Why this "fake" family friendliness?
XoechZ
Posts: 1,102
DAZ always claims that this is a family friendly site, so no nude images are allowed.
Ok, but I call this a fake. Why? Let me explain:
Artistic nude images are as old as mankind. They exist in all eras and most of them have noting to do with sexual acts or something like that. They are made to show the beauty of male and female bodies. And there is really nothing wrong with it. But it is forbidden.
On the other side there is nothing against monsters, blood drenched creatures, horror, gore, violence and weapons. WHY THAT? Is that family friendy? Really?
I have a little daughter and if I had to decide if she has to watch horror and violence images or images of nude bodies, guess what I would decide. And I am sure all of you would decide the same.
So again, why is horror, blood and weapons family friendly? And a nipple shining through clothes an absolute desaster which has immediately to be banned? Maybe this is the "American way of life", but to be honest, I do not understand it. Really not. Do you?
In my opinion they have to ban everything that is not family friendly (not suitable for children) - or nothing.
Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
224 S 200 W, Suite #250
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2024 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
Err...
I think this may be an American phenomena.
You can show an army of people getting blown away in a movie, but remember when Janet Jackson flashed her breasts there were congressional hearings.
Is this really an either/or decision in your household?
"Must choose one!"
I call "false choice". My grandmother would have said "poppycock!"
So true. And so stupid :-)
You know the words 'Artistic nude' often implies something more sinister than pornography. Like something that is blatantly pornography but is declaring itself not to be so it can bypass the rules. :-(
Anyway the context of nudity is far more subjective than violence. Back when I used work in a office I made the mistake of browsing rendorocity on my lunch break, (even with out nudity) one of my colleagues looked genuinely concerned about what they could see on my screen,
Is this really an either/or decision in your household?
"Must choose one!"
I call "false choice". My grandmother would have said "poppycock!"
NO, of course it is not !!!
It is just a theoretical example of what I (or all of you) would do in such a situation.
Well, DAZ is based in the US, at least mostly. But we do have Miley Cyrus. So far, there have been no congressional hearings about the practice of "twerking". %-P
NO, of course it is not !!!
It is just a theoretical example of what I (or all of you) would do in such a situation.
Well, you don't know what anybody else would do in "such a situation," but I go back to my prior statement. It is not an either/or situation. In other words, I choose "C".
But I suppose "in theory" is excellent forum fodder. :lol:
So true. And so stupid :-)
Well the big difference is there are guidelines that one followed and janet didn't.
If you see violence in a movie, chances are that movie was rated R because it met the guidelines for it. There are no nudity guidelines for a public sports broadcast for that time period, so people expect some things not to be seen so everyone can watch. If a show does have more violent content or nudity, then it gets a "M" rating and put in a different time slot. If you put something on that someone unknowingly can't opt out of, it causes problems... like showing M-rated material during a G or general broadcast. That's not artistic freedom, that's simply not following the rules.
Similarly this site has rules about nudity, because it's been said in similar threads that since the forum doesn't have a content filter, they can't allow nudity... which is same as allowing M-rated material to be shown to general audience without a chance to opt out of it. Some people look at the site at work or at public places, thus filtering needs to be put in place. If you want to link to a nude, then you can always load the render on deviantart with the content filter on and you should be good.
Nicely put, MM.
EDIT: And I will add, that my company is one that will fire anybody who uses company resources to look at ... er, shall I say, "things not pertaining to work," and especially any images that could elicit an objection by anybody who might be passing by one's desk.
In many companies, the term "hostile workplace" is defined by the offended, but is never to be taken lightly at all.
I am not talking about movies, public events or ratings. Of course there are rules for that.
I am talking only about the gallery on the DAZ site! And about images like this:
http://www.daz3d.com/gallery/images/22277/
http://www.daz3d.com/gallery/images/22284/
http://www.daz3d.com/gallery/images/17305/
http://www.daz3d.com/gallery/images/4883/
Just a few examples. And I still want to know why images like these are allowed on a "family friendly" site, whereas artistic nudity is forbidden. I would definitely not allow my child to watch stuff like I linked above. Dont you think that these images also need content filters???
Actually of my work content can be worse than the renders since we have to work with adult movie content providers... Everyone knows I'm troubleshooting issues in the movie module when they hear me giggling at my cubicle. ;)
Paypal and some credit card companies label images with nudity or sexual content as adult. They also refuse to process payments from sites that meet this definition of adult. You can complain about definitions all you want; as long as the only way to do business with Paypal is to censor nudity, nudity will be censored.
This is why adult vendors are stuck in their own category, not for "moral" reasons. Corporations are not "moral," only fiscal. Complain to the payment processors, not to DAZ.
Oh, and let me tell you something about movie ratings.
Do you know that "Soldier James Ryan" movie with Tom Hanks? Here in Europe this movie was rated as PG 12. That means free for everyone of 12 years of age and up.
I was about 30 when I (tried) to watch this movie. I left the cinema after the first 10 minutes because I got sick from all that blood and violence!
But on the other side I never got sick when I was flicking through a Playboy magazine. Strange, hm? :-)
I am amazed the regular folks who complain about nudity haven't commented yet. MM did wrap it up nicely and SickleYield, too.
At one point not too long ago, DAZ was trying to get into more schools. There have been serious discussions about this before and many voiced their concerns if DAZ wanted to be used in classrooms they couldn't have the nudity on the site (used to be in the old ArtZone). There were teachers who posted and others who mentioned the concerns parents and school boards would have. There's also the not safe for work issue due to sexual harassment/hostile work environment rules and lawsuits. And I can remember one filter where I worked a few years ago that wouldn't allow access to Renderosity because they had nude artwork, so it had been classified by someone making the filter as NSFW site/porn site. The Puritanical ideals of the nation's forefathers live on. There has always been more censorship of nudity in America. Hugh Hefner was almost shutdown a few times in the early days of Playboy.
Yes, yes, all nice expamples. Paypal, schools... Wait, schools? Schools with kids as pupils? Oh my god. Just watch the images I have linked a few posts above. I do not want any kids to watch them. In my opinion horror, blood and violence is much more irritating and dangerous, especially for kids, than a nude breast (which is one of the most natural things in life).
What I am still trying to explain is that the DAZ site is NOT family friendly! However they always claim they are because they simply ban nuditidy.
DAZ is a "we show horror, blood and violence but ban nudidity" site, which is definitely NOT family friendly. Thats all.
Read sickleyield's post. Between that and the lack of content filters you should have your answer. If you want post a nude render in the forum, post it as i said in my previous post and you should be fine.
This topic comes up periodically with similar questions and opinions espoused. I agree with daz on this one. I appreciate less nudity and am glad there is less here.
Some sites overwhelm with inescapable sexy images of v4 when I have zero interest in the figure, character or outfits. I find it overwhelming.
No, I do not want to post a nude render. Neither here nor anywhere else. Please read my words that you have quoted from post #16. They tell you all I want to say. If DAZ really wants to be a family friendly place (and not just use that term for justifying the banning of nudidity) they have to ban much more images/themes from the site.
As I said above, I have a little daughter and for the explained reasons I do not want her to browse the DAZ gallery. And all caring parents should do the same, because it is not family friendly in its current state.
I have never considered the gallery to be family friendly, personally either.
But DAZ does. Everytime a nude image is banned the moderators justify it with: "This is a family friendly site, so we do not allow that". Trust me, I have read that several times.
Probably paypal friendly is a better term. Still those images posted in this thread aren't extremely violent, I think those may get deleted as well.
I'm okay with banning nude images. When I want to look at nudity I prefer to choose to do so.
I don't recall DAZ ever saying they were "family friendly", I believe it was a title attached to them from the users because of the lack of nudity that can be displayed here, i know i have used the term a few times. If you want to get technical there are discussions about other things in the forums i wouldn't want my child to see in addition to the images you linked to. Then again, I wouldn't let my small child work with DS or poser either unless i controlled the content and they never visited either here or rendo. But different parents all have different ways of raising their kids, some actually parent and others let the internet, the media and public schools do the upbringing..
This discussion comes up periodically, and often results in posts being removed and threads being locked, so please keep these points in mind:
1) Different people have different ideas about what they want to see and want their children to see; please respect that. Don't start calling each other pronographers and psychos, please.
2) The decisions about what DAZ 3D allows are driven primarily by what Paypal and credit card processors say, and the latter are often somewhat vague about, but it doesn't stop them from refusing to service a site arbitrarily. Paypal won't pull the plug on Amazon on a whim, but they have put 3D graphics stores out of business without batting an eye.
3) Please steer away from criticism of the attitudes of different countries, religions, or ethnic groups.
4) Likewise, discussion of politics is not appropriate for these forums; there are other sites for those discussions.
There is one very interesting thing in this discussion. Almost everyone tries to defend and justify the nudidity ban with a lot of examples and explanations, comparisons and personal opinions.
But NO ONE here seems to complain about all the violence, blood, zombie and monster images here, that are available to everone (including children) without any content filters! NO ONE seems to care about that. Are you really that blunt to all those dangerous themes? Dangerous for a childs mental development. And is a naked breast really all that you fear whereas executions are broadcasted in TV?
Is a nude female body so disgusting, compared to all that blood and gore, which seems to have become a "normal" part of life? Why is it ok to watch people killing each other whereas 2 girls (or boys) kissing is a crime? Why is a female nipple not suitable whereas a wall glued with blood and guts, surrounded by frightening zombies is absolutely ok and no problem for anyone?
In the beginning I said that I do not understand this behaviour. And now, 26 posts later this has not changed. Maybe I am stupid, but there is definitely something wrong in peoples minds. Sorry.
Thank you Mike!
Was making a nice long post about concerns covered in #3 - your post is of course much nicer ;)
Ok, I am absolutely with you. Then please remove all images from the gallery which show violence, blood, monsters and other disgusting contents that are not suitable for children! (as long as you do not establish any content filters)
Thank you!
Ok, I am absolutely with you. Then please remove all images from the gallery which show violence, blood, monsters and other disgusting contents that are not suitable for children! (as long as you do not establish any content filters)
Thank you!
If you don't want your child looking at those images, then don't let them, but don't disallow myself or anybody else who's perfectly fine with it to not see it.
Leave your parenting to your own children.
Paypal or some other online payment system dropped an art gallery because the art gallery hosted nude 2D and 3d artwork. I think the art gallery is hosted in central Europe. Said art gallery does not allow artistic nude art anymore.