with Monica though many others believed what he did WAS sexual activity (read: conduct). Of course, maybe Clinton's view was that the cigar was the one involved in the activity ;-) On a side note, one thing seems to be apparent in this thread...no name-calling and otherwise personally insulting remarks to those who have disagreed with others remarks. Nice to see it that way.

The Supreme Court is not likely to support a ban on computer generated porn, adult or otherwise, as no real children have been involved. Ultimately the courts will not support a ban on crimes based on the possession of porn or any other form of expression. The only basis upon which any form of expresion (aka speech) can be made illegal is through the consequences of an utterance (speech, picture) such as some one dying as a result of yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. Libel and slander are subject to legal recourse but only after the utterance has been made and with proof that it had an actual effect. The receipt of a utterance , i.e. listening to a banned broadcast, or possession of a banned document, is not likely to be held illegal ... in the long run. But not before some artists and some civilians have their lives ruined or are incarcerated in the meantime. If I'm all wrong on this, then maybe we ought to look as some really dangerous stuff .... the Bible, Koran, and Torah are clearly resulting in the deaths of millions. Certainly the principle of banning the possession of material for which a nasty outcome is thought to be associated carries to all forms of speech.

Gordon

Sorry if I missed a similar comment in the above, as this thread is getting pretty big, but where does "sexually explicit conduct" = nudity? To me, entire different things, aside from the fact you can perform "sexually explicit conduct" fully clothed. I do know how to read, I have a pretty good grasp of the english language (even if I can't spell it!), why do I think people read more into this than really exists? Tracy Lord's videos were banned becaused she was doing you-know-what, not because she wasn't wearing any clothing. Yes, I think the county is going insane.

Just to throw something else into the mix: We need to take a step back and look at the media we are using: it is a graphics application on a computer. Yes, it can produce "photo-realistic" images, but that fact it this: it is NOT a picture. NOT people (especially children) were "harmed" (or even used) to make the images. These are geometric meshes with coloring applied to it. When fully rendered, it appears to be a person. But, it appears to be- it has never been (and will never be) an actual person. No photographs were used in the product of the final render. (Well, maybe a photo was used as reference, but it's not part of the end result.) Technically, these characters are 2 or 3 years old. Vicky and Mike are around a year old (roughly). Stephanie is a few months old. Going by their "age", does that mean there should be NO nudes of them for the next 17 years (until they are "legal adults" in USA)? And for that matter, do we have the "right" to make nude images of them? After all, if they're "under age", how can they give "legal consent" to have their likeness posted on the Internet? Can anyone see how absurd the whole "computer generated models" as child porn" can get? --John

VanishingPoint... Advanced 3D Modeling Solutions

On a side note, one thing seems to be apparent in this thread...no name-calling and otherwise personally insulting remarks to those who have disagreed with others remarks. Nice to see it that way. ChuckEvans, you inconsiderate slut. There. The thread's back to normal. :) To Jim: I don't think the issue is nudity per se. I think everyone on the thread here agrees that nudity itself is no big deal. The issue comes when you see an image that is purposely borderline pornographic and the subject happens to be a little too young-looking for comfort. Am I right in this assessment of the thread, folks?

Can anyone see how absurd the whole "computer generated models" as child porn" can get? In Vancouver recently, there was public outrage over the trial of a man who was writing child porn stories involving bondage and S&M scenarios. His lawyer argued that these were works with literary merit, and the judge -- incomprehensibly -- agreed. The guy got off free. Now, maybe they were his entries into the Hemingway Competition, but I kinda doubt it. They were posted to a board that was a known haven for child pornographers, not a literary magazine. Still, no children were actually harmed in their writing. Does that make it okay? Sorry, not in my books. If anything, this case is an excellent example of just how insane it truly is sometimes.

Whoa, back up... "Re: Hiram's post of a (proposed) law..." This is not the proposed law. You missed the line: "Title 18 of the United States Code governs child pornography. See Chapter 110, Sexual Exploitation and Other Abuse of Children. 18 U.S.C. 2256 defines "Child pornography" as: "

Hiram: My mistake. Guess I should have gone back and read the portion I used as the basis for my remark (to wit: "The portion of the child-porn law pertaining to computer-generated images that Hiram quotes is currently under review by the U.S. supreme court, after having been overturned in a lower court as being unconstitutionally vague.") I mistakenly remembered it being proposed instead of under review. VirtualSite: Hey, at least I'm not an underaged inconsiderate slut !

Hi this is just a thought (perhaps to put the cat amongst the virtual pigeons) and I'm not agreeing with what may be described a devient behavior............. but perhaps people creating images such as the ones mentioned may help some to get rid of or help their problems. perhaps someone with a bit more psychology than me could answer. btw I come from the uk so perhaps I'm repressed anyway:-) but seriously tho I like the discussion Dave

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.

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

"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

And WTF is this crap? Anybody see a pattern in this gallery?

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.

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

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.

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

"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.

To heck with it, a photo is worth more than my words...devils be damned. Here is the pic I was referring to. Now that I have drawn it up, I see that here chest wasn't even showing...but we were still afraid to post it below the neck. Which left out the beautiful way her hair fell. :( So, here it is. Hopefully, an artistic community can appreciate it. (I didn't bother to remove the red-eye).

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

Very cute

You can't call it work if you love it... Zen Tambour

 

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.

Gordon

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

Gordon

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!!

Adam Benton | www.kromekat.com

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.

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