Blender Nude and Erotic Art

General discussion about the development of the open source Blender

Moderators: jesterKing, stiv

Posts: 0
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2003 12:50 pm

Post by M@dcow » Tue Oct 26, 2004 12:12 pm

Joeedh wrote:I'm not going to answer you. There IS evidence, it's called "Sexual Addiction" and you can find books on it everywhere.
Ok, so what you seem to be saying is that once someone has become addicted to something, that automatically makes it "utterly destructive" (had to use one of your misguided quotes :D )

I have a friend with a severe peanut addiction (no, really). So am I within my rights to term peanuts "utterly destructive" as well?

Zarf was right. That was a cop out.

The simple truth is that certain people have addictive personalities, and yes, some of them become addicted to sex (Charlie Sheen anyone?), but people can become addicted to virtually anything from sex, peanuts, computers....stephen King novels.....and so on.

Just because someone has become addicted to something doesn't make that subject "evil" or "morally corruptive" or however you would choose to term it. Period. Meanwhile you are sliding way off topic, and what makes it worse is that you are piping in with your opinion without even checking out the subject at hand. I find that hilarious :shock:

Posts: 96
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2003 6:41 pm

Post by joeri » Tue Oct 26, 2004 12:43 pm

I don't care what the creator of the images calls his images.

Looking at minors to get sexualy aroused is a perverted thing not widely accepted.
I don't want old men looking at my daughter as if it's a sex object.
I don't want this behaviour to be encouraged by making it widely acceptable, starting on the internet.

Philo Vivero is very much buzy with sex and pornography (google).
And his work must been seen in that context.
He even wants us to see it in that context. He didn't call it erotic by accident. Maybe even provoke a flamy threat.

If he had made images with the intent of "my daughter on a sunny day with a ball" then all was well for me, although I don't understand why you would want to share that with any- and everybody.
But thats not the intent of the images (call them erotic, pornographic or smoetsypooh for all I care).
The intent is to get sexualy aroused by looking at minors.

Now if that leads or does not lead to such behaviour (which then is called sexual abuse) is very much under discussion and examination. In the meantime I will assume it is, just like I assume that a free gun law gives more deaths then a gun probition. It's not because I'm prude, it's to protect the innocent. In this case children who don't know they are getting abused untill it's too late.

"wait a minute, it's images, not even of real people, how is that abusive"
"But,.. but,.. its ART!"
This is a though one. For short:
If the images are reflecting our culture then it's art.
If they are propaganda for perversion then it's abuse.
for example: "Natural born killers" was intended as reflecting.
So you have to look at the intent... and then decide.
I don't see the reflecting part in Vivero's work, but I'm not sure it's propaganda. But I think it is.

"sex is for reproduction of life, so its a natural thing"
Well, good, you didn't realy think this truw now did ya?
Sex with minors wouln't give you any offspring, that's what the difference between minors and adults is sexualy. Sex with minors is not intent to give offspring, now is it? So why compare it? It only puts sex in a bad light.
Although Vivero seems to say that the 2 most important things of man are sex and war he seem to forget that the main difference between man and dog is culture. And in our culture it's not acceptable to have sex with minors for a reason: it gives messed up kids that don't like sex and wouln't have offspring. So it's to protect the dna.

"violence is accepted and worse then sex"
Euh,... a bad thing becomes a good thing because there are worse things?
And it's not sex that the bad thing here, it's the sexual abuse.

Site Admin
Posts: 350
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2002 12:13 am

Post by ton » Tue Oct 26, 2004 1:24 pm

This thread already illustrates how complex the matter is.

And however interesting such discussions are, I prefer the forums here to stick to blender related topics. if you have suggestions for guidelines for this site or blender forums you're welcome, otherwise let's just move on.

Posts: 46
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2002 3:54 am

Post by Zarf » Tue Oct 26, 2004 1:33 pm

joeedh wrote:\
Please. It's obvious. I know that people like you enjoy your fantasy world, where sex never hurts anyone, STDs do not exist except for the rare ones like AIDs which you probably won't get, where pleasure in any form is never harmful, and where there is no such thing as addiction.


'People like you'? You know nothing about me and how I view the world or my value system. How could you from such a small group of postings? How many people do you know that are dying of AIDS? I know quite a few. I also know plenty of people who practice safe sex but at the same time are very liberal with their sexual activities who *arn't* dying of AIDS or any other STD's. Since you can read minds you must know already that I fear for my friends who are very reckless with their sexual health don't you? Oh wait, your powers of telepathy don't seem to be as sharp as you thought...

Regardless, you can't get AIDS or any other STD from looking at CGI nudes.

Also as a recovering alcoholic I know there is such a thing as addiction, but I also know that alchol itself does not lead to addiction. So I am merely asking you to defend your bold claims instead of hurling insulting and baseless accusations at others, which apparently is ok in your book.


Posts: 96
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2003 6:41 pm

Post by joeri » Tue Oct 26, 2004 1:42 pm

ton wrote:\
if you have suggestions for guidelines for this site or blender forums you're welcome, otherwise let's just move on.
Was clear to me.

Posts: 0
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2004 4:05 pm


Post by bfo/blenderman » Tue Oct 26, 2004 4:45 pm

Blenderman , as an answer to

What we really sead on

First, a precision:

Philovivero did not ad any model in our model archive in blender files. He just posted his work in the users gallery without any warning about it.

What others said:

I also find this a bizarre issue because one of Blenderman's announced and promoted goals is Medical & Anatomical Models and Services. By encouraging this form of censorship, you are also saying that when medical models and imagery are created they should be androgynous and unattractive?

What I said previously
I Know. Even I'm opening a medical section in 3D so their will be some nudity, but it will always be in the purpose of illustrating a medical sensibilisation and education.

Let me bring in a professional precision, their is a difference.
In a medical educational movie or interactive animation. The goal is clearly defined. General images provided (i know by experience) are studied carefully in such a way that they cannot be an Ambiguity in the purpose of the usage of nudity and never unnecessarily used. I have been involved in my work on several projects showing details of the human body, Trust me when I say that's it is hard to get exited over them. And all images are explained with clear educational goal.

I will add to this that the 3D educational programmes are for BFO. And meant to be distributed and presented by and under control of professional adults. They give us the way information has to be treated. And usually people involved in these programmes are very strict about the way the image is treated, given, illustrating the message they want to deliver.
Subjects and media distribution are always treated in function of the public Goal.
subjects treated for adults are different from subjects treated for children.
I have seen so many that I can tell you that Their is no possible confusion in peoples mind, and in case of a doubt, always tested on selected ethical comity before presented to the public.


In addition, to omit nudes and the study of the human form from art galleries of any type is a form of Puritanical censorship that speaks to the close-mindedness of the people enforcing the censorship. Those who are unable to view the nude human body have self-image issues, and the proper action is to refer them to a psychiatrist -- but not to remove the "offending" material.
If someone is capable of creating incredible 3D images that represent the human form, there is a world of educational potential. You don't learn to draw the human form by only drawing fruit, and people can't learn to model humans by only modelling cars and spaceships. And from looking around at works from the Blender community, there is definitely a need to learn about accuracy in the human form...

We are not omitting the use of human body. It’s generally a base on all 3d modellers work on. But when you submit human nudity, finalised work--ON a free public gallery-- for the sake of showing human nudity because that's what you like doing (Great for you) but in Blenderman, Who are we to judge anyone’s good or bad taste and to give a proper definition about Art work nudity.

If you look back in history....the debate about nudity really started with the Italian renaissance at the end of the Medicis period and at the time, the debate was relatively local, INTERNET did not exist
Blenderman is not meant to be a tribune to defend a position regarding politics, religion, sexual content.

If we have one politic at Blenderman, it's this:
No politics-no religion- no sexuality.

They are many other sites for these subjects and they do not need Blenderman for them to be expressed.

My final answer on the debate was:
we are here to provide services, tools, elements, etc, that people can use to learn an built their 3D world (see: Model archive, tutorials, samples, answers to questions about the usage of blender, news, dedicated web hosting for blender users, etc.)
what users do with it, what you do with it on your computer is your private imagination's world and creative liberty.

Human Models or elements of human body
we provide nude human models in blender files and the model archive will offer as much to study as we will try to provide many models on other items also BUT. They have no message to give, and they are not open to all public eyes. they are just tools, elements of a 3D dictionary of shapes without any spirit or soul or message given to all publics eyes. just tools for you to work on. What anyone does with this material is their own private privilege; I call this democracy

Users gallery
is meant to show samples of work done by users at all level of talent and to allow everyone to progress in their knowledge of the blender tool usage.
Galleries are meant to show what you can do with blender (lights, shapes, material, etc) with no ambiguity.

Blenderman is meant to offer as much information as possible to help people use their favourite 3D tool and hopes to provide as much services as possible to the blender community.

I will repeat myself; Blenderman purpose is to provide
services and entertainment for all at all ages and to users from all culturel origine.

(Sorry for my English mistakes, Sandi is not here to correct them)

Thanks to all and sorry we were mentioned here on a programmers forum.

Patrick Lamoureux

Posts: 109
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2002 11:43 pm

Post by cessen » Tue Oct 26, 2004 8:08 pm

joeri wrote:I don't want old men looking at my daughter as if it's a sex object.
I assume that either english is not your native language, or you simply mis-typed. You meant "she's", not "it's", right?

Anyway, although I have not taken a look at the website yet, it sounds like they are artful nudes. And I wonder by what criteria they are claimed as being under 18 years old. Firstly, some women look very young by todays standards of "they have to have large breasts, be tall, and have curvy hips". That doesn't mean those standards are accurate. Secondly, they are 3d models, not real people, and thus technically because they were recently created are less than a year old.

Moreover, there is classic artwork depicting young nude girls. I don't recall the title or artist, but there is one in particular that realistically renders a nude girl sitting on a couch.

I agree that young girls should not be photographed nude nor specific real-life young girls recreated in the nude whether by sculpture, painting, or other means. But that is to protect the girls from exposure, not the viewer from viewing. In the case of completely fictional girls, I don't see the problem.

As for "sexual addiction", I would like to point out that the entire human race is "addicted" to sex, as the drive for the actions of reproduction is a basic part of all animals, and human's are no exception. Also, human's are very curious beings, and thus the opposite gender's sexuality is of upmost interest to the vast majority of people.

I think the term you are searching for, Joeri, is pornographic addiction, which is different and not so inherent, and involves continued, obsessive viewing of pornography even after the curiosity about the opposite gender's sexuality has been satisfied.

As for those claiming that pornography addiction is not a common problem (if any of you are claiming that), from what I've read--though I admit I do not recall specific sources--it is a fairly common problem, especially among males (though it does happen among females as well, it's just that fewer females view pornography), and can lead to problems. The biggest problem is it simply taking up too much of their time, and infringing on other valuable aspects of their life because of the disproportionate time spent viewing it. However, that same problem has been documented with TV viewing in general, so it is not specific to pornography.
Another problem is that it often leads to the person objectifying the opposite gender in mostly sexual terms, or rather, treating the opposite gender as "sex objects". Although it is important to recognize the opposite gender's sexuality, this resulting viewpoint views them as disproportionately sexual, as if that's all they are and are simply hiding it.

Both of these problems can occur to varying degrees of severity, and are fairly common among viewers of pornography. There are, of course, plenty of people who veiw pornography for whom neither of those things are a problem. So it depends on the person, too.

Anyway, I figured I'd share this tidbit of info, albiet without references (sorry about that).

So, before I go too far off topic, let me get back to topic. :-)
I think that it would make sense to leave this post up, if for no other reason than the useful discussion that has resulted from it. As for a more broad-ranging policy, I honestly don't have an idea as to what I think should be done. It seems like there are problems and benifits to most of the solutions, and I think it's largely an issue of which benifits we think are most important.

As a final comment, I also found the "proven sickening" statement rather bizaare and amusing. Joeri: if you want to be taken seriously, you should refrain from saying absurd things like that.

Posts: 0
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2003 12:50 pm

Post by M@dcow » Tue Oct 26, 2004 9:02 pm

cessen wrote:As a final comment, I also found the "proven sickening" statement rather bizaare and amusing. Joeri: if you want to be taken seriously, you should refrain from saying absurd things like that.
It was Joeedh that said that, not Joeri. Which is why me and Zarf jumped on his back.

Posts: 109
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2002 11:43 pm

Post by cessen » Tue Oct 26, 2004 10:03 pm

M@dcow wrote:It was Joeedh that said that, not Joeri. Which is why me and Zarf jumped on his back.
Oops! My sincere apologies, Joeri. I was being stupid and unobservant and thought "Joeri" and "Joeedh" were the same name. Again, I apologize. Please redirect that comment to Joeedh.

Posts: 35
Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2002 10:52 pm

Post by kid_tripod » Tue Oct 26, 2004 10:36 pm

I must confess to finding this whole thing simultaneously amusing and slightly wierd. Apologies for the randomness of my contributions, but here goes:

* I think most of this boils down to the fact northern europeans are more offended by violence than sex, and americans are wired the other way round (just look at tv censorship rules)
* americans (generalising) differ from europeans in the distinction between eroticism and porn, and in legal terms the US' definition of porn is the European definition of what is erotic ie. "causes sexual thought" is porn to the american audience, whereas in Europe you have to actually see sexual acts quite explicitly, and we accept overt sexuality a lot more
* in CG land there's a lot of "large breasted blondes with tiny waists" that are supposedly realistic. I've seen people post realistically proportioned women on the likes of CGTalk, and told it looks like a child. At which point you wonder if these people have seen real women, or just other CG. I find this a really disturbing phenomenon.

Bluntly, I have problems with people creating CG characters to sexually fantasise over in any context. They should step outside and go and meet some real people, that's my main issue with it. There's no point in recreating reality cos we've got a perfectly good one already.

I've actually had to censor myself from my final point at risk of it causing offence!

Also, ton makes a good point regarding the use of this site by young people. Now, it's up to parents really, but if a kid is on the internet, and denied access to Blender help because the parental filtering has found the word "erotic" or "nudity" on the forum page, then I think that's sad. It's one thing for the galleries at Elysiun to be inaccessible to people subject to such controls (which you may not agree with, and I don't) but this is the first stop for most Blender newbies, then over at Elysiun's Q&A. In other words, I don't think this kind of content can be had here, not because I personally don't like it, but because it might deny someone else access to a tool because of restrictions that might be put on their browsing and should not be blocked for any religious/political/other cultural differences reason to any group, anywhere.

Posts: 31
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2002 10:30 pm

Post by joeedh » Tue Oct 26, 2004 10:36 pm

[edit ok this is a reply for several posts upward]

Guess what. . .Ok, let me explain the difference between obsession and addiction.

1) Obsession is when you really, really like something.

2) Addiction is when you need something, and when that need grows and grows and grows, until finally it reaches the point where you cannot satisfy it. The closer you get to that point the more mental damage is done; as you come to rely on whatever you are addicted to it you realize that you are a slave to it. I've known people who on several accasions tried to quit smoking and failed; do you thing that knowing that you are a slave of something has no effect on you?

When pornography's effects begins to fade, how would you satisfy your addiction? Quit? Or would you begin to look at everyone and everything looking for potential oppurtinities to satisfy your need for those feelings? That is, after all, why people quit porno: when they realize that their need for sex is utterly bottomless, they realize that they have to get out while they can. Where do you think child molesters come from? Most people do not end up like that, of course, but I'd bet that many child molesters started out by looking at some porno, and never stopped.


Posts: 109
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2002 11:43 pm

Post by cessen » Wed Oct 27, 2004 4:32 am

Obsession isn't necessarily just "really really liking something". Follow this link:

Also, assuming you were refering to my post, and seeing as you seem to want to be nit-picky, the word I used was "obsessive", not "obsession".

And although addiction and obsession are two different things, addiction generally involves obsessive-type behavior. One becomes obsessed with getting a hold of the thing they are addicted to, for instance.

Posts: 31
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2002 10:30 pm

Post by joeedh » Wed Oct 27, 2004 8:16 am

Ok, let's just stop discussing this. I'm sorry, but I don't want another long, drawn-out discussion like The Threat of Nuclear War thread (off-topic forum, Elysiun).

Sorry if I'm offending you, but I am tired, sick, and I really don't want to discuss back and forth for pages and pages like I did on Elysiun. No more of that. And I neither me nor Paul_C ever convinced each other of anything. So it seems pointless.


Posts: 96
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2003 6:41 pm

Post by joeri » Wed Oct 27, 2004 9:16 am

I assume that either english is not your native language, or you simply mis-typed. You meant "she's", not "it's", right?
I meant it in a way like Mike Wazousky in "Monsters,inc." He calls Boo an it, untill he grows fond of her that is.

Posts: 60
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2002 8:51 pm

Post by OTO » Wed Oct 27, 2004 4:58 pm

WOW. Finally a topic more "popular" than the classic "Blender or 3D MAX?" one!!!!!!

Now even more popular I only find the " Is George Bush the new God's son?'" one!

Post Reply