I dont think this website convinced me that we are all beautiful. Saw some things I definitely did not consider beautiful. Maybe instead of "forcing" everyone into accepting that everyone is beautiful we should just accept that taste is personal and there is nothing wrong with finding something/someone not beautiful.
No copyrights on any content (NSFW)
11–20 of 38 posts
Re: No copyrights on any content (NSFW)
#12Why are like 70% of the models vaginas?
Because we're all beautiful but some are more beautiful than others
/s
Re: No copyrights on any content (NSFW)
#13Is the idea here that these 3D models can be used by educators to build their own visual aids, which will have proper colors and shading, etc? Because, as it stands, I'm not sure the benefit of having a bunch of purple penises. They certainly don't look realistic.
What are “proper” colors to represent genitals?
A variety of human skin (and hair and etc) tones would seem appropriate.
Is there something more to this question than it appear at first?
Re: No copyrights on any content (NSFW)
#14I dont think this website convinced me that we are all beautiful. Saw some things I definitely did not consider beautiful. Maybe instead of "forcing" everyone into accepting that everyone is beautiful we should just accept that taste is personal and there is nothing wrong with finding something/someone not beautiful.
Sure, but something you don't like someone else might like. Thus making everyone beautiful.
Re: No copyrights on any content (NSFW)
#15Why are like 70% of the models vaginas?
Are they? I only looked at https://wearebeautiful.info/browse/by-part
Also "If you're wondering why we have the collection of models we have, see our model diversity statement for more details. " https://wearebeautiful.info/docs/model-diversity
Re: No copyrights on any content (NSFW)
#16I dont think this website convinced me that we are all beautiful. Saw some things I definitely did not consider beautiful. Maybe instead of "forcing" everyone into accepting that everyone is beautiful we should just accept that taste is personal and there is nothing wrong with finding something/someone not beautiful.
Sure, but something you don't like someone else might like. Thus making everyone beautiful.
That same train of thought taken to its logical conclusion makes everyone ugly as well.
Re: No copyrights on any content (NSFW)
#17It's interesting and feels like a step in the right direction. I wonder about MRI or CT scans as an alternative to photogrammetry in order to more fully capture hidden details.
I'm also interested in simulation and movement. How SHOULD one capture the default shape and characteristics of a complicated soft structure in order to properly simulate it under gravity or other forces? Creating realistic stretching that takes into account the internal differences between ligaments and flesh for instance, could be an entire field of study.
I'm excited to see where this leads in the future.
Re: No copyrights on any content (NSFW)
#18Why are like 70% of the models vaginas?
Probably because it's a lot easier to recruit women in to a body positivity project than men.
That's my guess.
Re: No copyrights on any content (NSFW)
#19This is an interesting site but perhaps the title of the link should be updated? When I clicked on it I thought it would direct me to an article arguing against the existence of copyright law.
Heh, yes, I tried a more useful link, but no one looked at it. :/
Re: No copyrights on any content (NSFW)
#20Why are like 70% of the models vaginas?
pope_meat is right -- even in the age of unsolicited dick pics, mostly women were interested in participating in this project. Men were very hesitant. Also, more models of women than men worked out, since photogrammetry is very sensitive to movement. Any body parts further from the core where more subjected to movement from heartbeats and breaths. Vulvas are closer to the body and thus less affected.