Lindens define ageplay!

Phfeh. It can be entirely natural when your standards are too high for reality to deliver on. Or if your tastes drift towards things which just don't exist in RL or SL.

Though when it comes down to it... I prefer not to risk living a life with STD's for a few hours of yee-haw.

Maybe some day I'll find the right guy (or gal) and settle down.

I'm in no hurry.

--
Complacent Resident of the "Unnatural State"

I'm sorry that's a really silly argument Yiffy.

A minute not in SL roleplaying is hardly a minute saved! If nothing else I'm sure child molestors spend their days doing everyday things, and the two are certainly not at all necessarily substitutable. I'm sure these people have time for both.

Try thinking of it this way: Every hour or so pedophile X spends role playing child abuse in Second Life makes him keener to get up the courage to open the door to the room next door, where his little daughter or son lies sleeping...

Ok... I didn't post yesterday as I wanted to see where this thread lead and to see what views would come up...

I know from posts earlier that some of you didn't agree with my descriptions of what was going on... fair enough.. we all have an opinion...

and I must say there have been some very well thought out views from both sides.

I will however explain, not in detail, why I immediately jumped on the 'Its Wrong' band wagon... I do know people who have been abused as children, and I have seen how much they have struggled to come to terms with during adult hood. Hence the reason why I am against the idea of Adult AVs having sex with Child AVs (note... I'm not against Ageplay.. just sexual ageplay).

Yes, I understand that in SL it is (we hope) still 2 consensual adults playing the AVs, and people have stated if its 2 adults, who are we to stop them roleplaying.. fair point I guess.. but here is my problem.

If people roleplay this in RL... eg 1 partner plays the adult and 1 partner plays the child, the partner playing the child, no matter what they are dressed in - childs clothes, whatever etc. That partner is still clearly an adult as they can't make their bodies de-age.

So in SL the direct equivelant of this to my mind would be 2 adult AVs, but with one of them dressed as a child and pretending play a child. It is when the person playing the 'child' also has a child AV that I find it to be going too far... why... because no matter that it is actually 2 consenting adults behind the Avs, the actual depiction on screen (although slightly cartoonised) is that of an adult having sex with a child.

In many countries that depication alone (all be it cartoonised) would be enough to put LL out of business or at the very least put the people involved in court. I know that a lot of people will say but LL is based somewhere in the US where it wouldn't be affected as they have had a court case of somthing similar that said it didn't think it was a true depiction... but rulings get overturned, other cases come along that redefine it etc... and as LL is wanting to be a global company (with over half their population from Europe) they will have to look at the laws in other countries... eg. Look at the whole Google and China thing...

So rightly, LL have asked that it is not promoted publically, but have still given you the choice to do sexual ageplay privately.

I understand where LL is coming from here, but personnally, I'm not convinced that this enough. What happens when as SL grows, improves and the graphics get more realistic, when a reporter stumbles across sexual ageplay in SL takes some photos of what seems to be reasonably realistic adult Avs having sex with a reasonably realistic child AV, and this gets sensationalised by the media. You get a backlash from the general public.. and the governments... etc. Giving LL some very bad press indeed which would be bad for the SL community as a whole.

I agree with Jonathan.

In fact even taking into account free speech I cannot understand why this debate is still going on.

Given the degree of realism within Second Life and taking into account the moral arguments against child sex abuse coupled together with the fact it is very illegal almost everywhere in the real world, Second Life should emulate real life on this point.

I do not and will never ever accept that Age sex role play between a child and adult avatar is right or can be justified, even if ultimately it is only virtual, and even if two real life adults are behind the two in world avatars.

There is enough virtual risk from a business viewpoint within Second Life already without adding this one. A big scandal of this type will see corporate users depart in droves, and it could well lead to Second Life being closed and/or sued out of existence by real life authorities or abused people.

A word on censorship vis-à-vis free speech. Ever since I have used the Net the issue of child pornography being tolerated, to prevent censorship on many other issues has been a highly emotive problem. But at the end of the day this is a battle of which the free speech side should concede defeat. Otherwise you risk defeat and censorship and will loose the War

Finally on ANY other matter I would be in the free speech camp. This issue is almost (excepting confidential and/or business situations) the only exception. The right to free speech even includes most mainstream first life politics. Anyone here remember the Second Life "in world" "Impeach Bush" signs? I did not agree with the authors views but he had a right to express them that was accepted by Linden Labs

Regards

John

They sell school uniform outfits at respectable high street erotic retailers, there are popular 'school disco' nights at nightclubs, Britney Spears had a mainstream hit with that look in the US some years ago, and the Japanese powerful-schoolgirl thing is deep in the mainstream culture... so our culture is soused in it.

If adults do that in SL then good luck to them. It does not mean they need counselling, or that they are likely to want to commit unspeakable and evil acts in RL.

We can go further, too - many people want to explore their sexuality through their imaginations in SL. For some that involves some fairly early feelings. That can stray into some fairly uneasy thoughts and mental areas, but it does not automatically mean those people are in some way sexually attracted to children.

I really think there are some overreactions here.

Evil .. just evil.

Theory 3

They dont want to make people even more mad by telling them to shut up.

Theory 4

The Mods are just as annoyed as everyone else they wont come out and define their stand better and make it more official

Theory 5

They really do want to keep their entire involvement low key and thus are ignoring all this debate, instead of apearing more than low key by locking the thread.

I dont think the school girl thing is banned at all.

As long as the Avatar wearing it is obviously adult - and not claiming to be under 18.

I could be wrong on this. Since the definition isnt as clear as it could be, Id be interested in knowing what other people think.

Exactly Colette.. I can't see anything wrong with an adult AV dressing up as a child within SL, its when an adult AV and a child AV (not an adult AV dressed as a child) are graphically depicting sex with a minor within SL that I think we are skating on incredibly thin ice.... as do, I presume, LL, hence the reason they are wanting to make it less visible.

I'm a furry, and as a result I have a furry avatar, it being a fox. If I were to show you a picture of it, can anyone realistically be able to determine age of the character? If anyone said yes, you are full of it! Explain how with some avatars, animals, dragons, etc. you can determine age of them. Are you determining this using height or clothing, or speech?

Human avatars, that is a bit easier to determine age by looking at them, but with other avatars, how do you determine the age?

In RL, as far as I'm aware, there are no laws on what age animals are allowed to have sex with each other.

Personally in SL, I don't see Furries as trying to be humans or animals, as they aren't really depicting either, they are more like cartoon-like to my eyes, not trying to be human, not totally trying to be Animal (no offense intended - thats just how I see it), so perhaps I should clarify my above post by saying it is the depiction of Adult Human AVs and Child Human AVs having sex that i think is too close to the real thing.

However, Presuming that you play your furry characters with some human elements to their personalities especially if you play as families (which some of you do), then I would hope that in the furry communities, the community as a whole would also be looking in to the issue of 'is the idea of children and adults copulating with each other really an appropriate thing to be doing' ... in otherwords, are you acting generally as a human society would or is your community acting more as the animals you represent would, and setting their own guidelines from that.

No problem with that one after all it is two adults as adults and visable as two adults. Thats my distinction anyway. As for Fur people you are not emulating children so live and let live is my view.

Time to let others have a view (again)

I'll also add to my post above, that if you can't really tell how old your furry AVs look then probably isn't a problem anyway, as should someone stumble across it, then they will also not be able to that one of you is an underage AV.

It really is the graphical depiction of the a human adult and a human child having sex in SL that will cause the most outrage in RL, not a picture of 2 bunnys/foxes etc copulating in SL.

It is that representation of something that is very wrong in RL being depicated very closely in SL.

As to whether LL is going to have a go at furries if some of them have sex with minors.. well I can't say, I wouldn't like to speculate on how they would deal with it.... but in the end its up to them as they own SL.

Not to be an ass, but how was it out of context? You said, basically, that the therapy for ageplayers was to point out how vile their desires are and that it had an effect on children.
Granted, it was in response to someone who thinks that ageplay is paedophilia, but that doesn't negate what you said.

Also, it was less of an attack on you, because you seem to get it, and more a reinforcement of the fact that... um...

AGEPLAY DOESN"T INVOLVE CHILDREN!


Jonathan,

It's nice to see that you seem to have figured it out.

There IS the argument that because SL is a visual medium, there is a chance it might go against child pornography laws. I'm not arguing that. I'll leave that up to the lawyers.

The only reason I responded so heatedly to you was THIS sort of thing: "The point is that you are getting your kicks by pretending to molest young children... in otherwords pretending to be a paedophile... in otherwords you need serious help!"

I'm very happy that you seem to have listened to what some of us are saying.
I hope so.

dont see how a furry could be considered a child av - especially if they dont say they are under 18

No problem Mickey... but I hope you can also understand why I kicked out immediately without necessarily thinking it through, by reading my post somewhere towards the bottom of the previous page. When you have seen the trauma of what someone close to you has gone through when they have been subjected to sexual abuse as a child in RL, the first response is to kick back and fight tooth and nail at all forms or suggestions of this being depicted in SL.

I still feel there is no need for anyone to portray a child and an adult having sex together in SL.. they could simply be 2 adult AVs with one dressed as a child... this would be much safer in the interests of laws, etc., and far less aggravating to those who have been through, or been close to those who have been through such things in RL.

Anyway... I'm going to stop comment on this thread now... I hope we can all now see a little more clearly on both sides of the argument.

I do understand the speedy overreaction. Very well, in fact.
I wasn't going to say anything, but I was abused when I was younger and, yes, it affected me and my life. Even though I've worked through it, it continues to affect me in subtle ways.

This is why I am so vehement about this.

I personally believe that those engaging in this are fully aware, or at least are working under the assumption, that the person they are playing with is an adult on the other side of the screen. I honestly don't believe that the vast majority, if not all, that are into it, as a scene, are NOT into children as sexual objects, but rather the idea of an adult behaving like one. A subtle difference, but a difference all the same.

I don't get it, personally. But I think I can understand the allure of going back to a simpler time, a time of safety, a time of being taken care of.
It's not for me, but then again, many perfectly acceptable things that people do aren't for me.

I just don't think it's my place to tell them to stop, no matter who they are or what they're doing... unless it actually hurts someone.

I just haven't seen any evidence that this activity hurts anyone.

If you accept that sexual ageplay involves sex, then it also involves children, regardless of the age of those in control of the AVs.
Those in control of the AV do not have to be having sex in RL for it to be sexual, they also do not have to be RL children for the depiction to be one of sex with children.

----- for clarification, this is at the world in general rather than mickey -----

If there is going to be a proper debate about this, everyone should at least admit to what is being dicussed. Sexual ageplayers are different from non sexual ageplayers. I have not seen one person against child AVs, and I think most reasonable adults can differentiate between the two. Nor is this about adult babies, or adults dressing as children. In those cases the AVs still represent adults. Furries are also nowhere near being in the same camp, regardless of the supposed age of their AVs. Animals are not human (obviously).

The fact is that sexual ageplayers are getting their kicks from the depiction of sex with children. No matter which way you cut it, that's paedophilia. It may not involve the abuse of real children, but it also is not something that is likely to be accepted by society in RL or virtual life.

The ban on advertising is perfectly understandable. If you were to hire a billboard in RL and fill it with child porn, do you think you would survive anywhere in the world, or would you be lynched on the spot? With a subject that causes so much anger and hatred in RL, they had to act. Or maybe the ageplayers think they can support the entire cost of SL on their own when people start leaving in droves.

Linden didn't even outright ban the act itself. They simply banned the advertising, and doing it in public. You can still do it in private. It seems to me that the over-reaction is from the ageplayers.

One final thing I want to say. If sexual ageplay is really so harmless, why all the stink about not being allowed to say that you are under 18?
Do you have to genuinely believe that the person on the other end of the wire is a child? If so, then that is not ageplay or you would have to admit to yourself that it is an adult, and the age that is put in a profile would not matter.

Well I think there are two main thrusts to the argument as to why this debate is going on. From the free speech perspective, it is the banning of the advertising that is the offense. And secondly, LL has an MO of cipping away at comething before the ban it outright.

From my perspective, which is soldily free speech in nature, the banning of the advertising but not the banning of the underlying action chills free speech without meaningfully accomplishing any goals. I understand the business decision argument, but the problem is that just banning the advertising will not make the existence of ageplay in SL any less sensationalized by the media, and coroporate sponsors and potential users will still be aware that age play is current. Thus the regulation bans speech, but is not tailored to actually protect from any harm caused by the act. Essentially the regulation is candy: it tastes good, but has no medicinal value.

If LL is going to allow you to do it in your home, as user privacy demands, then they should allow people who engage in this practice to communicate with one another, so they people of a like interest can meet. The regulation essentially shuts the ageplayers down as a community and forces them into a closet. To me this is a terrible thing for two reasons: first it defacto is an intrusion into the bedroon of consenting adults, and suggests a non neutral evaluation of kink-it is saying funadmentally that age players are worse than goreans. Secondly, it not only violates free speech, but free association, as it does not allow memebers within the group to contact one another. It effectively prohibits age player fron forming a group, or advertising places where consenting adults can meet.

From an international law perspective, it may well be true that the depiction of child avatars on the internet violates some other countries regulations. It is , for a varitey of reasons, very unlikey that the US Supreme Court will ever change its ruling, becasue the underlying reasoning behind the ruling is fundamental to the Constitutiuon: you don't punish people where there is no actual crime. Its obviously much more complicated than that, but lets face it-this is an extremely conservative court, and the elected not to go there.

But for me, it is this very interational law perpsective that is so offensive. I am an American Citizen, and I have grown up expectiing cerftain inalienable rights. Whether or not an entitiy is public or private, I expect to be allowed measures of freee speech and privacy. Thus when my ability to do anything, even stuff that I have no interest in doing, is curtailed in response to the laws of countries where I would not choose to live, I feel oppressed.

But SL is not, admittedly, a country, and there are no rights. We are here, then, to debate what our expectations of free speech and privacy are, as a community. So this ongoing debate is desinged to put forth an opinion. The Lindens have done what they have done, and I think it is the wrong call. But its not worth leaving SL over. I just want to be damed sure that my continued presence in SL is not taken as a tacit ratification of this action. LL made all of us part of this debate when it couched the language of the note card along the lines of "the community feels...." Well we are the community, and very obviously, many in the community do not feel....

Of course the interjection of the majority into the debate raises the free speech hackles further. Free speech exists to protect that speech wich the majority finds offensive, so long as it is not obscene. The Supreme Court neglected to include virtual depictions of children, when they are not actually children, in the category of obscenity.

From the persepctive of the Age Players, it is not unreasonable to assume that a ban on advertisement is the lead in to a ban on the act itself. This has been LL's modus operandi in the past. First a small restriction of something, and then a short time later, its out and out deleion. The slippery slope arguments are, from a purely historical perspective, rather valid.

These are two different arguments.

Many, if not most, of us have said that there is a valid point, regarding the depiction. We're not arguing that.

What we ARE arguing is that, contrary to your post, ageplay does not involve children.

When talking about this subject, you cannot rule out the age of someone, as that is an intrinsic part of the equation. Someone's age defines them as a child or not a child.

"If you accept that sexual ageplay involves sex, then it also involves children, regardless of the age of those in control of the AVs" is completely illogical. There are no children involved. None. If there are two adults doing it, how does it involve children? Not the depiction of children, that point has been covered. Children. Where are the children?

I think that SAP can be incredibly harmful... the same way someone making rude jokes about cancer can be harmful...

In some it disrespectfully evokes gutwrenchingly painful memories of slow painful humiliating death, lost friends, family, or personal hell...

In others it evokes the "Offended Hero" responce. The offended hero knows it might be painful for someone, so they attack the source with righteous fury... to protect the innocent.

Some people have no tact or decency, and will expose others to things without appreciating the power that symbols and depictions have to bring up painful memories. And some people simply over react. The problem is guilt is determined entirely subjectively.

I don't want to live in a country that makes laws restricting what people can joke about... or talk about... or fabricate in a fantasy world... even if it is offensive.

I do, however, want the right to be able to sue for damages if I can't otherwise get the offender to leave me alone. (harassment).

Not an answer, just an observation.

That's simple: because I'm (and for sake of clarity, I'm talking about the representation of myself in-world) four and a half, and by having to follow the letter of this notecard, I cannot say that. Never mind that I am not ever doing sexual ageplay: I still am held to that same standard. One might even argue (a stretch, yes) that me saying in my profile that I'm a preschooler is an "age assertion," or having a kid shaped avatar that speaks and acts like a kid is a way of assserting a (general) age.

No furry is required to *not* state they are a cat, wolf, rabbit, fennec fox, wombat, or whatever in the profile, or face account closure. Not one mech is required to note in their profile that his/her RL bodies are flesh and blood. No vampyre need fear referring to their ol dark selves (or even saying they are hundreds of years old!) in her or his profile could lead to an investigation of your accout and potential loss of in-world assets.

Now yes, Second Life does not have any rules against the deceased (including undead), animals (on the Internet, no one knows your a dog), or robots (well, aside from copybot, I suppose) on the grid, There are obvious rules about RL kids on the main grid.

Nevertheless, most, maybe even all, SL kids are *not* underage IRL, and the *assumption* of membership within the main grid is that there are *no* underage players on the main grid at all (yes, I know...). That is the part of this notecard that bugs me the most, as it singles out each and every SL kid *in spite of* what they opt to do in-world.

Mari
(who should point ya'll to both my front page piece on the issue, as well as my op-ed on page 17 of this week's Metaverse messenger, http://www.metaversemessenger.com/ )

The last part of your statement is particularly poignant. There are many in Power who want to restrict how we think. And when that happens, it's over.

You've left out one group: The rationalist side, who are willing to listen to both sides, with a focus on facts and logical reasoning, live with a compromise, change their minds as new data becomes available, accept that no solution will make everyone happy, and care about the rights and wishes of all sides in the discussion as well as others outside SL. Of course, there may be some overlap with the observer side, primarily because of the paucity of facts and logic.

URL: /327/2b/170380/7.html#post1437708

This has been quoted before, and I believe the irrelevancy has also been mentioned, but I'll repeat it.

This particular passage from the FBI website applies to "the use of a minor," where the reference is to a real life minor.

There are other Federal laws involving pornography that may apply to xageplay in SL, but this isn't one of them.