does anyone know the LL position on depictions of sexual violence?

As I have said before -- work towards educating and raising people with proper views of right and wrong, proper values, proper respect for ALL people (men and women both).

There are too many people that are NOT negatively influenced by images -- so work towards fixing the people who are rather than banning the images.

Indeed, iirc a couple of those were torn apart in one of my classes for not having proper research controls and procedures. In fact several were outright biased from the get go based on those doing it and their beliefs being part of the judgmental nature of what was done.

It's like the various studies on video games and how all but a few are done by anti-game groups, where an unbiased study found none of the causation that were found int he biased studies under proper research.

And many of those listed had small sample sizes, likely college students which tend to be more sexually aggressive to begin with than the general population along with being in the so called sexual prime age when the hormones are still raging.

Which is why I posted the first paragraph of the article and

I so agree with that statement

1) No, not always the best way. But if you want to be a victim that is your right. And to reference your point below, a bullet in the attacker will do a lot to convince the jury that you were actually attacked. But in the cases of the concealed carry laws, rapes dropped 5% on average with just the passing of the law. No shots being fired. Will you tell those 5 women out of 100 that they should be victims?

2)http://www.hrw.org/legacy/reports/2001/prison/

3) You made the statement, so it was up to you to back it up. I do see you you are backing away and claiming common law.

4) I trust juries for the most part. Since I don't know the specifics of those cases I cannot comment on them. But how many were so called "date rapes"? How many were cases of conscious the next morning? Or cases of "OMG how drunk was I?" I do know a little of the culture of UK, drinking is almost the national pastime. Maybe directing your efforts to reducing the consumption of alcohol would be more productive than railing against consensual fantasies in a virtual world.

Superior, dismissive attitude towards anyone that doesn't agree with position? Check.
Refusal to cite proof of own claims with witty "look it up yourself" deflection? Check.
Seriously invoked the name "George Bush" as a counterargument? Check.
Dumped massive amounts of data that might or might not be valid in attempt to "prove" position? Check.

Conclusion: OP is nothing special, you see its type on every political forum and attempts at debate are futile. They're entrenched and nothing you say will ever convince them any differently.

when i carry a gun i'm not being violent..mine is right on the front of my belt for all to see..
i am preventing anyone around me from thinking about becoming violent to anyone..
who knows just how many robberies i have stopped and didn't even know it lol

answering violence with violence is about the only way you will make it out of a violent situation that is going on more times than not..this lay there and take it not knowing if they are going to let you go because it is the PC thing to do is a crock..

i'll rub my barrel against the first set of peckers that thinks about wood and poking holes in this tree again without permission..and they will think twice about it the next time..
look at the effect it has on the victims..what would the effect be if victims scared the crap out of the attackers and damaged their heads forever..chances are they would be phobic of trying it again..

don't protect yourself because it will make you worse than them..that's bullshit..

here is one.
lets ask men and women if they wished they had a gun or some kind of weapon at the moment they were being attacked ..what would the results be then?? i'm pretty positive that the results would favor the weapon over laying there..

As for SL you are barking up the wrong tree..
i am in those places a lot that you are claiming will trigger someone to go out and commit violent crimes..instead of posting up a bunch of biased studies and stats ..just go and meet the people for yourself and you will see..

walk around the sims and get im'd..you'll find a lot of people are there looking to find others with the same interests..more times than not i will end up in a conversation with them just talking about sl and the build and before you know it we are talking about LL or something totally unrelated to the sim we are in..
i end up with most on my friends list because i understand that people do have fantasies and different kinks..and that most are really good people just enjoying a chance to do something they may have butterflies about or want to see what it is like..

you can post up stats after stats all day long and studies.they don't hold water to actual experience..because those studies were not done with SL which is not a pornographic video or magazine..
it is people creating the situation they are in which kind of puts the damper on a video exciting someone not involved in the act at the time but only observing..
a lot stay in touch with each other and some even start relationships..some move on..

this whole thing reminds me of the one girl in sl who pissed off a bunch of us native Americans saying she represented all tribes and was doing the speaking for us and if we didn't like it then get off our lazy asses and do it until then i do.. my response to that was nobody speaks for me but me..

i don't hate men or look at them as some kind of machine to keep me held back..
and 51% of them are not potential rapist..sorry but that doesn't hold up..
although some people may want to believe something like that..not everyone is that gullible..and that's all it's about..convince enough of the majority to get some bill passed so that more restrictions can be made on people in the world..and then more frustration comes into play and the rate goes up another few % on violent crimes as a result..

All in the name of "We know what is best for you.."

I wish I thought guns were the answer. I would definately carry all the time if I thought it was. Unfortunately in my experience they have some big negatives that make them not the perfect answer.

1) Accidental shootings - Gun safety takes a lot of knowledge,common sense, and concentration. You can't afford to slip up. I know about this one pretty intimately. I have had three people I know killed from accidental shootings one I witnessed. As a child I witnessed a bar owner friend of ours accidently discharge his gun and kill his son. Just not being careful and accidently dropping the holster on the concrete floor when he changed clothes.

2) Idiots who reach for guns in anger or depression and purposedly or accidently shoot someone. It is just too quick and easy to decide to end your or someone else's life with a gun.

3) Idiots who do not store thier guns properly so that children get ahold of them.

A careful gun owner can mitigate most of these dangers. I am not saying this is not a good solution for some, I just don't happen to think the majority of the populace is that careful.

Another study for you to look at, that looked at the studied you quoted in part.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3778/is_200001/ai_n8882504/pg_34/?tag=content;col1






Note the last paragraph.

education is defiantly a must..i have been around them my whole life and i have a permit to carry concealed...Also in my state anyone can carry them in the open on their hip if they choose..you just can't walk into a bank or where alcohol is sold..

i've never had to pull a gun out on anyone after i finally started to carry one and it is in a holster..
but because i carry one i believe i never will have to pull it out and that is a good feeling..i also do not keep a bullet in the chamber which is the number one reason for accidental shootings..

i would have more of a chance of accidentally running over someone in my jeep than i would shooting them on accident..my gun stays where it is unless someone decides to repeat past things..but i don't think they are that stupid..

also i am sorry to hear about the bad you have experienced..

i do agree that people should be well educated and proven able to handle them before they are let to carry..
i live in Tennessee and really i could not say if i even remember anyone getting Accidentally shot or killed..i am sure it has happened .but being in a small town it depends who you are that determines if you make the news or not ..

Lol. Agreed.

This is pretty true I think. Hard line pushes for either against or pro rape or child r/p are null and void for the average person. Most people are decent enough to keep a handle on this stuff without dogmatic instruction from extreme idealists.

Yeah - that finally dawned on me after my brain kicked in a bit more.

'Indeed, iirc a couple of those were torn apart in one of my classes for not having proper research controls and procedures'
Well if they were all torn apart in your class they must all be wrong.

''If you read the entire article, as well as many like it, it will confirm that once upon a time in England a man could beat his wife, but the "stick no larger than a thumb" is not fact''
Um. Not true. And even if it were it wouldn't detract from the point about attitude shifting or the accepted view at that time of women being the property of their husbands who could 'chastise' her however he saw fit

''You made the statement, so it was up to you to back it up. I do see you you are backing away and claiming common law.''
As if I was going to comply with your directive. And no, not backing away, clarifying.

"how many were so called "date rapes"? How many were cases of conscious the next morning? Or cases of "OMG how drunk was I?" I do know a little of the culture of UK, drinking is almost the national pastime"
Thank you. I wondered how long it would take for your attitudes about rape to surface more explicitly.
BTW, how are you getting on with gathering those stats?

'Conclusion: OP is nothing special'
Oh this is the best forum ever.

Data not valid? Good try but not true. George Bush menchy? This wasn't a debate about gun control but I answered the point anyway. Use of humour? Didn't know it was prohibited, I can add this to all the pointers I've been carefully storing up for future use. Deflection? See above.

Insults within first page without bothering to answer question: check
Make stuff up about what's been said: check
Don't bother to read what's been said: check
Make wrong assumptions about motivations: check
General theme of making stuff up: check
Personal attacks: check
Can't move for straw men: check
Ignore all points made and focus on personal attacks again: check
Ignore all points made and focus on a point not made about something else: check
Derail whole thing and start a debate about gun control: check
Give greatly beneficial advice about future postings: check
Over-reliance on wikipedia: check

"They're entrenched and nothing you say will ever convince them any differently"
Not true of me generally but on this issue you're probably right. Always open to listening to alternative points of view and would have been happy to discuss/debate perspectives. This thread has been hostile from almost the start though.


Rock n Roll: Here are some snippets from research on women. I can only use what's out there & what i have access to. Unless you'd like me to make some stuff up for you.

---

There were very few studies identified in the REA that examined the effects of pornography on women. Some of the experimental studies involved female as well as male subjects. For example, the study by Malamuth, Haber and Feshbach (1980) found that, compared to male subjects, women felt more frustrated, offended, embarrassed, angered and negative following exposure to the rape stories (p 121).

two studies which involved the effects of extreme pornographic material on women. In one, words such as “terrified”, “scared” or “disgusted” were used to describe their feelings when looking at this material (Shaw, 1999, p 203). In the other, women described the ‘traumatic and devastating’ effects they experienced on discovering the extreme nature of some of the pornographic material their partners were accessing’ (Bergner and Bridges, 2002, pp 198-199).


And no, I'm not anti-men, just anti violence against women. All my best friends are menz...

Please learn to quote properly as it becomes difficult to read what you said as against what someone else said Just enclose the person you are responding to's quote within the [] and have quote at the beginning of the quote in the square brackets and /quote at the end of the quote in the brackets.

Many thanks

The thumb rule was never really a rule, or a law. It was a tolerated practice at one time no doubt, it's use was discressionary. Using the word "property" to describe womens status at that time is a misnomer at best. They were "overseen" by their husbands, yes.. just like children were because at that time the husband was liable for her actions, just as he was for the childs... and just like parents still are nowdays. Attitudes did shift, they moved to making it a crime to beat women, serious crime at that. That is hardly a prize to snatch and hold up to the world as "proof" and justification of your cause. It's no mystery WHY it's referrenced by feminist rights groups, or why it's a favorite ploy to throw that out as some kind of proof of prevailing attitudes. Those ancient attitudes are long since dead and are moot here in 2009.


It's also no secret that feminist groups like to dig, argue, and agitate people until they get a trite frustrated reply. Then take pieces of that reply, put it together and make false inferrences about people's attitudes as applies to their cause. Boring..


Wait.. HOW many studies were done to find out that women are more emotional and more emotionally affected by most things than men?
Duh?
Women processing things to a deeper emotional level than men can be proven for nearly anything.. that's what we do.
Bring the money for the next "ground breaking" study to me here at home on the 14th, I'll give you undeniable proof that we're more emotional..
You pick the month

You may be pleased to find out that no actual violence is committed against women in virtual environments. If there is, I prefer pictoral evidence. You know; cuts, bruises, scars, and the like. (^_^)

Really, the greatest injury I ever received from being virtually beaten in SL was a stubbed toe from kicking my UPS under my desk after a sparring defeat on CoLA when my gun lagged and I wound up shooting myself. (^_^)

Fantasy | reality
^^ Find the line. (^_^)y

Immy the problem I think is those that complain about virtual situations, can't tell the difference and think nobody else can..

No situation is quite that simple and there are exceptions to every 'rule'.



Depends - are you interested in social propriety enough to factor in that most people won't find the word rape funny? I think that's one of those instances where it's best reserved for people one knows well enough to know their probable reaction. It's at the least guaranteed to garner some strange looks among mixed company of bare acquaintances. At the least, to be seen as gauche. So it depends whether the person saying it truly does care, or not, about such things (propriety, shocked reactions, etc.).

I could offer the possibility, too, that while some at the figurative table might have been victims of rape most were probably not victims of murder but then, their loved ones may have been - so that doesn't really work. On the other hand, once words are used enough this way they become diluted. This doesn't seem to work with some (very taboo) words, however, despite the wishful intentions of one of Lenny Bruce's best monologues.

1) So you don't think you have to prove your claims?

2) You know next to nothing about my attitudes. I asked a question about the incidents in Scotland. I do say that in numerous cases there are gray areas that one cannot judge without knowing all the facts. I do say that personal responsibility doesn't end just because you get drunk. I do say that when a woman of her own free will gets naked, of her own free will puts a penis in her mouth that I would be hesitant to vote guilty on rape charges. My comments on the alcohol culture of the UK were generalizations based upon personal friendships. Which stats do you want? The ones that prove a drop in violence against women when they are allowed the tools of self defense?

3) I wasn't debating gun control. I was asking if you would endorse a proven method of reducing violence against women. Not just rapes, but assaults, murders and robberies. If you can provide stats for any "program" of censorship that reduces the violence by at least 5% with no cost to the public, please show me.

First of all one never truly knows 'who' one is debating online. I know of too many instances where people were giving all sorts of debate respect to a person who turned out to be a real-life sex offender. I hear phrases like 'sex fascist' and wonder - it's so often used by that type. People assume everyone on a given message board is reasonable and rational sometimes by default - and it is NOT necessarily the case.

I laugh that you call distaste at depictions of raping children "extreme idealist" stance. Wow.

I also disagree that "average" and "decent" people would agree with you. I'm not saying anyone who has another opinion isn't those things - I don't know. They could be ignorant, uninformed, or playing devil's advocate for instance. People are complex. They could be abuse survivors in extreme denial. But if you think most people are FOR depictions of child rape, then I think you're seriously mistaken. (ETA: more accurately to your point, if you think they are neutral on it - same thing.)

In the end we all have our opinions on this and most will not change theirs an iota based upon a forum post, let's face it.

I'm interested in the mores that inform 'social propriety' whereby a metaphor based on rape is considered worse than a similar one based on murder.

Homicide is hands down a much worse crime in my book, not to mention the statute books, so how do we get there? Why is 'murder' at least unremarkable in this context whereas 'rape' is not?

A complex question best answered by those far more informed than myself in social psychology.

I offered one possible, partial explanation.

As to WHY it is an unspeakable taboo - well they say murder of the soul is worse than murder and that rape is a murder of the soul...You find murder worse, but many do not. On a forum and a PG forum at that, it's hard to get more in depth.

Well, I tell ya' what. My stubbed toe was very real. =^-^=

Wasn't it George Carlin who suggested replacing the word "kill" with "f**k" in all the western movies? (^_^)y

In that case, to answer your original question, I would never humour a misplaced sense of social propriety on this issue. I think it would be very wrong to do so.