Outrageously Offended

I am not attacking anyone, but it just seems so juvenille.

More juvenile than someone zooming up women's skirts to take a picture of their virtual twat and display it for others?

Okie dokie.

Well, I don't post much on the forums.. and I really try to avoid forum trolls. But I feel it's important to remind the rest of you why this individual started this thread in the first place. He can attempt to explain himself, or reason with the rest of you.. but his actions and his personality tell a story of who he is. Do I "know" who he is as a person? Well perhaps that depends on what your definition of "know" is. But I can tell you, what I do "know" about this individual is very telling of who he really is. He can donate money to charity every month for all I care, but it doesn't change that fact that his thoughts and actions of perversion make him a pervert, and will not sway my views and god given entitled opinion of him as well.

This thread was started in the hopes to draw as many people to it as he can for attention and self-promotion. Making money or not is pointless as he seeks to build a "reputation" for himself by using his name and actions to be remembered. This individual acts out in ways to gain some kind of self fulfillment and recognition in a community where he may or may not be accepted in a society without it. But the question begs, and disturbs me as to why an individual can act out in a way that is unacceptable and unlawful in the "real world", in a Virtual World and claim that it is acceptable behavior. Then he proceeds to justify it by claiming he doesn't "name" them, and he doesn't "exploit" them, and that it's "tasteful", and that the Lindens "laughed" and "approved" of it.

Regardless of a 12 year old girl, 20 year old girl, or a 40 year old woman, if you take pictures of her genitalia without her consent, REGARDLESS of pink, white, or no panties while she is walking down the street or sitting in the bathroom, you will be caught, arrested, tried, and possibly serve a sentence. Period. I don't want to argue or even listen to his ignorant statements. The bottom line is, he feels it's "acceptable" in the virtual world as the rules may not be as "defined" as the real world. And who knows, maybe he really does in the real world (scary thought isn't it?) and if not, when will he? Do you not see that actions of this nature, in a virtual realm are an extension of seclusive thoughts from a psyche who so badly needs attention and to quench a thirst of perversion that have been locked in (a possibly unstable) mind where he feels he may otherwise suffer consequences if caught in the real world?

morals. morals is a subjective view, and just who really knows what is wrong or right. Apparently, anybody could be offended by an "SL Lawn". Maybe it's immorale to make an "SL Lawn" as it's traumitizing to certain individuals. Who knows, maybe somebody's family member got ran over by a lawn mower. I have no idea. I don't care. But here is the deal... real life, or NOT.. mathematically/statistically a general consensus can be gathered and will show an overwhelmingly amount of offended individuals who feel uncomfortable and violated over sex and pictures of this nature over your SL lawn any day. At some point there is a defined "line" that you do not cross. And that is morals. While morals will always be different for each and every individual, the fact remains there IS and always WILL be a defined "morale" for every subject. Thou shalt not kill. DUH. Maybe morals should be cleverly labeled, "Common Sense" which many people seem to lack.

So if morals don't apply, then apparently it's NOT wrong if I break your jaw for filming/photographing my wife's genitalia, virtual or not? Regardless of a Virtual/Physical persona; it's a person. It's a person with rights, feelings, and a personality. It's an ACT OF EXPLOITATION to an INDIVIDUAL, not a "Virtual Character". If this INDIVIDUAL feels offended, exploited and vulnerable because of YOUR actions, then YOU crossed the line. This is why Linden Lab has created the Terms of Service (TOS) and enforce these rules. It's not about intellectual property. (Until you start selling those pictures which just makes your grave deeper) It's about how you made a human being feel. And not just one, but apparently many. Make the connection, connect the dots, these are things we learned as children.

Now, the only time something of this nature is ACCEPTABLE is with proper written consent from an individual you are filming or photographing. This is called "Legal Pornography", and that's why it exists today. If you have sex with somebody without consent, it's called rape. If you film an individuals genitalia without consent, it's called exploitation. And yes, it's all called INVASION. Invasion of privacy. Invasion of rights. Physical or Mental invasion. You have NO right to perform these actions, virtual or physical. These people are your VICTIMS. Not your clients.

So again, maybe I really don't know who this guy is. But based on what I do know, I really don't want to know him. There is only one thing I can say about people like this, virtual or not...

Predators.

LOL!!!

Not all of the photos do a good job hiding identifying cues, even the non girl-bit ones.

Question. Which is it that people are objecting to. The taking of the pictures or the sharing of them without permission? I mean, would it bother you if someone had a whole collection of these in their inventory but never shared them with others? Or is even the snapshot taking in the first place bad too?

Zaius]Well, I don't post much on the forums.. and I really try to avoid forum trolls. But I feel it's important to remind the rest of you why this individual started this thread in the first place. He can attempt to explain himself, or reason with the rest of you.. but his actions and his personality tell a story of who he is. Do I "know" who he is as a person? Well perhaps that depends on what your definition of "know" is. But I can tell you, what I do "know" about this individual is very telling of who he really is. He can donate money to charity every month for all I care, but it doesn't change that fact that his thoughts and actions of perversion make him a pervert, and will not sway my views and god given entitled opinion of him as well.

This thread was started in the hopes to draw as many people to it as he can for attention and self-promotion. Making money or not is pointless as he seeks to build a "reputation" for himself by using his name and actions to be remembered. This individual acts out in ways to gain some kind of self fulfillment and recognition in a community where he may or may not be accepted in a society without it. But the question begs, and disturbs me as to why an individual can act out in a way that is unacceptable and unlawful in the "real world", in a Virtual World and claim that it is acceptable behavior. Then he proceeds to justify it by claiming he doesn't "name" them, and he doesn't "exploit" them, and that it's "tasteful", and that the Lindens "laughed" and "approved" of it.

Regardless of a 12 year old girl, 20 year old girl, or a 40 year old woman, if you take pictures of her genitalia without her consent, REGARDLESS of pink, white, or no panties while she is walking down the street or sitting in the bathroom, you will be caught, arrested, tried, and possibly serve a sentence. Period. I don't want to argue or even listen to his ignorant statements. The bottom line is, he feels it's "acceptable" in the virtual world as the rules may not be as "defined" as the real world. And who knows, maybe he really does in the real world (scary thought isn't it?) and if not, when will he? Do you not see that actions of this nature, in a virtual realm are an extension of seclusive thoughts from a psyche who so badly needs attention and to quench a thirst of perversion that have been locked in (a possibly unstable) mind where he feels he may otherwise suffer consequences if caught in the real world?

Morales. Morales is a subjective view, and just who really knows what is wrong or right. Apparently, anybody could be offended by an "SL Lawn". Maybe it's immorale to make an "SL Lawn" as it's traumitizing to certain individuals. Who knows, maybe somebody's family member got ran over by a lawn mower. I have no idea. I don't care. But here is the deal... real life, or NOT.. mathematically/statistically a general consensus can be gathered and will show an overwhelmingly amount of offended individuals who feel uncomfortable and violated over sex and pictures of this nature over your SL lawn any day. At some point there is a defined "line" that you do not cross. And that is morales. While Morales will always be different for each and every individual, the fact remains there IS and always WILL be a defined "morale" for every subject. Thou shalt not kill. DUH. Maybe Morales should be cleverly labeled, "Common Sense" which many people seem to lack.

So if morales don't apply, then apparently it's NOT wrong if I break your jaw for filming/photographing my wife's genitalia, virtual or not? Regardless of a Virtual/Physical persona; it's a person. It's a person with rights, feelings, and a personality. It's an ACT OF EXPLOITATION to an INDIVIDUAL, not a "Virtual Character". If this INDIVIDUAL feels offended, exploited and vulnerable because of YOUR actions, then YOU crossed the line. This is why Linden Lab has created the Terms of Service (TOS) and enforce these rules. It's not about intellectual property. (Until you start selling those pictures which just makes your grave deeper) It's about how you made a human being feel. And not just one, but apparently many. Make the connection, connect the dots, these are things we learned as children.

Now, the only time something of this nature is ACCEPTABLE is with proper written consent from an individual you are filming or photographing. This is called "Legal Pornography", and that's why it exists today. If you have sex with somebody without consent, it's called rape. If you film an individuals genitalia without consent, it's called exploitation. And yes, it's all called INVASION. Invasion of privacy. Invasion of rights. Physical or Mental invasion. You have NO right to perform these actions, virtual or physical. These people are your VICTIMS. Not your clients.

So again, maybe I really don't know who this guy is. But based on what I do know, I really don't want to know him. There is only one thing I can say about people like this, virtual or not...

Predators.[/QUOTE]

Have I even met you? And who the hell is Morales?

Exactly...just a VIRTUAL TWAT...not REAL.

Actually the law is quite clear that the one place you cannot secretly peek is up and under the skirt, no matter how short it is. Be clear that I am not saying your build and pictures present a legal event; I merely observe that because I wear a skirt, no matter how short, that doesnt mean I want people to secretly peek up to see and photograph what I've got under it.

In addition, there is no implied permission to peek or photograph, and to display the pictures. Whether it be a voyeur, a peeping tom, or an opportunist, conceptually this may make for fun and great erotic literature, however in the real world it's a no go. Before comment is made, I distinguish SL from the "real world."

Pen - you've been peeking in my inventory again!

I do love that husband of mine

*wonders if Pen has any pics of me*

If she doesn't, I can share mine.

Do they involve police tape and handcuffs?

What I'm personally objecting to is that even in a virtual world that we can make anything of, we have apperantly CHOSEN to subjectify and humiliate women, or CHOSEN to defend those who do.

I'm not going to get all Sisterhood and Feminazi here, but I personally find it extremely sad that so many are defending this practice. Our fault for having a vagina, I guess. That makes us fair game. That'll teach us to make female avs.

This is not an issue of a woman choosing to display her body, virtual or otherwise. It's an issue of someone sneaking up their skirt with a camera to photograph them. Do you honestly not see the difference between consenting and non-consenting?

hehe...my lips are sealed.

Is that the only thing 'wrong' you could find with his post?
pretty sad.
Read it again, make the connection he meant"morals"

Edited. Fixed. That's a lot of typing. Mistakes bound to happen.

SHHHHHH....

So if someone offered to suck your husband's virtual cock, or virtually have an affair with him, that would be okay because it's not real?

If that was your husband, I love him too!

I would like to state for the record that no one here in this thread has offended or hurt me. I am seriously apologizing for an issue that I never knew existed. As I just told someone else I honestly never knew so many felt this way. I always assumed that everyone viewed their avatar in the same way that I do. And of course I should know better as we know what assuming can lead to.

And don't get me wrong, I feel very strongly about my avatar being an extention of me. But I have to sometimes be hit over the head to be reminded that everyone does not think the same way I do about certain issues.

Whether I agree that this type of action is wrong or not does not matter to me. The fact that I could possibly offend, hurt, or embarrass someone by my actions will make me think twice the next time I take a risky picture. I strive to never hurt anyone if I can help it, and this is a case where I *can* control my actions.

No matter good intentions or not, I personally am glad this thread was started. Or else I might not have learned the lesson that I did. So again I apologize!

tsk, tsk....you didn't have to go there. Doesn't even have to do with so called cybering. They are just fuckin' pictures. Jebus....you ppl need to smoke and fuckin chill out. This has nothing to do with going around and being with ppl in SL, Jonq...you know that.

So showing a female avatars panties or vagina humilates them? When did you ladies get so disgusted with your bit attachments. And how is wearing panties or having a vagina attachment in anyway degrading or humiliating? Well..perhaps if I wore them it would be..however...

And really..to see up alot of these tiny little skirts in SL doesn't require any sneaking...

I mean really, they are pixels. It's not RL. Again, is it rude or show a lack or respect? Possibly. But breaking any kind of virtual-privacy-TOS-LL-OMGitsnaughtypixels laws or rules..I really don't see how. But I guess if LL wants to start that ball rolling, it's thier right, as they are the true Owners of your AVs and attachments. I just hope if they make that decision, we see some clear cut rules describing when we have to ask for consent and when we don't. And what form that consent must take, being that a verbal consent can not be proven down the line...

LOL it is!