Lindens define ageplay!

WHAT? This a joke by the Lindens right?

I got a very strong "don't ask, don't tell" vibe from that dog's dinner of a chat log. That any public discussion, depiction or advertising of sexual activity between avatars at least one of whom is presenting as under the age of consent (which I guess they are going by 18? that would be an interesting question to have answered since, in Canada, for example, the age of consent is 14) is not allowed. The notecard was poorly worded and clouded everything by using "ageplay" as if it always meant sexualised age play. If they are creating new policy, they need to be much more specific about what they mean.

From a legal standpoint this makes sense to me: I can certainly see how the depiction of sexual activity involving even a fictional minor could be construed as child pornography. Not that the two people creating the sexual fiction between them are actually under-age, since at least technically this should be impossible on the main grid, but that they together are creating pornographic fiction depicting minors.

On the other hand, I inferred from Robin's answer about private activities that as long as nothing was being advertised or promoted, that they weren't going to start hunting down people engaging in sexualised age play in private. As if they had the resources to do that anyway.

makes you wonder how much had to do with Fox news and the story that included the Age Play Club that Gaybot pointed out.

The timing seems really coincidental.

Point is CNET did a piece last year. ANd there was no reaction from LLabs? So what makes this so different? I know I was a person interviewed in the cnet piece...... Why bother this time to take action.

Not really, no. It was sidestepped.

To me, the notecard is talking about three things, and doesn;t do well on all counts. Ginsu should have been called to word it , or something. I parse it like this.

1. We don't allow sexual ageplay on SL.

2. Do not adversise ageplay related items or services (this is the first problem, an what I refer to in my question. The term is too broad, and needs clarification *even if I don't identify with the term myself* It's easy for others to misinterpret, as well as for those outside SL to get trapped usin the term and meanin a non-sexual form.

4. You have to clarify your age. This is the part I disagree with most. Not because I don't wish there was real age verification on the main grid, but because kid avatars are singled out for this. No other group on SL is being asked to verify their age - only kid AVs. And the *real* underage players are in the free s-e-x communities or wherever, not playin at bein a kid.

Mari

I am going to guess because a year ago they still wanted as many people to come to SL as they could. Now, they are having too many issue, so they don't need the stream of people coming in. Also, the PR is much greater from Fox News then from CNET. With most of the community frowning on public sexual age play and the countries that have something of this nature ruled as illegal, they just figured it was time to change their stance.

who is CNET?


- there I think I answered your question.

no one asks "who is Fox news?"

Well then you have not been up on the news the past 1 year with age play.... I t was on the forums that causes a big thing then.........shakeshead why be so .nevermind....

Cnet............www.cnet.com? you do now this place right? We even hava linden that works for cnet as well.........
Oh well Everyone a expert right

FOX news - Cable news ratings leader, One of the big three in Cable news veiwed by Millions.

Cnet - some internet based news site

Do you see the distinction now?

You have a point. the population was around 1.5 million i believe.....fox news might me bigger outlet in terms of exposure.....But given the number that use computer vs. they numbers that watch cable ( of wahtever they call tv these days ) you think it would be even or even great then non internet explosure ( I am assuming its tv driven only )

Usagi

pardon me i don`t know since your so so better then the rest of us.................

oh well......

your making assumptions.

Im not trying to denounce CNET , Im merely stating CNET exposure is insignificant compared to Fox news which has a median daily veiwership of over 18 million
(http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/2006/narrative_cabletv_audience.asp?cat=3&media=6)

CNET is an internet thing,

Where Fox news is Mainstream America. Even if it is slanted to the right a lil bit.

Let's hope that there's an official post about it soon so all this silly arguing can be cleared up.

It's quite straightforward, that in just about every place in the world, that sex between adults and children is illegal. The only question that really needs answering is whether the same applies online with pixel people.

Broccoli

Until more or less yesterday I did not even believe that this type of thing went on or was allowed in Second Life. It is (at the least) deeply disturbing and horrifying. You cannot separate virtual from real sex especially with role-play children. Anyone that wants to do this should seek medical help before the implicit virtual desire becomes translated into a real life incident. Period.

In the UK any type of virtual or real sex with a minor is very illegal indeed and can result in a life sentence in prison, and a legal obligation to sign a sex offenders register for life afterwards (even if released on licence from prison.) This register means a large number of people have an absolute right to know your location in real life at all times, and there is a possibility (under something called Regan/Megan’s law) an Act of Parliament may be passed that will extend that absolute right to know into the media and general public

Finally for those living in the USA I would remind you that the USA and the UK recently signed an agreement to fast track extradite people/Subjects/Citizens from each country in the event a serious crime is reasonably believed to have been committed according to the laws of either country. This agreement can in some cases over-ride some basic human rights you may have.

I agree, I can't believe people are arguing their right to role play paedophilia. Surely if someone gets their kicks watching children and adults have sex on SL and that is their main reason for being here, they are emotionally deranged?

I was out shopping only yesterday and a little girl walked into the shop with a very provocative title. Role playing as a child with no sex involved is regression, doing it for sex is a very different thing.

In the UK and you have computer problems and have to take it to somewhere like pc world, they actually check images stored on your computer and if illigal content found, you will be arrested.

Murder is horrifying, but it always seems to get a green light pass for promoting entertainment based around simulating it. Is violent murder PG?

Just saying.

Because LL is becoming more mainstream and they are more interested in getting more people involved and perhaps, in making a decent profit (oh lord noes! Not make money).

That said, I really don't understand all the carping about the policy change. I for one never understood "ageplay" and in almost all instances I've witnessed excepting furries, it has been sexual. Now, I'm a pretty socially liberal guy for a Republcan but...I do draw the line at certain things, in RL and in SL. Some things are just wrong, and don't deserve to be tolerated for diversity's sake.

So RL adults who use a child AV in SL must state their RL age on their profile but no one else does?

Good to know that real underage players can continue to play as adults and do adult things with adult AVs and unverified accounts and not be asked their RL age.

It was made clear yesterday that there are *no* plans to do an official post on this to the blog, or presumably elsewhere. FWIW, I suspect this was supposed to be something that happened really quietly - and didn't.



Sorta. This was slightly clarified: A child AV cannot *state* an age that is lower than SL's minimum. Ergo, I cannot say "I'm four and a half" in my profile. Of course, if you wish to be an 800 year old dragon, or a 200 year old vampire, that's okay.

It is still a double-standard. It also fails to acvknowledge that anyone who *is* underage on here for reals is likely playing a big, burly gangster or a large-chested lady, and are off on the clubs, casinos, and escort places -- not playing kids on the playground.


Mari

Same in the US as well (except for maybe the life imprisonment, not sure what the various possible sentinces are). But the issue here is (presumably, since one is suppose to be an adult to play on the adult grid on SL) is virtual sex bewteen consenting adults who happen to be interacting through a computer program that allows them to take on whatever apperance they wish in-game.

Apparently, yes.

LL makes this action to supposedly "protect" children, while they act against adults playing with other adults. Meanwhile, they happily turn a blind eye to the many REAL children that get in because thay don't even make a token pass at age verification, lie about their age, and who are on a daily basis working as SL hookers, strippers, and gods only knows what else.

The hypocracy of the whole situation stinks.

LL says that they are working on better age verification, and that eventually they will implement something that they consider adequate. Meanwhile, they do NOTHING to validate the identity of Players, so any REAL CHILD who lies abouut their age can get sexually molested in SL every day, while they wave their flags and look proud about banning play between FAKE CHILDREN that are being acted by adults in consentual play.

THAT is the real pity here. That REAL kids get exposed to sex by LL's negligence, while they proudly act against adults that are creating fictional encounters.

My one "under age" alt, Ceera's roleplay daughter, clearly states in her profile, on the main profile page and on the 1st-life tab, that she is played by an adult. I hope that is sufficent, so I can continue to roleplay a loving and entirely NON-SEXUAL relationship between my fictional daughter and myself and my Partner.

Whats really funny to me about this is that LL is soooooooooo worried about children being exposed to adult fantasy, thier reaction is to find more stringent ways to oppress adult activity rather then taking it upon themselves to do even one little thing to verify the ages of the residents it allows onto it's "ADULT" grid. It's not thier fault, after all, if you have some 10yr old waving a prim penis at you.

This is purely a PR move... hopefully. If LL would do anything to try to verify the age of a new resident and could guarantee that only adults had access to thier adult grid, this 'policy change' wouldnt even be necessary. But in thier crunch for numbers, they let anyone in, and now, we are the ones being made to restrict ourselves.
I'm not an ageplayer. I personally feel that the sexual abuse and molestation of minors is reprehensible. But I think adults who want to put on a diaper and get a blow job ought to be allowed to. For those who cant discern the difference between molesting children and concenting adults sharing an adult sexual fantasy... well I guess you are the people who make policies like this infringing on the rights of everyone around you. Your ignorance = everyone else's lack of freedom... arent you proud!

I am a lesbian. And knowing that my prefered sexual activities are banned, illegal, and not tolerated in all corners of the globe has me incredibly concerned about this policy change. I guess I should just be thankful that most straight balding white middle-aged policy makers find lesbians 'hawt' and probably wont do much to curtail lesbian activities in world. But I worry for the furries, the escorts, the sex industries, the gors and everyone else who came here with promises of freedom of expression. Just another little chip off the "Your World, Your Imagination" block.

Another mistake from LL. How ... typical.

That's a big mistake on Linden's part then. How can people be blasted under a policy that, technically, doesn't officially exist?

Unless it is posted publicly as a statement of fact (on the blog, the one official channel of communication), and the CS amended to suit, then it's not really right of LL to close accounts for doing something which, technically, isn't against the rules (regardless of whether you personally agree with or detest ageplay).

I am guessing that they don't want to make it public because people and companies read the blog. I'm quite sure that there would be a lot of deep gasps in boardrooms all across the country if people realised some of the stuff that *really* goes on in Second Life.

Broccoli

For sake of official response regarding "blog post"
/327/ce/170175/9.html#post1431567
"There won't be a blog post at this time."

/327/2b/170380/1.html#post1431887
"Raven Welesa shouts: Will Linden Labs eventually make a blog post on the subject, and if so, what steps will be taken to describe not only what IS banned, but what is NOT banned as well?
Robin Linden: I have no plan to try to do that Raven."

And yes, Broccoli, I agree with you. This is, or was, supposed to be kept quiet. Or quieter. That, and the double-standard on age stuff (kids being required to make age statements, while no one else has to), both scare me.

Mari