Outrageously Offended

This is funny. Maybe the funniest thread EVER on this forum.

Here is my view. AVatars do not have private parts in their pants. So if someone has a penis or twat attached to their avatar, they must have a perverted mind for making or wearing such a thing. So I highly doubt those people would get offended.

By the way, its not illegal to take panty shots in real life either. In many many cases, the courts have ruled that no pictures in a public place are illegal. If I stand under an escalator and snap Panty shots, I am not break any laws. I am not saying it is right. Its just what our federal courts have decided.

In a virtual world with a sufficiently large number of participants, "If it can be done, chances are eventually it will be done"

It's an unfortunate, but existing fact that the amount of freedom in Second Life allows creativity to do a great many different things-not all of them admirable.

If you wear a skirt in SL, people can (and do) look up it, even if they do not take snapshots of it. If you object to this, you should probably either start dressing your av in very unattractive panties, or stop wearing skirts, or leave your av with it's very Mattel(TM)-like default body; no hair or extra "parts".

Your av is not you. It's a virtual puppet through which you interact with others. You might as well get upset over a series of racy Barbie and GIJoe photos.

Oh my I must be perverted for making AND wearing such a thing. Get a life, jerk.

Dragen...thank you. ohh and Beau, then in the same light a person who carries a weapon in SL must be a homicidal maniac pfft yeah. If I were to run amok naked to the world with my bits hanging out then yes, you are correct. If I cover my bits with panties and a skirt then you are horribly wrong. Those bits are meant to be seen by those I choose not you.

Dragen is.... THE COOL!

How am I a jerk?

You've chosen where YOU draw the line at where Real meets Not Real. Other people have chosen to let their spouses have as many virtual lovers as they can fit into their schedule. The difference is, it's your choice where to draw that line. The women in those photos weren't given that choice. Can you, or Taco, or anyone claim that those women are fine with it and only view it as a few pixels? Can you claim with any knowledge that they wouldn't be offended and humiliated by being put on display like that?

They are pictures taken without someone's knowledge, and very possibly against their wishes. If I choose to expose my av, or you do, then that's one thing. Forcing someone else to do it is not the same thing, and it goes beyond it just being a tattoo or attachment. It's a matter of respect for someone else's wishes, and that's what is completely lacking in what's been done.

Lo, all I am stating is that if someone is wearing a penis or twat, they most likely are not the ones getting offended over this.

And what you neglect to mention is that in establishements where this kind of thing happens, someone is usually sued, and the establishment is forced to post signs banning camera phones, etc.

It's as if women are being asked to dress in bags, simply because creeps cannot control themselves.

Another brilliant point by Jonquille that I was trying to express but couldn't find the words. When Taco told me to keep my morality off him, my feelings were "I would if you weren't dragging us into YOURS"

Taco can do whatever he likes with HIS av and nobody will complain. This is about Taco telling US what WE should consider acceptable for our images.

-aimee

You could not possibly know this. And besides, it was the use of the word "perverted" that got my hackles up. Your phrasing was arrogant and one-sided.

Ok where I am confused is why the fuck you even brought up the question you did about someone sucking my husbands cock...etc....It has NOTHING to do with the subject of this thread. So whatever on that. My whole thing is why some are getting to pissy about this. So for yourself satisfaction why don't you all go and determine who's crotch it is and notify them all and let them be the ones to bitch. Is it you crotch shot up there????

I seriously would like to see an opinion from someone who's picture is actually posted.

rofl omg Taco, so good to have you around again, this thread is hilarious!

AMEN sista Rose!!

Because if this fuss wasn't made these girls may never have known they were up there. They still may not. All I ever asked was that Taco asked these girls first.

Stopping an action if and only if you get caught doesn't set things to right in my opinion.

-aimee

I am actually offended that my female av's bits did not make the display.

Taco....what can a girl do to get into this gallery?

Uh.. missed the point didn't ya...
they don't know.

Only one statement. Underwear, don't leave home without it.

We may if they find out. But be prepared for varied opinions on the subject. Some loving the attention, and some being mortified.

-aimee

Well not any more:

WASHINGTON (AP) --

In one of its last moves of the year, Congress passed a bill that would levy heavy fines and prison time for anyone who sneaks photos or videos of people in various stages of undress, a problem lawmakers and activists called the new frontier of stalking.

While camera phone voyeurism probably won't be high on the list of federal crimes the FBI and other federal agencies pursue, "at least in theory there is now federal protection available so people can't unknowingly have their private parts photographed, downloaded and transmitted around the world," said Hanan B. Kolko, a New York civil liberties lawyer.

The bill, which President Bush is expected to sign, would make it a crime to videotape or photograph the naked or underwear-covered private parts of a person without consent when the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Conviction could lead to a fine of not more than $100,000 or imprisonment for up to one year, or both.

'Upskirting' and 'downblousing'
The measure got voice vote approval in both chambers of Congress -- the House on September 21 and the Senate on Tuesday.

The use of "nanny cams" and other hidden recording devices like pinhole cameras have been favorites of peeping Toms for years, lawmakers say. But the proliferation of tiny cellular telephones that can take pictures silently and shoot video has taken the crime out of bedrooms and bathrooms and into public places such as grocery stores, sidewalks and restaurants.

Some people then transfer the photos to Internet sites featuring what are called "upskirting" and "downblousing," lawmakers said.

It does have something to do with the subject of this thread. The subject of this thread, or my issue with it that I've posted on, is giving people the choice to draw their own lines. If my line and your line are not the same, is it okay for either of us to force the other over that line? No. It isn't. By taking sneak photos and displaying them for all to see, those women (or men) are being forced to toe Taco's line and not their own. You can claim for yourself that it's just pixels and it doesn't matter, but you can't claim that for the women who are on display. You can claim that it's different for you if it involves cyber, but you can't claim that for anyone else. Maybe they don't see it as different. Maybe they would be just as offended by having pictures taken of their crotch as you would be by someone coming into your husband.

If you don't get that, there's really no way I can explain it.

on the one hand a feminist arguement that taco's theme exploits women.

but on the other hand, if taco used a less contreversial subject, would anyone question anything?

it's a difficult line. were these real women who were photographed surreptitiously, i would have a serious problem. but as they are avs i don't find it to be a moral transgression. perhaps taco intended it as a juvenile attention seeking prank, perhaps not. but it does generate a real discussion about meaning. in that, it is invaluable.

i visited the gallerly this afternoon. it's amazing how something so shoddily constructed is the focus of intense scrutiny and debate. definitely not lame institutionalized art.

I've gotten a lot of pics sent to me, if you send one to me I'll be happy to post it! I'm also available for upskirt weddings.

katykiwi Moonflower>Blake
pwn.