What % of women landing & propositioning other women are actually SGTWOH?

I do not know what a WPC is, nor the phrase "taken down". The second thought I had for snickers, though, was laughter of one type or another.

I do not know if "candy bar" is a USA common reaction. I thought the question was what a person's first reaction to the name might be. So I gave mine. Not representative of a place or time. My father, when he ate chocolate, loved Mars bars. They do not seem to sell that over here, and was stuck getting Snickers. So when I hear/see the word, I think of candy bars.

Snickers is what Muttley does.

I do not know anyone or thing named Muttley.

I would put it more around 80% as my guess.

A WPC is a Woman Police Constable.

I'd think of "snicker" first of all as a sort of dirty laugh.

"Taken down" is a bit lavatorial with connotations of trousers and, of course, "snickers" rhymes with "knickers" (panties) ....it's the English sense of humour, no doubt.

I'd understand the use of "candy bar" although I'd say "sweet" or "chocolate bar".

We can still buy Mars Bars - when I was a kid they had a commercial with a jingo that went: "A Mars a day helps you work rest and play". We kids changed this to: "A Mars a day helps your teeth rot away".

I thoroughly enjoyed the 3 visits I have made to the USA and I have relatives who emigrated there in 1967.

LOL, yeah! Me too!

Heh.

Um, you're talking about the forum, right . . . ?

Being a nice person ( ), I am going to assume that this is posting is really a failed attempt to produce a clever bit of self-referential post-modern satire, rather than being the utter drivel that, at first glance, it looks like.


I'd agree with you, to a point: whatever goes on here in SL, whether consensual or not, is certainly not real rape. And I'll admit, for reasons other than the one you give, that I have begun to think that maybe we do need another term to apply to nonconsensual sex-focussed griefing.

At the same time, I might suggest that "virtual rape" is used in much the same that "virtual sex" is used. It is also not possible to have sex without a body. Indeed, in VWs, we tend to use language all of the time that tacitly accepts the representational as the physical, as when we say in-world "walk over there," or "I am going to sit here," or "You haven't rezzed: your face is still grey." All of these things make no sense at a literal level either: we aren't REALLY walking, sitting, or looking at faces in SL, are we?

I think I agree with this, to a point. There are no physical bodies present - only the mind. Through dialog and visuals, most of us form emotional responses to the virtual world we deliberately immerse ourselves in. Like reading a good book, we suspend our disbelief.

One such response could be feeling victimized by a situation, or rather a person within a situation. And if it's in a sexual context, it could feel to the person like sexual harassment or assault. Even though many will argue that it couldn't be. But what if the person is left with similar emotional "scars" as the real thing? Could they even be similar to the real thing? I won't hazard to guess. But whatever they are, they can be painful to the person, and shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.

If you treat SL like a game instead of a social environment, you aren't immersed and therefore aren't (as) susceptible to such feelings. And likely your empathy for those who are is pretty low.

Your not being a nice person, you're being condescending and rude. The man had bought up a valid point.


[/quote]

You sound so trite, like your changing your cake order in a cafe, playing little word games with the waiter.

It's terrible how you have belittled the horrors of rape on this forum. Rape is real and its serious, what you are doing here is weakening the meaning of the word by aligning it with peoples consensual cartoon fantasies. It is utterly disrespectful to victims of rape and "we" resent you deeply.

Well, for what it is worth, I pretty much agree with what you have to say here 100%.

It's not rape, it's just simple mental cruelty.

Pep (And it's not gender-orientated either, except to the extent that males tend to be less sensitive.)

My goodness! Such vitriol.

I am very sorry to hear that you have been the victim of sexual assault in RL. You speak for all victims of rape, do you?

What I find curious is that so many of those who think that discussing the relationship between RL rape and virtual harm in SL is "trivializing" the RL crime, while hopping on a "rape her" poseball and wanking off while fantasizing about sexual assaulting a women apparently isn't.

Well, yes, Pip, I agree. It isn't rape. Or anything much like it, except in the way that "virtual sex" is "like" RL sex. I've already suggested that I'm not sure it should be called "virtual rape."

I do think, as I've said elsewhere, however, that the sexualized aspect of the-form-of-griefing-formerly-known-as-virtual-rape IS a bit different from standard forms of griefing precisely because it is sexual. But yes, we agree: that still doesn't make it "rape."

Many people have dark fantasies. How they deal with them defines whether they are doing something wrong or not. Your latter case is a healthy way to deal with them. Get over it.

And just when we agree on something you go and spoil it!

Pep (*not* Pip! )

Maybe and maybe not. It's a documented fact that therapeutic role playing and "recreation" of the trauma does help some people. That said, I don't think any therapist worth her or his salt would prescribe anonymous and unregulated simulations with god only knows whom as the safest way of doing that.

In any case, I am not arguing, and have never argued, that consensual depictions of rape should be banned from SL. What any woman, RL rape victim or not, chooses to do in SL with a consenting partner is entirely her business.

So, you've rather miss my point. Why does talking about virtual violence against women "trivialize" rape, but playing at in SL not do so? It was this particular aspect of Meredith's post that I was taking issue with.

What an ignorant answer and yes I am angry. You can't see the difference? Here let me point it out a little clearer for you dear, there are less broken bones, cuts, bruises and concussion, do I really need to go on?

LOL.

Well, um. Easily explained: it's all about the association of ideas. See, I was just answering Meredith's post. Meredith=Victorian Author=Charles Dickens=The author of _Great Expectations_= . . . well, you get the idea.

Honestly.

Meredith, you are really off on some sort of weird tangent here. When have I ever equated SL rape with RL rape? The very first post I ever made on this forum made it clear that I didn't believe that there was some kind of reductive equation of the two, and it's a point I've never wavered from. Read the posts directly above this one.

What I am asking is why discussing sexualized virtual harm -- NONCONSENSUAL harm -- is "trivializing" rape, but using rape simulations for fun and profit in SL isn't?

I'm actually not particularly trying to argue that EITHER one "trivializes" rape (although arguments could certainly be made to that effect). I am merely pointing out an inconsistency in your criticism of me.

Your trivializing anything that points out you are wrong. Lay off rape victims with your little role play of political savant.

Well, Meredith, you're not really answering my question, but ok ...

What I will simply add is that what I was "trivializing" in Conan's posting was his contention that "Feminists would like that; if a man stops when the woman says no it would be too late, the offence has already been committed - off to jail with you." As statements of fact go, this one is right up there with "the moon is made of green cheese."

As for the issue of so-called "virtual rape," I dealt with that, without humour, in the second half of the post.

I didn't miss your point. I just didn't agree with your implied characterization of consensual fantasy rape.

Well, yes, actually. I think you are, if you are suggesting that I am arguing that consensual rape "trivializes" RL rape. I think that argument can be made, but I did not, and am not making it. It was inconsistency of Meredith's suggestion that I was responding to.

I'm honestly not quite sure where you think we disagree here.

Re-read the quote from me that you included in your post---and you will see that the point in contention was NOT, repeat NOT, 'is virtual rape = rape?'


...but INSTEAD was 'is the depiction of rape [in virtual worlds] a topic that can be discussed or is it a non-topic and therefore should never be discussed?'

These are not the same thing.