Outrageously Offended

That's libelous, and thus against the TOS, Jauani.

Wow.. this is why I just have no respect for the "don't shove your morality down my throat crowd".

I don't know you Taco, but the way you're acting makes you sound like a perverted creep who wants attention.

I agree with Aimee - this is an intrusion even if you went around taking pictures of people's Avies picking their noes, or looking stupid while doing the LOL animation, with out asking for permission.

The fact that you're doing it up skirts just makes it all the worse, and the sexual aspect of it does matter. I cant believe people are trying to say it doesn't!

Yes we're playing with dolls.. and thats exactly why it matters. Our Avatars have genders, wear normal clothing, and some of them have real genitals. We're playing a sexual game. Saying that just because it's a game and doing something that's blatantly aggressive and intrusive to one of the most private areas of our psyche means ignoring why some of us are attracted to this kind of game. It's social and sexual interaction, and part of that is behavior and boundaries. This is an abuse of all that!

Oh and BTW...

That argument is baloney! If I ran around crashing Sims, push gunning people and generally being a pain BUT I took photos of it to exhibit - I wouldn't be an artist - I'd be a griefer with a camera...

P.P.S. /me officially joins Aimee and Jonquille's fan club.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one Jonq. Because I see cyber sex and realtionships on SL to have nothing to do with the subject of this thread. I have known you for a long time and obviously we view our RL relationships differently, bc I do not believe in having realtionships or cyber with ppl in SL. I belong to my hubby only. But honestly this is all irrelevant. Like I said it is just a pic of some avatars private area and that is if there is anything there....as many of us in SL do not have genitalia.

Ok, I think Taco has learned and agreed he will abide by TOS. I don't think he will continue to photograph Tacos without consent.

By the way, are there any Burito Museums?

hehehehe, Blake.

Semper ubi sub ubi translates to:
Always where under where

A very STOOPID joke, but what would you expect from me?

i would say your arguement is baloney as well.

you are comparing apples to oranges. crashing sims is against the TOS. taking photographs is not. taco has challenged a concept of self. what commonly held notions does crashing a sim challenge? your example is baloney.

i think taco should add quilt wearing men to his exhibit to relieve his display of charges of being anti feminist.

I don't think we view our RL relationships differently at all, Paris. You and I have spoken and ranted to each other at length about that. But those are our views, and others might just tell us to go smoke a bowl and chill the hell out, that we're making a big deal out of fake sex, and that we're being silly. That was my point, and why I brought up that extreme example.

Actually Blake, I agreed to nothing of the sort. I will continue to take down pictures of people that request it (unless the Lindens decide they need to take down the whole thing, of course), but until I hear otherwise, I still consider the public to be the public.

Jonq...you know I love you and Siggy very much. You have been a part of mine and Darko's life for a long time now. That question just stung..you know. But I just voiced my opinion that is all. And more power to you for your views. Although I come in here with my opinions..I am by no means underminding anyones. I am all for freedom of speech and ppl can say and feel whatever they want.

Technically, you'd be a an artist. An artist who broke the TOS, but an artist. I've not been told that I've broken any rules at all, so this argument of yours is inapplicable, logically.

I apologize for the sting. Not my intention. You can slap me back in-world if ya like.

What page is the pics on, I wanna see! LOL

hi.

i have not been to the forums for a few days and missed this thread. i am rather well versed in this subject as i publish a magazine that displays avatars as a large part of its content.

i respect the work a person puts into making an attractive or interesting unique avatar. my policy is to totally have informed participants in the magazine. there is no doubt whatsoever when the pictures are taken, why they are taken, and what use the pictures are intended for. this seems only simple, normal polite behavior. plain decency demands such a thing really.

some people regard their avatar more personally than others. there are sound reasons for either viewpoint.

u will never see an article in Players where random pictures are taken at some nudist event and published. that has never even occured to me frankly until i just wrote this. yes i could do that, and yes maybe even not violate some tos or some legal what have u.
its just the decency of normal social interactions that make it wrong. exploitation begins with ignorance of anothers intent.

marilyn

Yeah looks like you deserve a spanking. Meh loves you.

I will be highly offended if it turns out that any of these women are going around panty-less in PG areas. Why, one mistaken swing of the camera and I could be forced to be looking right at their naughty bits! If any avs, male or female, should be caught indecently exposing their nether regions to the PG ground beneath their feet, they should be warned and possibly suspended.

Great.

Fantastic.

So by that "logic" when you go and rape a 12 year old and take pictures you're still technically an "artist". Just one who "challenges the commonly held assumptions about consent and age appropriate sexuality?" What if the pictures are composed really nicely? Can you get your "get out of being a predatory monster free" card then?

Sorry Taco, being a controversial jerk doesn't make you an artist.

Oh and for the "logic" impaired. I never said that breaking the TOS made you not an artist, or that being a griefer made you not an artist.

I *did* point out that abusive unacceptable behavior can't be justified under the "noble banner of art", and that you shouldn't applaud it just because it gets people talking about it.

Well shit, now if Aeastival doens't think it's art, it can't be. Darn and I tried really hard to win your approval too, as I know you're the one who decides art for everyone.

That IS the current policy and people ARE reprimanded for this. FYI.

Taco's not gonna get any logic here.
my husband made a lot of valid points to him, and instead of responding to any of it, he critiqued the spelling.

My husband sent me a message and said
"Dragen: so apparently i'm communicating with people of lesser intelligence
Mistress: yup
Dragen: well that was a waste of time lol"

He's a boy who wants some attention, and doesn't seem to care about how it makes him look, and who it is alienating or exploiting.

So I take it that means you *are* sticking up for all the great artists who just so happen to be pedophiles?

Midnight, I don't know your husband, to my knowledge I"ve never met him, so I'm not intending any disrespect when I say this. I decided to reread his post. It seems to consist of telling me that I'm a pervert, a predator, and that I'm just after attention, and that these are facts, "PERIOD".

How do you want me to respond?

Please tell me how we went from pictures of Avatar genitilia without permission to pedophilia?

Where is the connection?

One is potentially artistic - asshat at worst the other is criminal online or off.

Thank Buddha. I was worried that the sky might fall for a moment.

Good logic

It's a great tactic to bring in the most abhorrent thing you can think of in an example. And
then if the person doesn't respond to it, you associate him with that. I remember Marcarthy and Helms doing this a lot.

Anyway, i guess yes. If youre a pedofiile and your striving to create art at the same time, it makes you a felon, and a rapist, and an artist.

Worry not!