Disturbing New Trend On Skyrim Nexus

[hitchshar]

Sorry to bring this up, but I don't think I'm the only one who is a little creeped out by the new child mods with naked bodies being uploaded by certain individuals on the Skyrim Nexus site.
They are little girl 'follower' mods, which in itself is ok, but these are now created with the Dimonized UNP body replacer, which is meant to replace adult female characters' vanilla body underwear so they are naked, breasts, vagina, pubes etc. People who have complained about these mods have been banned or warned by the moderators of the Nexus with even the moderators themselves 'endorsing' these sick mods.
The Dimonized Female Body Replacer link: http://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/6709/?
An example of the disturbing mods now being uploaded on the Nexus:
http://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/74682/?
Surely this is illegal even if it is CGI? It's sexualising children and something should be done about it. I for one have informed the necessary authorities.

[Bomb Bloke]

Originally posted by hitchshar:

one poster pointed out that body replacers CAN easily be altered to nude if you know what you are doing, so the potential is there for anyone who feels the "need" to make them naked, which, I'm sorry, but everyone has the right to their own opinion, some people do find these mods disturbing.

Righto, but the point was that any NPC can be altered in this way, including the vanilla children. The only "fix" for this is to remove mod support from the game, and even then layers of DRM on top might be needed to prevent it for certain. However you look at it, the "potential" you speak of is exactly the same whether this mod exists or not.

Originally posted by hitchshar:

End of discussion.

New people are going to just keep jumping in until you edit your original post. I'm willing to invoke Hanlon's razor on you, but you've still got some fixing to do.

Originally posted by ℛaveDZ:

I do agree the mod author should have mentioned that it uses nevernude.

Hang on, think what you're saying here - would any rational user assume that the author uploaded a "detailed" nude child mod in the first place, without a third party actually stepping in and accusing them? The ruckus came about not because of the mod, but because of the unfounded allegations against it.

The idea that mod authors should have to specify "yes this mod complies with site rules" in their actual description text is plain silly.

Originally posted by marmaladecat:

Doesn't bother me at all. What I find odd is people who are shocked (shocked, I say!) by the idea that kids have bodies and bits too, or that they can pretend they don't by putting something over it.

Which puts me in mind of:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZ0SRgh3X9Q

Originally posted by kodiak.pw:

Heres another one that, this same author, suggests getting: https://staticdelivery.nexusmods.com/mods/110/images/39821-3-1428691104.jpg yes i know, she just happened to be posing like that, its a coincidence, no harm no foul. Uploader "hrk1025", from Japan.

http://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/39821/?

One, that file's an ENB, not a character mod. Two, while most certainly the image goes for "sexy", the pictured character doesn't actually appear to be a child - even putting aside that she's got great big tits, the limb proportions show her as very well developed.

Originally posted by kodiak.pw:

What is wrong: https://staticdelivery.nexusmods.com/mods/110/images/74855-5-1460185078.jpg whoever defends it, is pretending they don't see a child posing, and on top of it, its as if shes about to flash you. Why thats uploaded on a site like nexus, is the question.

I see a pose. "Cute" rather than "sexy", though. The sort of "cute overload" that people filling websites with pictures of kittens are going for, granted, but a porn shoot? No.

[Killroy]

My response to this entire thread...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgqRis_czYg

[AJ]

Originally posted by Killroy:

My response to this entire thread...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgqRis_czYg

XD

[LeKingCaribou]

the moders can do whatever they want, and if the moderators agree, then theres nothing we can do about it.

[Dr. Atrocious]

Most cancerous part of this thread is that half these idiots have little to no modding experience yet they act like they know what they're on about...

For you ignorant people, I'll make this as simple but informative as possible:

Children are already in vanilla Skyrim. If someone wanted to make them naked, then they would simply change the mesh files with a UNP/CBBE/others nude body, or personal custom mesh if they knew how. Doing this could possibly make them not even look like children anymore.

However, UNP and CBBE can also have bikini/underwear mesh files. Giving a child in Skyrim a UNP or CBBE "nevernude" (underwear) mesh would only give them a different body weight (making them look smaller/thinner), but would not make them naked. This means that they would be no different from vanilla (unmodded) children, but would have better compatibility with UNP/CBBE outfits. There are a variety of outfits compatible with UNP/CBBE, and many of them are not skimpy and/or sexual.

From this point a modder could give the child character, through various/other mods, clothing of their choice. You can either make the child Skimpy and sexualized AF or you could just give them a pretty/cute dress or similar. That is up to you.

Now, if a mod author creates a child mod with a nevernude body and presents the character in either vanilla Skyrim clothing or cutesy dresses, nor making any suggestive poses, then it is clearly not their intention to sexualize the character. Seeing the character as sexualized given the conditions that it's technically a different looking vanilla Skyrim child would mean that you yourself are viewing the child sexually.

There are also times in which the child mod is presented sexually (nude bodies + skimpy clothing and sexual poses). In that case then it is your responsibility to report that mod. But, sometimes it may be confusing and/or not immediately obvious (Perrine author didn't mention the body used nevernude). What you should do in that situation is check the comments and/or contact the mod author and get the necessarry information before jumping to conclusions.

In conclusion, completely rejecting these mods is the exact same as rejecting vanilla Skyrim children since you're free to make changes to them however you want as well (you don't have to sexualize the vanilla Skyrim or modded children if you don't want to).

If these mods concern you, then I suggest uninstalling Skyrim because you already have the exact thing you feel to be sexualized.

Originally posted by Bomb Bloke:

Hang on, think what you're saying here - would any rational user assume that the author uploaded a "detailed" nude child mod in the first place, without a third party actually stepping in and accusing them? The ruckus came about not because of the mod, but because of the unfounded allegations against it.

The idea that mod authors should have to specify "yes this mod complies with site rules" in their actual description text is plain silly.

It helps prevent some people from assuming it's nude because it's UNP or CBBE like some guys did here and getting a lot of unecessarry hate.

[Bomb Bloke]

Originally posted by ℛaveDZ:

It helps prevent some people from assuming it's nude because it's UNP or CBBE like some guys did here and getting a lot of unecessarry hate.

It'd help idiots from exposing themselves... maybe (they're bound to find other ways). But it'd also make them think their "guilty until someone puts in the very basic effort to confirm otherwise" attitudes are validated. They're not, and that idea borders on dangerous. Let's have some standards, here.

Again, think about it - hitchshar has outright accused Nexus moderation of being paedophiles. The idea that this is reasonable simply because the author didn't say the mod lacks child nudity (as opposed to, say, the mod itself actually containing child nudity) lacks any basis in logic.

I would argue that particular fence already had enough "safety rails" put up around it to justify pointing and laughing at anybody who chose to jump over it, and putting up more will only serve to facilitate the average IQ of our race nose-diving even further.

[Toasted Sunshine]

"Crimestop", a newspeak (the book 1984, by George Orwell) word, applies here.
Meaning: to train one's mind to intentionally ignore obvious gaps in logic, and redirect thoughts that conflict with the party's (or in this case one's own) ideology.
I direct your attention to the meaning of the word and not the name, as that would probably give some here the wrong idea.

Just my 2 cents, please do not reply to me.

[kdodds]

Originally posted by legion160:

Originally posted by kodiak.pw:

You can do whatever you want with the japanese models too, ive seen it posted on the nexus, apparently is pretty simple to do. There still aren't children in erotic poses on the front page.

Im not stopping anything, or rioting, expressing disgust, that is it. Take care.

only thing distgusting here is your profile pic

Is that Linda Blair? For The Exorcist? When she was a minor? And uttered some VERY controversial words?

[kdodds]

Originally posted by Tanzanit:

This explains why Skyrim has tag M +17+ (+18?) because of freaks-moders like these guys. I have 1041 hours in Skyrim and have not found anything sexual, really offensive or extremly gory in vanila Skyrim to get above +16

Guess the infamous horker tusk went right over your head, huh?

[kdodds]

Originally posted by Bomb Bloke:

Originally posted by ℛaveDZ:

It helps prevent some people from assuming it's nude because it's UNP or CBBE like some guys did here and getting a lot of unecessarry hate.

It'd help idiots from exposing themselves... maybe (they're bound to find other ways). But it'd also make them think their "guilty until someone puts in the very basic effort to confirm otherwise" attitudes are validated. They're not, and that idea borders on dangerous. Let's have some standards, here.

Again, think about it - hitchshar has outright accused Nexus moderation of being paedophiles. The idea that this is reasonable simply because the author didn't say the mod lacks child nudity (as opposed to, say, the mod itself actually containing child nudity) lacks any basis in logic.

I would argue that particular fence already had enough "safety rails" put up around it to justify pointing and laughing at anybody who chose to jump over it, and putting up more will only serve to facilitate the average IQ of our race nose-diving even further.

Agreed. Baby dolls are not marketed as "Now NOT Anatomically Correct", Barbie Dolls don't have labels saying "I don't have a vagina". And no one sees a need to have Clementine on the next TWD exclaiming that she ALWAYS wears jeans and a tshirt. I agree with RaveDZ's post for the most part, but, enforcing a "nevernude" labelling of mods is patently ridiculous.

The other side of the aisle in this thread is making Idiocracy look like a documentary at this point.

[Asterix Ace]

14 pages of cancer. This is what happens when you post stuff about the skyrim modding community or trends. Everyone thinks your mad. Its like one of those classsic films of supposdly "mad people" talking about the end times and everyone else ignores because they know its not going to happen. But actually it does.