Males playing female avatars

Well I don't know how someone can be partially rational. Isn't that like saying someone can be partially pregnant?



I agree; but that doesn't mean that roleplayers are broadcasting any particular message.

I meant, if I were a male alt and went around look for gay men to hit on, I would be picking on the wrong group of men.

Of course you can be partially rational. I myself am very rational about some things, but well aware that there are other things that I respond to on a more emotional (where's Pep?) or visceral level.

That's like saying that there are only two categories of intelligence: smart, and dumb.


Intentionally? Probably not. (Although, if we REALLY want to make this messy, we can start talking about Gor, which has its own moronic and fruit-cakey kind of "philosophy" regarding things like gender equality, sexual submissiveness, slavery, and sexual violence that SOME Goreans DO want taken very seriously.)

But communication is complex and multivalent; what I "hear" may be quite different from what you "hear." And, whether they are "misreading" the intention of the communication or not, the irrational DO pick up messages from what they hear, see, and read. Dangerous attitudes to things like rape aren't inborn; they don't spring up out of nowhere. They are, at least in part, communicated and reinforced through culture.

Yes, from both sides of the equation.

I think.

Yikes, this stuff is confusing . . .

Looks like the dress still has a 10% grey tint from when the avatar mesh had a grey base.

Oh, now that you mention it... I gotta check for that. (>_<

This is what I get for being forced to wear clothing... (T_T)

I think what she means is that rationality only explains part of our behaviour. There's other stuff like hormones and emotions going on, so in that sense we are all only partly rational. Relevant to this discussion is how a person's sexuality can't be explained rationally, whether they like boys, girls, cross-dressing, being spanked, role-playing a slave or missionary position in the dark.

This! The BDSM community cannot be held responsible for violence against women (or men).

This thread hurts my head.

I quit worrying about peoples RL gender in SL when I quit dating in SL. Makes it so much easier. Well okay there is one person who I date and cuddle, but I am 100% certain about their gender... .... ...I think.

You poor humans.

LOLz... well I do tend to think of it that way. How irrational of me?



It's a serious fantasy. If anyone confuses it with reality that is a whole 'notha can of worms. And of course as a feminist, you agree that women should have a choice to have whatever kinda weird fantasies they wanna?



I agree with everything you state here, but would add that since it is impossible to live your life authentically without unwittingly transmitting such signals which may be interpreted in any number of ways by any number of people that makes it perfectly irrational to worry about such things. As long as you are not going out in the streets and raping people or advocating such things (IE, actually saying "Rape is OK".



I agree that culture plays a part, but I cannot agree 100% that such attitudes are not at least partially inborn. I think certain urges are carried over by evolution (and testosterone plays a part) but that we must choose as a species to be rational about them. So in the end, I agree with you on the most important parts of the argument.

This sounds alarmingly analogous to the "women shouldn't wear short skirts" argument.

Back on topic, I take avatars as I find them, even when I know their RL sex is different. I have a friend who is male in RL but who quickly started using a female avatar because he found people were friendlier and he got griefed less in sandboxes. Even though I knew he was a man, inworld, I couldn't help treating her as a woman. She certainly didn't go for the frankenbarbie stereotype. Those scare me a bit, I don't care who's driving!

Point taken. To this, I can assure all of the women-folk that they do not want to know what it is like to have testosterone tainting their brains... However, I do try my best to be rational when my pants are on ;P

Yes, nicely expressed!


I would agree: it is certainly not "responsible" for it, in the sense that the roots of that ill are very broad and very deep. And, I entirely accept that there is no "intention" involved (except, again, in the case of something like Gor.)

But not holding them "responsible" is not the same as saying that their activities can't be misread, and contribute to a much larger problem.

Again, it's too black-and-white to say "this isn't what they MEAN, therefore if you misread it, it is entirely YOUR fault." Miscommunication is generally a two-way street: it can often mean that the communicator has failed to express her or himself clearly, or with the given audience in mind.

I have heard it's a bit like having permanent PMS

I fail to see how tying up and spanking a willing "victim" in my own bedroom is an attempt to communicate. Or even how letting the fact be known that I do such things is a communication in the strictest sense. If we are going to go this far, then everything I do or am about is a communication, whether I like it or not (and I don't like it !! lolz). So I cannot be responsible for people who misread my non-communications. Irrational peeps will think whatever they want anyway.

With less chocolate cravings and more dirty thoughts and urges, sure

I don't generally think of BDSM as an act of communication in that way. I have no idea who the "given audience in mind" is.

In your bedroom, no, of course it isn't.

In an open and public space in SL, or in an internet chat room is a different story.


But I've already said you aren't "responsible." And while it may be true that they have misread, we STILL have to find a way to deal with such people or the problems that their misreading creates aren't going to disappear.

If feminists, both male and female, had simply shrugged 50 years ago, and said "well, some people are stupid and irrational: they'll believe that women are inferior whatever we say," then we wouldn't have made the advances that we HAVE made.

Attitudes CAN be changed.

I usually have a "captive" audience of one

I think that mostly, in RL, you are right. (See my response to Smif.) Which is one of the reasons why, while I am personally "offended" by BDSM, I would never ever simply seek to have it "banned" in RL or SL. Played out in private, I don't think it is likely to cause more harm than any other form of sexuality.

Lots of us have many more dirty thoughts and urges at those certain times (both in quality and quantity ) and personally, I can leave the chocolate alone. Chip butties are a whole nother thing though

I'm starting to get this thread confused with the "Broadly Offensive" one . . .

Not very "rational," is it?

So are you saying you want to see an end to public places for BDSM and/or discussions of it?



True, but the problem is with these individuals, not the roleplayers.



I agree with you that it matters on our *intentional* communications and I like to think that I do my part in publicly stating that sexism against either gender (or any gender expression in between or otherwise) and prejudice or violence against anyone is clearly wrong, as I believe all rational people believe.

However, fantasy and all that is a different story and there is nothing I can do to stop someone from interpreting things that I say or that they think I do within their own context. I think if I worried about that, I wouldn't have any fun and I would probably go off the deep end contemplating it. My fun is restricted by my ethical standards of not causing harm on purpose on the low end and trying to create fun for others on the high end.

OK so if you can't leave chip butties alone, and you substitute "my penis" for "chip butties" in that statement, then I think we might have come to some understanding

Well, I've said something like that many times on this forum. (Where on earth have YOU been????)

But we'd need to define "public" here. Assuming we are talking about SL for a moment, I have no problem with an area that is "public" in that it is open to a restricted group. I might go so far as to say even an area where there is a clear warning (none of that "Warning: Adult situations" crap: I mean a CLEAR warning) would also be fine with me.

But if by public you mean any open area, accessible or visible to anyone (including on Zindra), then, yes, I have problems with that.

As for "discussions" of BDSM, no, of course not. But chat rooms that FEATURE BDSM cybering should similarly be "public" in only a restricted sense.

Really, this is no different than RL, is it? You aren't likely going to be wandering around a RL shopping mall in your leather gear, dragging a woman on a chain. And you can chalk whatever racist/sexist slogans you want on your bedroom wall, but doing so on a public wall makes it a form of hate speech.


Again, yes. But does that mean you simply shrug off the problem? It's not your "fault," so you really don't need to worry about it?


Yes, I think you DO do your part. But then, I don't have issues with YOU, do I?


What I am suggesting is that unless you are careful, you MAY be "causing harm." Not on purpose, but then you can shoot someone accidentally with a gun too.

Really, I don't have a definitive "answer"; just some ideas and opinions. But I do think it is head-in-the-sand thinking to simply argue that "it's not my fault, not my intention, and therefore not my problem." We always need to consider ALL of the possible consequences of our actions.