Tisa opened this issue on Nov 23, 2002 · 66 posts
Tisa posted Sat, 23 November 2002 at 7:44 AM
yet another of my images deleted from the gallery. No explanation other than "We don't think that this image is appropriate for our Art gallery." the different sets of rules depending on who you are at this site are very difficult to work through.
c1rcle posted Sat, 23 November 2002 at 7:57 AM
I think I missed this one, what was it Posette?
Tisa posted Sat, 23 November 2002 at 8:08 AM
No it was Vicky
pizazz posted Sat, 23 November 2002 at 8:11 AM
You didn't miss much. It had the "F" word in the title.
Tisa posted Sat, 23 November 2002 at 8:21 AM
and where does it say in the guidelines that the word "Fuck" can not be used? However if that was the problem then an email asking me to change the title would have been a good start. These are the image upload guidelines "Acceptable Image Guidelines 1. No depictions of physical arousal or sexual acts. 2. No genital contact with ANY object, other than sitting or clothing. 3. No rape or torture of any living or dead creature." The image did not contravene any of these. FYI The word Fuck appears 167 times in these forums
Tisa posted Sat, 23 November 2002 at 8:29 AM
FYFI the word "fuck" appears 144 times in the galleries
Mosca posted Sat, 23 November 2002 at 10:33 AM
Read a little further, Tisa: "Additionally, any post or image can be removed at the discretion of staff if it is deemed unsuitable for this community." Basically, within the terms of the TOS, any mod can delete any image whenever they feel like it.
praxis22 posted Sat, 23 November 2002 at 11:38 AM
Perhaps they busted you for "provacative context" :)
Norbert posted Sat, 23 November 2002 at 11:40 AM
Whoop! Whoop! Troll alert. Troll alert.
ChuckEvans posted Sat, 23 November 2002 at 12:42 PM
c1rcle, it was Vicky with a penis pasted between her legs.
hmatienzo posted Sat, 23 November 2002 at 12:56 PM
And it was no worse than many of the thousands of pussy shots that are allowed to stay! In fact, this one was rather well done, and there wasn't anything pornographic. So she had a dick, ho hum, big fat hairy deal! If they can SELL Herma here who has one too... why can't a render be allowed??? And the title... nothing special there, either. So if you ask me, put the picture back in!!!!! Vicky wasn't even playing with it...
L'ultima fòrza è nella morte.
c1rcle posted Sat, 23 November 2002 at 1:02 PM
another one Chuck? there seems to be a lot of them about lately ;) if the nudity flag was on only "grownups" would have seen it anyway, but did s'he have an erection? that might explain why the pic is gone.
hmatienzo posted Sat, 23 November 2002 at 1:14 PM
No erection, no nothing. Just hanging.
L'ultima fòrza è nella morte.
c1rcle posted Sat, 23 November 2002 at 1:21 PM
maybe it's a size thing then, was it the sort you have to tuck into your sock to stop it rubbing on the ground when you walk? or was it just a normal sized one?
odeathoflife posted Sat, 23 November 2002 at 1:28 PM
It had an erection...I remember the pic.
♠Ω Poser eZine
Ω♠
♠Ω Poser Free Stuff
Ω♠
♠Ω My Homepage Ω♠
www.3rddimensiongraphics.net
ChuckEvans posted Sat, 23 November 2002 at 1:33 PM
The one I saw didn't have an erection.
Penguinisto posted Sat, 23 November 2002 at 1:35 PM
Yes, but was it truly art? (chuckle) /P
joffry posted Sat, 23 November 2002 at 2:49 PM
Saw the pic, thought it was well done. I don't know whether it was a violation of the TOS or not, BUT I think, between the name, the picture itself, and the Age of the Artist... Didn't you mention that you were 16? Think those 3 added togther would have done it.
ChuckEvans posted Sat, 23 November 2002 at 2:51 PM
You might be confusing Tisa with Posette. (not sure, tho)
joffry posted Sat, 23 November 2002 at 2:54 PM
it's possible,, very possible,, I just ate some of my own cooking,,, oops, just went and checked. I apoligize, you are right, not one and the same.
ChuckEvans posted Sat, 23 November 2002 at 2:59 PM
If I would hazard a guess, it's possible that because of the name of the author, the title of the pic, it may have crossed over the TOS by making a statement about R'City or the members here. I wasn't sure when I saw it just exactly what the intent of the piece was but that was one thing that crossed my mind. And speaking of minds, I'm not a mind reader, so I don't really know why it was removed.
Rubbermatt posted Sat, 23 November 2002 at 3:12 PM
"Yes, but was it truly art?" Because, let's face it, that is what matters
ChuckEvans posted Sat, 23 November 2002 at 3:18 PM
Art is in the eye of the beholder. Lots of Doc Legume's art has been very controversial. When I look at his, I don't see "hidden" "possible" "comments" about members or R'City. Usually, his viewpoint on lots of things in the world he wants to address. I didn't get the same feeling when I viewed the subject piece from Tisa. But, that's just me. Who knows why the PTB removed it. In actuality, everything is art, one way or another. Like feces in the middle of a room. Or a light that goes off and on in an empty room. Or floating sheets of colored plastic encircling a small island.
Mosca posted Sat, 23 November 2002 at 3:22 PM
I think the mods owe Tisa more explanation than just "it's inappropriate." If she doesn't know WHY it's "inappropriate," obviously, it's going to be increase her chances of posting an equally "inappropriate" image next time. It annoys me, too, that I'm unable to view the image and make a judgment for myself. Thank you, Big Mother.
Mosca posted Sat, 23 November 2002 at 3:27 PM
"Or floating sheets of colored plastic encircling a small island." One of my ex-girlfriends actually worked on this project. For what that's worth.
Lapis posted Sat, 23 November 2002 at 3:28 PM
"Yes, but was it truly art?" Perhaps if the penis was sporting a spiffy tatoo, then..maybe then, there would have been considerable artistic merit. But since I don't believe in censorship, I think even an undecorated member should be welcome in the club.
ChuckEvans posted Sat, 23 November 2002 at 3:31 PM
I tend to agree with you, Mosca. For that matter, we don't really know what was said to Tisa. We only have what she SAID was said to her. Not calling her a liar, but people sometimes tend to bend things to their point of view. Assuming I am anywhere near on target (apologizing to admins), I think it was a judgment call that makes it difficult to put into words. I just think it was an "angry" piece and I wonder if it was directed at the people who have disagreed with her. Maybe the admins felt the same way. But as I keep saying...I'm not their mouthpiece. Otherwise, if it was an easy decision, why is it being debated as much as it has?
Mosca posted Sat, 23 November 2002 at 3:36 PM
Good points, Chuck--but I don't think there's anything in the TOS that says you can't be angry. Maybe a mod could step in and give us the lowdown?
ChuckEvans posted Sat, 23 November 2002 at 3:39 PM
Mosca, Hehe...certainly didn't mean to impune an ex-girlfriends...grin. Everone has opinions on what is art. Some I absolutely can't believe. The island thing was cute. Lots of work, I believe, for little gain. But, like all art...some like it some don't. Even the piece of crap in the floor made a statement. But it seems a shame to chose it as a winner over some well-painted oil painting.
ChuckEvans posted Sat, 23 November 2002 at 3:50 PM
Well, Mosca, that's the line I THINK I understand. One can say "fuck" here as freely as they feel the need for. Except when one says, "Fuck you!" to another member. That's anger and disrespect directed toward another member. In other words, not allowed. Now, did her piece approach that point? I don't know. The title, if memory serves correctly, was, "Fuck the Pain Away". Leaves it up to the admin to determine the intent of that title. Again, I say, I could be way off base. Perhaps it was removed because of something else. If anyone is owed an explanation, I suppose it is Tisa. Not necessarily us unless it could serve to quell the thread are stand as an example so people would understand in the future. I dunno...grin.
Mosca posted Sat, 23 November 2002 at 3:58 PM
Okay, so if I'm putting it together right, the image was Vicki with a penis, and the title was "fuck the pain away"? I don't think you can say it's disrespectful of another member unless it's pretty clear who that member is. Myabe there was something in the caption that was insulting to a specific memeber, I don't know. If not, yanking it (no pun intended) seems like kind of an arbitrary decision. "...so people would understand in the future." That seems like a reasonable thing to hope for, no?
ChuckEvans posted Sat, 23 November 2002 at 4:08 PM
LOL (nice pun...intended or not!) Again, (sounding like a broken record) I could be off base. However, when I saw it...I tried to understand the "message". I remembered how angry she had become at members and the anger directed toward her. You MUST have seen at least one of her infamous threads. And I thought, here is someone who is pissed off. And I wondered if it was a subtle insult toward all those members who had angered her. To be completely honest and frank, I looked at it as objectively as I could. I also thought maybe the piece was trying to say, "I'm a man trapped in a female body and I hate it. Enter the idea (by the subject) of getting a "penis implant" and fucking the pain (I just described) away." But then I remembered Tisa and her threads. She has never posted anything else in her gallery that hinted of "deep meanings". So, I made my judgement. Perhaps, and I emphasize "perhaps" the admins felt something similar. I admit I'd like to know. But, I also understand I have no right to demand it. Although this is touted to be a community of artists...I always try to remember that we are "meeting in R'City's house."
hmatienzo posted Sat, 23 November 2002 at 4:14 PM
It was a good render. A woman with a penis. A limp one at that, her fists clenched by her side. There was no mention of another member, no outward anger, no insult. Just that. A render with kick-ass lights, beautifully done on a white background. Heaven knows I am not in Tisa's fanclub, but this is some much bs going on again...
L'ultima fòrza è nella morte.
Mosca posted Sat, 23 November 2002 at 4:17 PM
Ok, but let's not give the mods carte blanche to delete any image that's confusing, disturbing or obscure--otherwise I'd have to take down my whole gallery.
ChuckEvans posted Sat, 23 November 2002 at 4:23 PM
hmatienzo: Yep, better than I could have done...though the penis looked a bit "pasted on". But I agree about the lighting and such. Mosca: As I said earlier, I tend to agree with you. I don't want to become the brunt of people's disagreement with the removal by simply explaining what I thoght the reasons might be. As memory serves, Mosca, didn't you do a hilarious series with some animal months back? I laughed my ass off. Hope my memory is OK, because, I think it's the reason I remember your name so well now...hehe.
wheatpenny posted Sat, 23 November 2002 at 4:27 PM Site Admin
My daughter, cindy (aka Posette) has come up with 2 possibilities for why it was deleted: 1. She received an IM from tisa telling her that some people here mistakenly thought she and Tisa are the same person, so it may have had something to do with that; or, 2. A Forum message that was subsequeltly deleted took issue with Cindy's transexual image saying that pictures of women with penises are offensive to transexuals, so it could be that the same person also complained to renderosity and such pictures are no longer allowed.
Jeff
Renderosity Senior Moderator
Hablo español
Ich spreche Deutsch
Je parle français
Mi parolas Esperanton. Ĉu vi?
Mosca posted Sat, 23 November 2002 at 4:27 PM
No argument with you Chuck--just trying to understand what the deal is. I did a couple of pics involving a yak, yes. Is that what you mean? A re-do of one of them's up in my gallery now, called "Vanitas 1".
Bobasaur posted Sat, 23 November 2002 at 4:29 PM
I know better than to get involved in threads like this, but... Chuck, I have to disagree with the statement, "She has never posted anything else in her gallery that hinted of "deep meanings"." The hairy armpit thing strikes me as potentially having "deep meanings." Tisa appears to enjoy challenging the status quo - the norms of the culture around her (I believe she's from here in the U.S.) - including Renderosity. Whether I agree with her or like the way she does it, it seems to me that there is usually something she's trying to say.
Before they made me they broke the mold!
http://home.roadrunner.com/~kflach/
ChuckEvans posted Sat, 23 November 2002 at 4:31 PM
Well, if the admins decided to delete anything that was offensive to someone (or a group of someones), we'd have hardly any gallery at all. Small-breasted women would feel insulted by large-breasted images...thin women (remembering these are CGI) could upset heavier women. Ugly men like me could become upset by all the handsome Mikes. The story could be carried a long way. So, where would the line be drawn if that was the reason?
ChuckEvans posted Sat, 23 November 2002 at 4:32 PM
Yes! The Yak Pics! (that even sounds funny..."Yak Pics"). Made me laugh my ass off.
Mosca posted Sat, 23 November 2002 at 4:33 PM
"pictures of women with penises are offensive to transexuals" No they're not. That's silly. No more than pictures of women with vaginas are offensive to women, anyway, or pictures of men with penises are offensive to men (the current nomencalture is "transgendered persons," by the way, and there are about a dozen different configurations). My guess is that pictures of women with penises are disturbing to some men with penises who might be expecting a picture of a woman with a vagina, instead.
Mosca posted Sat, 23 November 2002 at 4:36 PM
Bobasaur--so the mods are protecting us from "deep meanings"? God, I hope that's not it.
ChuckEvans posted Sat, 23 November 2002 at 4:37 PM
Well, I could dredge up parts of an old thread where more than one person hinted that Tisa was an alternate sign-on that one of the "regulars" used to stir up debates with...in other words, yanking peoples' chains. Not sure why hairy armpits instills the thought of "deep meanings"...but each to his own...LOL. I lived in Europe for 7 years...I guess I just got used to them...hehe. (legs, too)
Mosca posted Sat, 23 November 2002 at 4:45 PM
No question that she's grinding her own peculiar axe, and seems to have rubbed a number of people the wrong way. I just kind of hate to see somebody get silenced just because they're unpopular and/or a pain in the ass. Surely we're all secure enough to allow dissent. What? We're not? Oh.
ChuckEvans posted Sat, 23 November 2002 at 4:49 PM
Well, I am. I take things with a grain of salt, usually. Regardless of the question (posed by a few) of her being a real person or not...she stirs up debate. Although I didn't enter her last marathon thread, concerning the use of the gallery as an advertising stage, I tended to agree with her a bit. But, I don't cruise the Poser gallery much. Too depressing for me 'cause I suck compared to what I see.
quixote posted Sat, 23 November 2002 at 5:02 PM
Deep meaning? Should we put it down to penis envy then... to scrotum covetousness ? What's deep meaning in this Culture, now days? Maybe it's a reaction to the report that was put out this week in the US that lamented the situation of women in the US. Got me angry as hell and I'm a Canadian male... Now where's my viagra? Or as I call it: "my wee bit o' meaning in a bottle". That'll put hair on your chest.
Un coup de dés jamais n'abolira le
hazard
S Mallarmé
ChuckEvans posted Sat, 23 November 2002 at 5:11 PM
Well, hopefully my remark about "deep meaning" won't be taken differently than I meant it. Personally speaking, I think (thinking in broad terms) art comes in two forms (and I'm sure, more): Pleasing to the eye. Boris' art doesn't have deep meaning. But it's always colorful and imaginative and beautiful. Meaning? Not much. Other than, perhaps, his interpretation of a myth or something. Meaningful (or "deep"). Something that causes someone to think. I would point you to a thread in the photography gallery on photojournalism. Or (God forbid) to my gallery for "Leftover Death" or "Tween Tricks". Where I tried to convey a meaning. When I mentioned Tisa's pieces in her gallery, I didn't see "deep meaning" in the way I interpret it. Doesn't mean it isn't art. Just that it seems to me that what she posts doesn't try to convey any particular meaning. Except for the one we are discussing.
Bobasaur posted Sat, 23 November 2002 at 5:21 PM
The hairy armpits pictures could(?) be an artist pointing at contemporary American standards for beauty and saying, "Hey, these standards are wrong. They're based on artificial appearances created by Hollywood. They're not based on the characteristics of real, natural women!" I didn't see this transgender picture but maybe the deeper meaning was that women are starting to use sex as a weapon for pure gratification, similar to the way males often do. I know Madonna's video "What it feels like to be a girl" poked at the different expectations our society places on males/females. I don't know if this is what Tisa means or not. I'm just capable of imagining potential deeper meanings. I, too, hope the mods aren't protecting us from deeper meanings. I was rather unhappy when they protected us from Moscas' wonderful piece involving an ancient mythical creature that happened to have some physical appearance characteristics similar to those of a prepubescent human female. I'm imagining possible deeper meanings in an effort to be fair-minded. I acknowledge that it's completely hypothetical. I don't know Tisa well enough to say what she's thinking. I do know there are some artists that stretch things pretty far.
Before they made me they broke the mold!
http://home.roadrunner.com/~kflach/
Bobasaur posted Sat, 23 November 2002 at 5:23 PM
I just read my last post and had to chuckle. All my extremely liberal friends would be so proud of me for not making comments about "femi-nazis."
Before they made me they broke the mold!
http://home.roadrunner.com/~kflach/
ChuckEvans posted Sat, 23 November 2002 at 5:29 PM
Well, I do agree with you...now that you showed a more capable ability of looking at the armpits than I did...grin. You make a good point. Guess I'm not "deep enough". When I looked at it, all I saw was something of "pin-up" quality. Nicely done, mind you, but just pin-up sort of stuff. I also don't pretend to know her intent. One of the reasons I hate second-guessing people. Also, I tried to look deeper into the "Fuck" piece...and even came up with my own alternate opinion. But, one can't help but get a feeling. Like I've tried to say to my wife when looking to purchase art poster (OK, so we're cheap...LOL): If the picture doesn't "grab" you right away, it doesn't need to be considered. If one has to deliberate on how much we like it...it's probably better to let it be. So, that's my way of saying "first impressions". And the first impression I got from her piece was as I described above. I tried to override it, but was not completely successful.
EricofSD posted Sat, 23 November 2002 at 5:53 PM
Bobasaur posted Sat, 23 November 2002 at 5:56 PM
I must admit, when I looked at her gallery I didn't think "deep" thoughts. I just saw someone who seemed to want to "shock" viewers or just wanted to be talked about. However, I was checking it out immediately after reading the "MP as an advertising vehicle" thread so I must admit my perspective was somewhat biased because of what I'd read in that thread. As I've looked through posts since then, I have been pleasantly surprised to see Tisa attempt to contribute something to other Renderosity members - to answer questions and provide assistance. As I look back in life, I can think of some people I've known who had a great message but their "delivery" got in the way. I know it's described me at times. I'm thinking that may describe Tisa. I don't know. Tisa, I'm sure sooner or later you'll read my comments. Please accept them as a well-intentioned attempt to be fair to someone who I really don't know. If anything comes across as harsh or insulting, please understand that I don't mean it that way. If your artistic goal is to incite thought (mine often is), you've succeeded!
Before they made me they broke the mold!
http://home.roadrunner.com/~kflach/
ChuckEvans posted Sat, 23 November 2002 at 6:00 PM
Well, I hate to think of incurring her wrath. She reminds me of Ironbear sometimes. He can be right on target and cutting at the same time. I'm well aware that anyone I mention may read this thread. I've not said anything I feel I need to hide. They might not agree with it, but it is an honest opinon. Hey, maybe Tisa is Doc Legume's little sister...LOL.
quixote posted Sat, 23 November 2002 at 6:19 PM
The debate between illustrative and interpretive art is old, and I would really rather not get into it now (Viagra headache). Suffice it to say that some people can't look at a Picasso or a Giacometti. Form means nothing to them. I accept that. This is not a comment on Tisa's images, BTW. The last time I went there, frankly, I was reminded of the old French style photography of the '40s and '50s and in that sense it was interesting. I was, however, disgusted by some of the comments left by visitors. Some of those involving chainsaws should have been removed by the mods IMHO. The question is: how does a mod decide to remove a piece. Are anger and dissent in this new Ashcroftian reality still possible? I respect anger. In most cases there's a reason for it, a meaning to it. It's a symptom that tells you something may be wrong. Oh! and I'd much rather see it expressed in an image or in art than with a knife or a gun. Now, if meaning's the criteria for deciding if a marginal image should stay or go, isn't that enough. Cheers, Q
Un coup de dés jamais n'abolira le
hazard
S Mallarmé
ChuckEvans posted Sat, 23 November 2002 at 6:30 PM
All valid points of view (which I respect) from artists. I don't consider myself one much. I tinker. I try. I certainly can't get into discussions about art theory and speak with any kind of meaning. Lots of people here have been down the entire educational road. I'm just a common guy. When I speak, I speak with critique from a viewer point of view. As an artist, I offer little. A shame since I am so opinionated...GRIN.
Bobasaur posted Sat, 23 November 2002 at 9:47 PM
Although I don't fear "incurring wrath," my goal as a member here is to build not tear down. That's one of the reasons I try to be careful about participating in certain types of threads. No one wins and the community is disrupted. I definately appreciate quixote's comment about anger ("In most cases there's a reason for it, a meaning to it. It's a symptom that tells you something may be wrong.") but I'd add one qualifier to that. Sometimes what's wrong (or incorrect or irrational) may be the viewpoint of the angry person. I also agree about it being better to express through art than physical means! As far as Chuck being an "artist" and comparing himself with those who've been down the entire educational road, Chuck, don't worry about it. In the one painting class I had I was astounded at the critiques I received about my final painting. The "artists" (including the instructor) loved the child-like fantasy style of my final piece and thought it was brilliant in the way it added to the image. I didn't have the heart to tell them (after they were so kind) that it wasn't intentional. I just couldn't paint very well. An education can expand your knowledge of many things. You can extend your skills. You can learn all sorts of fancy French names like "Matisse." But it doesn't make you an artist. FWIW, I'm not an artist either. However, anyone; Chuck, myself, Tisa, Mosca, is qualified to tell how they interpreted something. It seems that the key is how their opinion is communicated.
Before they made me they broke the mold!
http://home.roadrunner.com/~kflach/
Hiram posted Sun, 24 November 2002 at 1:04 AM
It's greatly overlooked.
I'm not a Tisa fan at all, and I didn't see the picture in question so I could be analocuting here (talking out of my ass), but from the descriptions of the pic, and the title, I'm guessing someone is working with some TG issues.
I've had a number of close TG friends over the years and I know that most people tend to dismiss the incredible amount of pain and angst that comes with gender dysphoria.
Yes, many TG people do find images of "she-males" distasteful and offensive when they are presented for the purpose of appealing to fetishistic types. We are talking about real people here, with a real problem, not a fairy tale chimera.
However, many also turn to that fetishistic expression as a means of validation.
I dunno. Just some thoughts.
Oh, and this anti-armpit hair thing? Where on earth did the notion come from that somehow women are suposed to only have bodyhair (and a very minimum at best) on their crotch? I am not a fan of this Hitler-moustache-pubes fad that has grown in the last 20 years. and I think pit hair can be very sexy. Kind of like a pubes preview.
That said: I still dissapprove (for all that's worth) of Tisa utilizing this forum to manipulate emotions and get attention.
Got a legitimate gripe with the mods for deleting your image? Take it up with them first. Don't try to cause dissention here just because you disagree with them.
If I'm having a party at my place and I invite guests (and this IS their place, and we ARE guests) and one of them starts bitching about me and complaining in general and trying to make the other guests think I'm an asshole, I'm going to tell them to shut the fuck up or get the fuck out.
ChuckEvans posted Sun, 24 November 2002 at 1:16 AM
Sounds like we agree on a few items, Hiram. Though you (and others) say it more articulately that I. Thanks for the insight on TG issues. While I've had the fortune of having a few gay friends, never have known anyone with gender issues that run that deep. So, I'm a bit naive. LOL @ the hair remarks. I'm a bit strange, I guess. Traveling as I have gives me more viewpoint on other cultures and habits. My preferences on hair change (my poor wife!). Sometimes, I trim it to "runway", sometimes, completely, and other times, I ask her to let it grow out. Sometimes, when she has forsaken her armpits for a week or so, I run my hand over it (it's soft after a week or so).
quixote posted Sun, 24 November 2002 at 5:43 AM
I tend to agree with most of the comments and qualifiers in this thread. And Hiram, I too dislike the attempts by some to manipulate the fora. Mostly my comments were meant as general observations. The only thing I vehemently dissagree with is the ChuckEvans protestations about not being an artist. I'd pick some of your work and some of your writings, Chuck, over a lot of the crap that I've actually had to judge over the years...including some of mine. Now that my system's back up and my health has improved, I feel like "gettin down" and making some nice images... See ya. Stay well. Q
Un coup de dés jamais n'abolira le
hazard
S Mallarmé
Mosca posted Sun, 24 November 2002 at 8:21 AM
"Yes, many TG people do find images of "she-males" distasteful and offensive when they are presented for the purpose of appealing to fetishistic types. We are talking about real people here, with a real problem, not a fairy tale chimera." Ok, sure--just as some women find the fetishizing of women's bodies offensive, etc., as I said. But is the TG community entitled to greater sensitivity in that regard than everyone else? If that's the reason the image was deleted, shouldn't all nudes be deleted? And what of the booming "she-male"/TG sex industry? My guess is that for every TG person who objects to the sexualizing of TGs in media, there are others who see it as a welcome step in the process of "mainstreaming." "However, many also turn to that fetishistic expression as a means of validation." This has been more my experience with TG acquaintances (a good-sized TG community out here). It's also not necessarily true that all nude images of TG persons are fetishistice--depends who's making them and why. There's a great movie--a kind of TG autobiography--that came out a few years ago called "Hedwig and the Angry Inch": I'd recommend it highly--it's funny, smart and incredibly brave.
Madrigal posted Mon, 25 November 2002 at 9:34 AM
I agree with Mosca - if you're gonna delete TG images, you have to delete nude women, and why not go the whole way and delete all the nude men as well - after all, they're usually hunks, they might make the rest of us feel rather inadequate :D Maybe then we can start deleting all the figures in clothing too, they might be better dressed than ourselves...... I know a number of TG and TS people myself - not the same thing in my understanding, as far as I know TS are of one sex but have the wrong body, due, according to current thinking, to hormonal influences in the womb. TG tend to be more fluid, often adopting male and female personae or just being somewhere in the middle - a nice idea :) I think it's a fine line between mainstreaming images of a group of people who tend to be always the outsiders, even in the gay community, and using them as sexual images to titillate. I don't recall ever seeing an image of an FTM guy posted, correct me if I'm wrong, I wonder if perhaps a woman with a penis appeals to men who might be sexually interested in another man, but only if he's made safe by having breasts and other female characteristics. An FTM is much more threatening, a woman who's really a guy? It doesn't sit well with patriarchal society. I didn't see Tisa's image, though I'd have liked to. I think her art is pretty good, like the pussy pic, 15:1, I thought it was interesting. And armpit hair? Women have hair in their armpits, so what? So do I..... I'd rather see a real woman than Barbie, guess that's not the opinion of a lot of people around here :) Once shaved off my pubes, that's a killer, ouch, the itching....... Don't know how anyone can do that, just cause they think it looks nice. I post mainly at rotica, I don't get a lot of people looking at my stuff here, probably because most is obviously gay - I'm also not such a good artist yet as many that post here. I posted a naked woman and got a lot more hits than usual..... It's what people want. A lot of people come here, they don't want to be disturbed or challenged, they want to see tits. Personally, I'd rather see something that makes me think. My lover is notorious for doing pics that are quite shocking, he does a lot of bdsm gay art and, in the past, has had, er, disagreements with people on rosity because of this, the old that's not art it's porn thing. Not true - it is art, good art, and there's a lot more in his pics than sex. Okay, maybe it's porn as well, I guess you can have both. As far as Tisa goes, I like to see someone post something that makes people argue and disagree about it, I'd call that more artistic than a bunch of bland Vikki Temple pics. Surely art is about communication, the ability to communicate something of yourself, whatever that may be, if it's anger, fair enough. And I think pulling the image was wrong, even if it was directed at rosity, if she has issues with them fair enough, they're not immune to criticism, surely? It's just book-burning, if that's the case....... BTW, I think she IS Legume.........
Hiram posted Mon, 25 November 2002 at 11:59 AM
I don't think there's any reason to think that the image was deleted because of transgender content. I had an image in my gallery of a pseudohermaphrodite and never got any flack for it. By the way, 'transgender' is generally used to refer to the entire spectrum of alternative gender expression, while a 'transsexual' is a TG person who is actually going through a transition from one gender role to another with the implication that some form of permanent SRS (sex reassignment surgery)is to be performed, if possible. Also, the "nature vs. nurture" debate rages on, though there is increasing evidence of the in utero hormone influence.
Blackhearted posted Sat, 30 November 2002 at 12:11 AM
"BUT I think, between the name, the picture itself, and the Age of the Artist... Didn't you mention that you were 16? Think those 3 added togther would have done it. " 'she' isnt 16, nor is 'she' a woman. 'she' is bebop, who has been banned from this site more times than anyone can count. back to stirring up shit as usual, probably getting off on the fact that hes managed to attract so much attention. some people never learn, nor do they seek the psychiatric help that they so obviously need. as for the image - i reported it to the admins myself, along with several other people. "No Rape. No Torture. No Sexual acts. No Physical arousal. No Genital contact with ANY object, other than sitting or clothing. No depictions of young humanoid characters in erotic, seductive, provocative poses or context. Additionally, any post or image can be removed at the discretion of staff if it is deemed unsuitable for this community. " i see at least two instances where that image violated the TOS. besides that, it was distasteful and obviously a cheap shot at seeing how far he can push the TOS -- as usual. thats what most of his gallery, his forum posts and all of his trolls in countless artists galleries are - an experiment at attracting negative attention and seeing how much the admins will let him get away with before they ban him again. but even after all this effort, bebop, all youll ever be is a passing nuisance... youre not saying anything that hasnt been said before, and your 'methods' only serve to alienate you even further from a community that obviously doesnt want you around to begin with. dont you have something better to do? this is getting old.
Blackhearted posted Sat, 30 November 2002 at 12:18 AM
"Conduct - Zero Tolerance Renderosity maintains a Zero Tolerance on certain behaviors within the community. These include, but are not limited to the following. Intentional practices that affect the normal operations of the community (Admins will take whatever steps are necessary to restore service)." as far as im concerned your recent campaigns fall pretty heavily under that category - as do your assaults on other members. "Members/Users found practicing these behaviors receive; Deletion of the post/s. First event - warning by email and/or IM. Second event Forum Suspension for 1 or 7 days or Temporary Community ban for 3 or 7 days. Third event Membership revoked, and access to the community permanently blocked. This includes any duplicate accounts for the same person. Renderosity considers this information private and confidential. However, there may be certain situations that necessitate otherwise. " its just amusing bebop, that YOU of all people are posting about the TOS. youve been banned from renderosity what... 10-15 times now? glad to see youre working on your next ban... we'll miss you.
pierrecolat posted Mon, 02 December 2002 at 2:17 PM
I think that you confuse with Tisa Posette but why leave the truth between the manner of your oneself promotion?
Spike posted Mon, 02 December 2002 at 3:32 PM
As I stated in the other locked thread There is more to this than what most members see. When we remove an image and or ban a member, The admin and mods have a very long talk about what should be the right thing to do and what is the best way to deal with it. We will not go into the details, but we will say that it takes a lot to get banned from Renderosity. Please remember that Sending "Fuck you" e-mail and IM's to us is one clear and quick way to break the TOS. Also, we do not want members to start pointing fingers at other members. We feel that this thread has no further point and is therefor locked.
You can't call it work if you love
it... Zen
Tambour