Underage Avatar and Sex

Yubisaki Milk Tea
He Is My Master
Mahoromatic
Tsukuyomi - Moon Phase
Chobits
Negima
Saikano
Suzuka

All of the above are published Manga comics. Translated and released in the U.S.A. and are available on your local book store shelves. If not, they can be easily purchased on Amazon.

Each and every one I listed includes depictions of underage and teen sexuality and nudity. Some involving characters as young as 10 being erotically involved with characters as old as 30. Subjects range from simple flirtiness, to toilet humor gags, to emulating pornographic poses, to masturbation, to full on intercourse between teens. Now... If depictions were TRULY illegal, I'm sure the publishers importing these books would have been in court years ago.

But, truth be told, they're not. The stories are marvelous. And the depictions are often for dramatic or comedic reasons.

Now... As for LL's TOS on the matter... The rules don't exist. The blog spells out a vague guideline that has been shifting and changing in definition since it was released. And, until someone openly asserts an age, either in chat or profile, assume nothing. Your 7-foot-tall amazon demon can be ARed for [sexual]ageplay if someone feels like they want to give you guff.

I've been on the receiving end of a [sexual]ageplay AR... In an adult avatar, in a PG event, on PG land... Yet I still got suspeneded. Someone please explain that. (=_=)y

That's kind of like saying that if you see your neighbor paying cash to the guy who painted his house, or better yet, your neighbor told you that the painter offered a 10% discount for cash instead of check, you should report them to the IRS.

The handling of abuse reports is a cost center, not a profit center to LL. The people are no doubt overworked and under-trained. It's the sort of job that calls for experience and maturity, but people with such skills are likely to be qualified for a higher paying and/or less stressful job. Hence mistakes happen. We've seen numerous allegations in these forums of mistakes in handling abuse reports, with subsequent grief to the accused.

Because of this, the "let lindens sort it out" mentality is just inappropriate. Linden will never assign enough resources to do a good job of sorting it out; they can't justify the expense. They've made it clear that they rely on us to deal with making reports (which is why they haven't gone through every asset with 'ploder' in the name to see if it violates the gambling ban), but that, in turn, means we need to be responsible about making such reports.

Reporting everything you see to LL without thinking about it is not much better than for LL to ban everyone who's the target of an AR for being underage on the main grid, without thinking about it. So please, please, give some thought to an AR before making it. Unlike a griefing attack, this sort of issue doesn't have the urgency that means you can't take an extra five or ten minutes first. Or even an extra day, as the original poster did, to get other opinions first.

That really depends on the laws in your area. Here in my state, a case recently made the news where a half dozen high school students were in court for forwarding nude pictures of their underage selves around to each other via their cell phones. None of them realized what they were doing was considered creating and distributing child porn and therefore illegal. Luckily for them, the judge in the case decided not to impose a sentence that would have permanently labeled them all as sexual offenders.

The issue on the Internet seems to have refocused these last few years on whether or not what is offered or solicited is presented to be child pornography. Think it was stolen from the rewrite of drug regs so pushers could be prosecuted for selling 'drugs' when it turned out to be just another white powder. So the issue is now somewhat off whether or not it is child pornography and whether someone presented the offering to be child pornography - whether or not it was in the end.

So the issue of who is being presented to be behind the avatars becomes paramount in the U.S. If an actual child plays a child av soliciting sex, but assures one and all that they are a consenting adult and they are in a place that has the minimal necessary guidelines to support that assumption, then it probably can not be successfully prosecuted. If, on the other hand, an adult presents themselves as a RL minor and solicits pixel sex as SAP with a minor av, then conversely (especially if they take as much as one linden dollar for pay), it would probably be a successful prosecution, at least at the Supreme Court level, and contingent on local jurisdiction and laws.

Just a comment. Go on with the thread.

I'm not sure what you mean by SAP. SL pixel sex per se isn't child pornography, because it fails to meet the "indistinguishable from real life" test. So if you mean someone tried to solicit money, claiming that it was some sort of child pornography, then you'd be right. Even someone who tries to sell it as "totally legal, not-realistic enough child pornography" could be in trouble under this law.

I don't even want to speculate on how it could be worded to avoid prosecution, but I believe that a wording exists. (I guess my math background is showing.

It actually becomes much clearer if you look at it like this: If you could take a snapshot of it that would look REALLY bad on the cover of a German newspaper, it's out.

Someone whom I know and who's pretty careful about these things checked this with a Linden, and it turns out one of the major deciding factors is simply the height of the avatar. Another thing is what they state in chat; it doesn't matter if it's in-character or whatever (because the readers of the magazine won't know the difference).

So if you are caught spanking a child av, even if it's completely non-sexual family rp, you are in trouble. But if you are spanking the same avatar but with normal height in a clearly sexual context, you're probably ok.

Yes, it's daft, but that's what we live with. Don't create a visual depiction of anything that could be viewed as suspicious and you're fine.

LOL yeah, ultimately that's what LL care about, no doubt. Meanwhile, unfortunately, anybody can be AR'd even without doing something blatantly dodgy and LL will shoot first and ask questions later.



The height thing is really unfair (not saying you're wrong about this). It probably depends on which Linden you ask as well. They're not best known for consistency. Meanwhile, I could theoretically be suspended or banned for saying I am nearly 2 when asked my age.



Anything that could be viewed as suspicious by whom? This thread alone shows that there are widely varying views on what is and isn't a child av and what is and isn't child pron. This is the problem - people are being AR'd on this issue without doing anything remotely suspicious (in my opinion) and LL doesn't have the time or the will to investigate properly before taking action.

Ephraim Kappler roars laughing, stopping abruptly as he herniates his anal sphincter.

SAP=Sexual Age Play. I'm not speaking to the specific content, which the Supreme Court has ruled on within narrow guidelines. They have not, however, ruled that if pixel sex in SL was in fact presented as being sex play with a minor and contrary to local laws, that the person offering or purchasing that service, regardless of representation, could not be prosecuted. What separates SL from pixel sex in the original ruling was in that case, it was a picture produced with no obvious loci with a minor. If your pixel sex here was, in fact, presented to be pixel sex with an individual representing themselves as a minor, you have a locus. Whether or not that would be prosecuted would fall to local laws (no, your agreement with LL and the California thing is not binding on a prosecutor in, say, Tennessee), but I think the prosecution would pass the current Supreme Court standards. I wouldn't be willing to bet $ 100,000 in legal fees to find out. The older case: not really a minor. SL sex in light of last year's ruling? We'll probably find out, sooner or later.

Well put, Ghosty.



This is why I actually wonder if the OP is just a wind-up.



The way they're presented is deliberately somewhat open ended, so as to be interpreted by the GTeam. The difficulty lies in the interpretation. This is how you end up with avatars who are sometimes kids and sometimes sexually provocative being ARed for being an adult avatar in a non-sexual situation, or skin vendors facing troubles for showing their wares in a non-sexual format, etc., etc.



Congratulations, you just won a shiny new Internet!

What makes the actions of two consenting adults with absolutely no children involved in any way "child pornography"?

In the US, computer generated images that ARE indistinguishable from
real child porn IS NOT child porn -- the USSC ruled specifically on that,
saying that it has to be an actual real child in the picture.


It isn't in the US. I think in some other countries it is, though.

One of the characters is minor. It only has to be depictions of children, not necessarily real children.

No, it's common to leave out details that were already made clear. The ToS makes it clear that SL is governed by the laws of the State of California. California prohibits depictions of children under 18, whether it's real or otherwise.

State law superscedes federal law, per 10th Amendment. See State of Oregon versus US Drug Enforcement Agency.

I know you like to keep repeating that, but the United States
Supreme Court has ruled otherwise. See earlier post for the case cite.


Not if the Supreme Court rules that the law is unconstitutional.

In the case I cited, it was a federal law, so I think that means that
a challenge to the (California or Virginia etc.) law has to be brought
before the USSC; when that happens, the court will "incorporate" it.
But we already know the answer: the court has ruled that it is a
First Ammendment issue.

In the case you cited, decriminalization of cannabis, I think you
are misunderstanding the Constitutional implications.

If there is anything SL can do without, is it's very own gestapo (Godwined enough?).

As soon as anyone is doing something on your land that you do not want them, boot their ass, and/or ban them. If they harass you, AR them. OP's like this creep me out. SL would be a lot better if everyone minded their own freaking business a bit more... well, at least that's my point of view.

No, I tend to agree with my state's attorney generals, which have over the years successfully built up the precident that the 10th Amendment is inflexible when it comes to state soverignty. Pick any State of Oregon vs. any federal department trying to hinder the will of Oregonians, and you will find that the fed has lost.

Disgusting.

A 10 year old involved in sexual situations with a 30 year old is just plain and simple disgusting.

I know we here in SL like to refrain from passing judgment for fear of alienating some group or persons, but any sexual material involving grown adults and 10 year old children is sick. Thankfully this is just a "Manga", but we all know it does not stop there.

I'm glad someone else with common sense appeared on the thread.

Linden Labs can make up whatever rules they want, and their rules
say they can kick you off for being under 18, or for "content" that
they construe to be offensive, or for no reason at all.

Since you are free to not use LL's grids, and free to start your own,
and the contract says that you agree not to be offensive (clearly,
the content is regulated by LL), it seems likely that the contract
would not be unconscionable nor unlawful.

some people argue simply for the sake of arguing, I tend to ignore those type, especially the name callers.

Leaving this thread for something worthwhile.

Common sense???

Tell me, where is the common sense in a world where violence is perfectly normal, and sexuality is considered obscene? Where a 17 year old having something sexual with a 29 year old is the biggest scandal around, where showing a nipple on television is almost a crime, but carrying guns and watching killing sprees on television is accepted as completely normal?

Where is the common sense in a society where showing a nude body, you know, the skin we all were born in, became obscene? Where is the common sense in the fact that nowadays a father should be scared to bathe his own child? Where taking pics of your own nude child can be consider child porn????? Common sense you say?

Don't forget, nature made out bodies mature around our 12th year. Our society created the 18 (in my country 16) year boundary. That same society where violence became an accepted norm. So please, don;t get me started on common sense. Mankind said goodbye to common sense a long time ago.

*Nods in agreement*

And for the rest... this thread is hot fire and me mommy thought me to stay away from hot fire.... and for someone even gets stupid ideas, that was more then 35 years ago!!!!

Edit: Ups someone here behind me just commented.... Common sense left on the moment religion came in...
*Points innocent over her shoulder..... in agreement*

Many millions of people in my country (US) carry guns,
and that has always been normal here: having guns is one of
the founding principles of the country, right after and fully
equal to "free speech". (However, those guns are very rarely
drawn and used.)

There are lots of criminals who carry guns and use them
frequently, but it's nothing compared to the number of
law abiding people who carry guns and don't use them.
The latter is what keeps the former being the smaller number.

Watching whatever violent news or fictional drama is on
TV is done by even more people, so I guess that's normal, too.
A long time ago and for the past several thousand years the
violent portrayals were done by actors in person, on a live stage,
because TV was not invented, so I guess that's always been normal as well.

A lot of the other stuff you said about society, I agree with.