Lindens define ageplay!

You are pretty much on. I think the answer is "C."

Rights taken away include the following, I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the removal of the following, this is for point of order:

1. Sexual ageplay is not allowed in public areas: essentially no change from existant policies on sexual conduct, as far as I can gather. No disagreement with this here, though I do worry about the potential of "witch hunting" (griefing against SL kids goes up when this issue comes up, amongst other things), as well as wondering what specifically is the definition that applies: can a SL kid hug or kiss their in-world parent in a public setting - nothing more than that, just hug or kiss?

2. (Implied sexual) Ageplay may not be promoted in classifieds, event discriptions, parcel descriptions, profiles, this forum, or other publicly accessible SL controlled locales. Speculation would be that the mere use of the term "ageplay" *in any context* could cause a warning, as could other situations where language is unclear (example: "come play with the kids at the kiddie ranch!". This would further include in-world textures that *could* depict sexual related imagery of a minor: it is uncler what the specifics are on this (example: can a skin file vendor display his or her wares?)

3. All those playing kids in-world need to not give an age *younger* than allowed to be on the main grid. It is assumed to be specific to profiles, but is also unclear. This particular part is the most unclear, not explaining exactly what it wanted/expected out of this, penalizes both sexual and non-sexual 'ageplayers,' and does not quantatively have an affect on RL underage players on SL.

Yes, the four and a half year old jes used the word quantatively inna sentence! I did win an in-world school spellin bee, ya know. And I jes "asserted an age" by doing so, even though it's pretty obvious this is not my RL age.



I agree, and not only due to this issue. It's the *real* kids that need to be protected.


Mari

I agree. I'm definitely an adult, and that is all my on-line friends need to know. If I choose to act like I am 27, or 700, or 14 years old, that is the role I am playing at that time. Either I can act well enough to pull it off, or I can't. Technically, Ceera, as a roleplay character is over 700 years old! But most of the time, she acts like a girl in her mid 20's, which my friends and I are all comfortable with. For reality? Suffice it to say that my Player is a college graduate, married, and has a grade school aged child. So that places me at least in my mid to late 20's.

:-/

I dont think this policy has anything to do with children, really.

Its mainly the potential for negative consequences.



I Really think its mainly that a world with Sexual images of virtual children having sex is going to be on someones target list, and discourage business involvement.

If you all saw the report Gaybot posted - The Reporter went so far as to say Edwards should have a POLICY on Underage prostitution and on Rape Play in Second Life.

The Lindens Im sure have decided keeping age play practicioners freedoms to carry on with this practice wasnt worth the negatives, so made a laundry lists of "whys".

Now Im saying that even though I agree that Sexual Ageplay involving child avatars doesnt belong. I dont necessarily make observations on an issue based on whether it agrees with my beleifs or not.

I don't mean to take issue with you here, but I am going to. Why does the worlld have to only be your way? A free for all with anything game? What I don't understand is why it is that I am always being asked to be sensitive of others viewpoints, while no one wants to be sensitive to mine. I'm far from a prude or intolerant, but as I said before, there are some things that are just wrong (FWIW being a lesbian or gay is not one of those) What bothers me about this whole thing is it seems that the "Only world, only imagination" that a lot of folks want in SL is the utopian free for all love-in where no one cares who does what to whom. What about those who come to this world, but our imaginations don't go there?

To me this seems a simple policy statement of acceptable practices regarding children like AVi's. No one is trying to take away anyones rights as an ADULT. I don't think ANYONE has a right to portray children in a sexual manner if they are an adult. Sorry, my opinion, and Im as much a part of this world as you are.

I have as much a right to freedom of expression as you do.

Edwards probably called them, and they had a conversation with him. This is probably the result of that.

Again, I support LL in this.

coco

Those are the core issues Pie

I have a real problem with adults on the grid wanting to emulate children and obtain sexual kicks. That means the desire is inside them and emulating real life fantasy in virtual reality is reinforcing that perversion which then is more likely to occur in real life to real children’s detriment. That makes it a nasy cop out to say virtual sex between adults emulating children is okay. Its not and never ever will be okay at all ever ever.

Also adults actually abusing children in real life is a perversion beyond the pale.

But apart from that I am very liberal indeed about other sexual preferences and customs, as I believe most of my generation and younger are too

Indeed the second point about your own sexual preferences is absolutely not an issue. In the UK we have laws that recognises sexual preferences between adults BEING adults NOT children. Legislation that is designed to prevent discrimination on the grounds of race, creed, colour, and sexual preferences. You can even form a civil partnership with other same sex partners and obtain preferential tax treatment in the same way as a married couple. I believe we are reasonably tolerant about the general paid sex industry too, more so than some countries.

It is just that there is a very hard line on any type of child sex and rightfully so.

Very well worded. I agree.

Your rights to be able to experience SL the without mature content is maintained in your ability to leave the "Mature" box unchecked when you are using Search and in your ability only to enter sims with a PG rating.
Once you've stepped outside that safety net, you still have the right to excersise your best judgement about what sort of places you want to spend your time. If you come across content that you find sexually objectionable, you, as a free person, are allowed to go elsewhere. Just like when I come across things I find stupid and consider inconsistent with what I want from my SL experience.



I agree completely that a very hard line should be taken on "any type of child sex". I do not advocate the sexual abuse or molestation of minors, hell it makes me sick too to think of someone harming a child in anyway let alone sexually. However, if LL would give an ounce of concern towards verifying the age of the residents it allows on a grid they themselves had labeled as "ADULT", no one here would be talking about "any type of child sex" but about the desires of concentual adults engaging in their chosen sexual fantasies, which is a topic that no one, other then the concentual adults engaging in the fantasies, need give a rats ass about.

The issue here is if policies should be made about what consenting adults do with one another. My response to that is always going to be "No". The hypocracy of having an "adult" grid with "mature" content and then having the gall to arbitrarily decide which of these "adult"'s "mature" content you will restrict based on what is illegal in other countries ... well, that irks me. I can give you an extensive list of countries where homosexual acts are still listed on the law books as illegal because some nice folks in the legistative branch of the government found those acts to be 'preversions'.

There is NO EVIDENCE OR STATISTICAL INFORMATION that confirms that adults who are able to expereince thier fantasies in a virtual enviromoent are any more likely to emulate thier fantasies in real life then the kid who plays WoW 24/7 is likely to go out and kill a bunch of people. Thats because ADULTS are supposed to be able to seperate fantasy from reality. Amazing concept, huh?

Adults who sexual abuse children should have thier genitals removed. Adults who want engage in fantasies in a virtual enviroment shouldn't be restricted in the privacy of thier own little SL's.

"Sexual Age-play" can logically be considered "Child Pornography", which includes "simulated" as part of its legal definition.

That alone is more than sufficient justification to crack down on those that promote or engage in it.

LL can't moniter all content in SL but they are certainly within their rights as a business and as our host to do this.

I see no additional losses of freedom associated with this. "Child Pornography" is not legal where LL does business and they're finally getting around to enforcing an existing policy more diligently due to outside pressures, whatever they may be.

[edit: Okay, so maybe I'm rather off base then: "The United States Supreme Court decided in 2002 that the previous American prohibition of simulated child pornography was unconstitutional (Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition). However, according to a lawyer whose firm specialises in computer sex crime cases, in real legal practice, popular sentiment and political positions stray far from this decision." ]

And this is all LL is asking. That you do it privately. There aren't any angry crowds with torches. This isn't Krystalnacht. There's no slippery slope. All they are saying is that you please act on your pedophilic fantasies in private.

Clearly, though, you have a vested interest in making people believe that LL is saying more than this.

So by that logic I would I be remiss to think that the next crack-down will be on all the in-world casinos? That's pretty illegal in California too. Morally reprehensible to a whole lot of folks to boot. Yet there are still thousands of casinos in SL, still advertised in the classifeds, for which LL receives compensation. How come? Because its easier to discriminate against the fringe groups FIRST. It gets people used to it as commonplace.


That's what I think LL is really saying. Money talks and thier bullshit walks... all over thier residents.




That to me sounds like a pretty clear contradiction to the supposition that "this is all LL is asking. That you do it privately. There aren't any angry crowds with torches."

My vested interest is that I am a resident of Second Life, a premium member of 3 years, and completely and fully in love with the environment, despite the mismanagement and poor desicions of the people who run the company that maintains the environment, much the same way I consider myself to be a very patriotic American while completely convinced that my president is an asshole, since he feels that I, as a lesbian, should not be afforded the same considerations as the rest of society. I disagree with many of the decisions LL has made concerning the direction of SL for a while now... does that make me any less vested? Or by defending something I don't agree with, in this case age-play, does that equate in your mind that I must be some secret age-play fanatic or else why would I bother standing up for the rights of people the majority of the population regards with disdain?

Liberty and freedom for all is supposed to mean even for the people you think are stupid and wrong and gross. When anyone's freedom is compromised, everyone's is, even under the banner of "the Common Good".

Casinos may very likely be next.

Again, I'm aware that "logic" and "law" don't always go hand in hand... but if it can be shown that L$ are functionally equivalent to poker chips, and are purchased and sold in similar fashion.... that the distinction between "Real" and "Fantasy" gambling will crumble, and the practice will be treated like any other online gambling establishment.

There might be some value threshhold under which such gambling is ignored by the legal system. Like nickel poker nights at a buddies house are. Not legal... but utterly not worth cracking down on. Considering the 275:1 L$ to US$ ratio... it may slide under the same "doesn't matter" level.

Who can say.

There are MANY laws that I don't like... but if we are to live in a society which respects differences of religion, ideals, preference, race, culture and such... we have to have them, even if we don't like them. Otherwise things devolve into mob-rule. (which seems to be happening anyway. *Grumph*)

This is certainly a plausible line of reasoning. And if you could prove the second sentence in its entirety with good data, I'd support your conclusion 100%.

The problem is that the proof doesn't exist. We know that child molesters often also have child porn. We also know that lots of people have been convicted of possessing child porn without being accused of going anywhere near a child. And who knows how many people have thought about it, read Lolita, act it out in real life with other adults, etc. Finally, I don't think we know anything about the psychology of people playing out these roles in a virtual world such as SL; hypothesizing that it's the same as other porn is reasonable, but asserting that it's the same isn't.

Here's some food for thought: Suppose two people want to play 17 year old high school students that have a romantic, eventually sexual relationship. In RL, it's may be unwise for two 17 year olds to marry, but it's not illegal nor immoral. Is this the same situation as child molestation? Assuming that LL could come up with perfect control of role plays (which they can't, and never will), should this one be allowed?

In my opinion this decision isnt about Law

Its about Bad Press.

And concerns over Bad press in the future

Bad Press hurts LL's bottom line.

Its like when you break up with someone
- You decide its time things are over and you come up with a whole list of why its better that way. Stuff you were willing to live with and knew about from early on all of a sudden becomes a point of contention.


Like this -
"I know I said I love you but - Look were drifiting apart! you dont like the same things I do, we dont even watch the same TV shows, you leave messes all over, your Mother is evil, and you Snore!"


So The Linden thought process probably went something like this - (this is a hypothetical convo)

Here's an idea: Let's ban the unadorned term "ageplay", and only use "sexual ageplay" and "general ageplay" (or maybe "non-sexual ageplay). That would get past the ambiguity that seems to drag down the rest of the conversation.

We could even abbreviate them: gageplay (for general), xageplay (for sexual, pronounced ksageplay or sageplay).

You picked out a quote of a quote, from a transcript that is, at best, difficult to follow. I don't understand why you went for this quote, and skipped right over all the quotes in which Robin quite clearly stated that what people do in privacy is not the concern of LL. It has been repeated numerous times that LL is asking the pedophiles to be discreet. This means that people who own businesses that profit from pedophilia are out of luck. It also means you can't advertise pedophilia in your profile, nor can you advertise it in classifieds, etc.

We live in a society. Society is governed by cultural norms. Gay people are mistreated in our society. This is a bad thing. I hope that this changes as our societal mores shift. There is no connection between being gay and pedophilia. It is not necessary to defend anything and everything in order to justify being gay. You don't need to justify being gay at all. Every time you make the slippery slope argument, you reinforce the false stereotype that there is a connection between being gay and being a pedophile. Please stop reinforcing this false stereotype.


Edit... I'm adding the quotes I've extracted from the transcript that address the issue about public/private. Please note, especially, the last exchange between Arokha and Robin:

Robin Linden: Please keep in mind that what we have asked is that people do not PROMOTE this behavior

Robin Linden: Raven, I'm not concerned with what you look like. This is about behavior.

Robin Linden: If you own an ageplay business you will not be allowed to promote it in a public channel.



Michael Dumont: "Promote it in a public channel" Does that include place listings and classifieds? How else is the business supposed to attract customers?
Robin Linden: Michael, yes it does, and it includes profiles.



Purplejunkie Ren: Wow, do you guys listen at all? The promotion or public demenstration of ageplay is no longer permitted. As for taking the persona of a younger character, as long as you don't engage in sexual ageplay, or promote ageplay, you're fine. From what I gathered, at least.
Robin Linden: Purplejunkie, I think you've got it!



Robin Linden: Therefore, we have chosed not to allow the "advertising or promotion" of age play or related activities in any public forum


Robin Linden: in-world textures (i.e. pictures), classified ads, the SL forums, and parcel descriptions. This would also include profiles.



Arokha Sieyes: My question, worded as 'good' as possible, is that if two adults, of verified age, wish to participate in ageplay, in private land, and not 'promote' it to others, can they do so without interference from LL?
Robin Linden: Arokha, under those circumstances LL would not intervene.

Problem is, child-molesting is one of the biggest, most emotional taboos there are in American society, and I'm sure an extremely big one everywhere else too. So, how to deal with it?

Additional problem is, there are people so disturbed by even the idea of it that they are willing to impose police-state tactics and thought-control and demonize anyone who even slightly disagrees with them so they can drive the thought out of their own minds. Some of them are survivors of child-molesting themselves. Others, I suspect, are trying to repress their own pedophilic impulses. Either way, they could be driven to kill over this, in the right circumstances. And you know what? Yeah, it is a sick, perverted, heinous crime they are up in arms about. I have children, and I read the newspapers, and I can understand where they are coming from. Their emotions, however irrational, are understandable and deserve consideration.

Their emotions just can't be allowed to sit in the driver's seat and control everyone and everything else, though, because it starts with child-molesting and it expands from there to everything someone, somewhere takes violent exception too. Women not concealed in burqas? Sacrilege! Death to them! Running dogs of capitalism? Evil! Death to the exploiters! Someone professes That Other Religion (which one depends on what part of the world you live in)? Blasphemer! To the stake with him! People who dare to have black/white/yellow/red skins, or a hooked nose? Exterminate the vermin! Oh, you're a Christian?! Youmust be a vicious, medieval bigot! Death to you too! Same kind of emotion. If this kind of taboo-thinking, where someone not only represses his own thoughts but undertakes to repress his neighbor's thoughts too, or his neighbor's existence, is valid policy for case A, it becomes all too valid for case B. We have seen the start of that extension in these threads already. Emotions have their place, but not at the table where policy is being made.

On the other hand, part of the genius of SL is exactly that it is a "safe" place where people can play out unfulfilled and even forbidden fantasies - whatever they are - and thus get a better handle on them. Or at least let off steam harmlessly. They can toy with the vice of their choice - and hopefully get it out of their systems. That's why there is so much kink of every kind on SL (and gambling and violence too). And why there are also innocent child avatars, and cartoon-animal furry avatars like in the comic books, and dragon avatars (I might get one myself someday), and every other sort of thing. That is not to say that every perversity the human mind can come up with ought to be condoned.

On the third hand (this is SL and I can have three hands if I want), it is necessary to maintain some kind of order in all this that allows SL to survive both internal disruption and external assault. If you don't have at least a bare minimum of public order, you don't have anything. So, the LL notecard approach, as explained by Robin Linden, looks good to me, except for their regrettable sloppiness about using the word "ageplay, " which has caused confusion.

So, LL is quietly going around to the people putting this practice in the "public" eye in SL and saying, Look, you can't rattle the cages of people who may have been victims of child-molesters like that; cool it, or you're outta here. This is not a freedom-of-speech issue, this is common civility and maintaining public order. And it keeps non-SL busybodies and sensation-seeking yellow journalists and politicians at bay who would otherwise take pleasure in destroying SL for the sake of their own agendas.

Then, LL is quietly letting the emotionally distraught sharpening their long knives for the hated Others they are projecting their own fears onto that, No, we're not going to help you persecute people for what you surmise the state of their minds to be or what they do or don't do in private, out of your sight, to deal with what's in their own heads. This is not condoning terrible things, this is being realistic about what can and realistically cannot be done in a free space where other people have other minds. People who cannot stand being in a free space will need to go elsewhere, just as pedophiles who cannot keep their sickness to themselves will need to go elsewhere too.

Next, LL is saying it is working on an effective way of determining that people on the adult grid really are legal adults. Boy, I hope they come up with something good in that department! Then the most substantive potential danger here goes away (plus a lot of griefing and other problems, I'll bet). Let's face it, SL is not the place for impressionable 12- or 13-year-olds te be learning the meaning of sex.

On a minor note, I take the passage about accounts purporting to be under 18 being closed to refer to just that: accounts, not avatars. If they meant avatars I think they would surely have said avatars. I am guessing there are "escorts" winking in their profiles and suggesting that they really are minors under 18, you know, in RL (wink, wink). If so, sure, out with them.

Taking both what the notecard and Robin Linden have said, it seems clear to me that LL meant overt sexual ageplay where the notecard merely said ageplay. If I'm right, it is a goof, but not a major one. And what they are doing strikes me as basic common sense.

Strikes me as a Solomonic decision. Good for you, LL.

Although I am certain LL 's motivation is to avoid further bad press.

Im going to explore the reasons they and others claim.

-No way to verify Age: Sorry was LL's decision to remove CC age verifcation. They are welcome to bring it back in my Opinion. Of course this hurts their bottom line becuase of some non US SL users. Though I wonder how those same people find a way to pay for their Lindens.

-Need to make sure underaged people on the grid arent being abused: Well this is basically a LL admission that their new policy is leading to underaged SL Users ... Duh. The Underaged probably make up a very tiny percentage of the Sexual Age Players though. Most will be on Adult avatars. The lure to them isnt playing with Pedophiles - its being accepted as an Adult. SOme of these will want to do naughty adult things, of course - But they will still want to be accepted as an adult.

- Its broadly offensive:

Simulated Pedophilia is offensive. Sorry to burst anyones bubble on this one. The Activity will never be tolerated except by the most liberal or the most adrdent defenders of personal liberties. Most who argue that people should have the freedom to do so still dont want it around them. The practicioners of this type Sexual Age Play have to know this.

But is all sexual age play offensive as all that? Think for a minute how much Teen Porn is on the internet. Part of that porn is basically aimed at how young those women are. 18 / 19 and many look like they could be younger (even if they are all 18+). So the Late teen sexual fantasy which skirts the border, the "Barely Legal" stuff is accpetable to a lot of people. Of course many feel that the teen sites on the internet are Offensive also.

What about the Adult baby thing / Or the obvious adult in a school girl costume / etc. - A lot of us are far more tolerant of obvious adults engaging in what we see are crazy role play. A grown man in a Diaper isnt pedophelia its just kink.

So the really objectional part is the dipiction of Obvious Children Images in sexual situations. Simulated Pedophelia.

-Its Child Porn: Well , yeah , It is. The supreme court may have ruled its not. But the supreme court rules a bunch of things that are stupid. If a virtual representation of Adults having sex is Porn, then Virtual representations fo Children having sex is Child Porn.

As technology improves it will be harder and harder to tell the diference between Virtual images in a 3D game and Real Life people. Any virtual images in that situation are going to look just like RL porn.

-Its legal (illegal) in my country: Well this is hard to argue if its illegal for someone to look at something they have a reasonable expectation not to have to go out of their way to avoid looking at it. Still there are limits on this. If its a fringe activity like Virtual Child sex - its easy enough to sweep it out of their veiw. Something Like Adult Nudity which is extremely common. This is much less reasonable to expect LL to contain.

If its legal where you live - then thats great Even if you accidently see it your in no danger of being in violation.

If its legal where Linden Labs is thats hazier. They are not required to allow us as residents to do everything the law allows in San Fransico over the internet. They are not the governement.

Restircting it curtails freedom: well yes, it does. So do the anti racism rules. Theres things legal to do IRL - such as a Klan rally, that arent allowed in SL. I hope Linden things very long before deciding to curtail any freedoms. But I also think they sometimes will have to.

But its two consenting adults, what they do should be always allowed: This liberty/freedom idea is a good one. And freedom is noble. Its one of the reasons many who despise sexual ageplay are willing to allow it to continue.



In the end though -
The fact is this is an issue that can HURT Second Life. Them clamping down on sexual Age Play hurts them a lot less than them allowing it to continue.

Bad Press = less people coming to second life and more denouncers of it.

While restricting sexual ageplay severely - Makes those who defend civil liberties mad and the sexual age players mad.

I am sure that LL has decided the bad press hurts them more.

I think that Colette's comments are quite wise and rational. Thank you Colette.

My personal opinion is that many pedophiles seek legitimacy for their ideas. They want to find a place that embraces their values. This is why NAMBLA exists, aside from the more practical reason of offering a way for pedophiles to trade child porn. SL provides an almost perfect platform for pedophiles. In addition to the technical reasons for this, Pedophiles were finding SL to be a welcoming environment, and in recent months, they have begun to become emboldened by what they interpreted to be tacit approval, and we began to see pedophilia more openly promoted. I blame LL for not taking action sooner because I believe it left pedophiles with the impression that LL and SL citizens do, in fact, tolerate open displays of pedophilic roleplay. Now that this approval, imagined or otherwise, has been rescinded, the pedophiles (and some determined libertarians) have leapt to their feet to decry the falling of the sky, the "inevitability" that quietly asking pedophiles to act out their fantasies in private will ultimately lead to the rounding up of anyone who dares to vary from the missionary position.

LL is taking the course that offers the least possible infringement on the rights of people to engage in pedophilic fantasies. From where I sit, it looks like LL is bending over backwards to account for freedom by not specifically banning private pedophillic role play. We are talking about something that is taboo in every culture on earth. It's astounding to me that LL is willing to risk any tolerance of it.

Just wondering how these stories make it to fox, CNN , etc? Do residents who are offended contact the Networks, with "SL Cam" footage? If so, they need to spend less time in SL. Or do the Networks send in a reporter to sign up, put on a kiddie Avi and do undecove investigating> if that's the case , then it really is a slow news day....

In the fox news story you can see that the reporter made her own account. This violates LL's TOS as she filmed in SL for the purpose of making a news story without LL's permission.

Strangely. The fox news story may actually increase SL's popularity.
The old saying "There is no such thing as bad advertising"

---
FYI: The XXX bill in Congress was killed by the religious groups since in the end they did not want to create a "red light district"

LL is trying to create a 3D Internet. No business worrys about the porn on the Internet before setting up there own company website.

But LL is also trying to be a hosting provider and businesses do worry about there hosting going down because of what else might be on that same hosting system.

Actually the Ageplay story was related to the club Jail Bait (evidently a age play strip/escort club). And it was stuff the reporter investigated while waiting for someone to show up at Edwards campaign HQ in world.

Her story was supposedly to look at Edwards campaign HQ.

I think the story was a political one? felt like a slight right wing biased political report in that she didnt seem to take Edwards very seriously.

She also suggested he take a stand on Age Play and rape play in secondlife.

No need for all this. It has nothing to do with age play. Age play is something adults do when one of them (or both of them) pretends to be a child. There is nothing wrong with age play. It may not be our cup of tea, but it hurts nobody.

The problem is with child pornography.

Can we all please stop confusing terms?