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

Thanks Brenda. Really, that's what it's all about.

I think we can disagree on ways and means; I honestly believe that debate and discussion is good and nearly always worthwhile. And I have learned a great deal from you and others in this forum, even if it hasn't shifted me a great deal from my core position on these issues.

But it's good to know that, when it comes down to what really counts, we are on the same page.

Since posting this, I've been thinking about the possibility of having given a false impression: namely, that I think that women 'accused' of having incited whatever-happened-to-them, because of their choice of how to dress, should be obligated to explain or defend the way they dressed.

In non-virtual life, no one has the 'right' to physically attack another person, NO MATTER HOW THEY ARE DRESSED. Period.

And if someone who's been physically attacked is told 'well, you must have been dressed all sexed up', the proper response is NOT to say 'no I wasn't' or to offer a photo of their actual clothing....of course.

It should go without saying that the proper response is to point out that the person accusing them of having incited physical address is...a misguided individual.

NO ONE IS GIVEN A 'RIGHT' TO ATTACK SOMEONE BY THAT SOMEONE'S APPEARANCE.

But SL is NOT a place in which people get physically attacked.

And in SL, people DO signal their interest in various activities by the way they create the appearance of their avatars.

People who hope that new acquaintances will address them in Victorian fashion will dress in steampunk style; people who hope that new acquaintances will recognize their interest in Goth culture will dress in funereal black; people who hope that new acquaintances will kick them and give them orders will adopt submissive animations and dress. And so on.

Thus, if I had been 'dressed' to broadcast an interest in anonymous, no-strings sexual encounters, it would have been reasonable for someone flying overhead to notice this and land and offer an invitation.

But, I wasn't, and that was relevant to my account of this particular encounter.

So, to sum up: in the case of actual physical attack, the way the victim is dressed is completely and entirely irrelevant, for this reason: NO ONE HAS A RIGHT TO PHYSICALLY ATTACK ANOTHER PERSON. No matter how they are dressed.

But in a virtual world in which no physical attack can occur, the way people choose to create and dress their avatars CAN have some relevance to the question of how new acquaintances interact with them.

I just had to post a reply. I find it's not so much meeting other women and then finding out they are male? I meet them as men and before long they turn 'women' on me?
Maybe it's me or something?
I just don't get it? hahah
(had this happen 4 times so far and only been here a little less then 2 years)

I think you are comparing apples and oranges here. There are two different principles at work in what you describe, and both apply to both RL and SL.

I think clothing ALWAYS sends "signals," in RL and SL. There is a semiotics of dress that is always at work: that's why we dress a certain way for work, and another way for parties, or dancing, or what-have-you. And I think that goes for "sexy" clothing too.

That said, NO one dresses in a way that says "rape me." Not in RL, not in SL.

One might dress provocatively, in the hope of getting attention, but that is always just the precursor to conversation and the exchange of OTHER signals that may, or may not, let things proceed. Someone who simply jumps to the conclusion that a) sexy dress means I want sex, and b) sexy dress means I don't care whom I am having sex with (i.e., please go right ahead and jump me, whoever you are), is missing a whole lot of steps in what is really a very long and complicated process of communication. And the most important of these steps is the granting of consent.

So, if someone sees you wearing something skimpy and sexy, they may be right to take that as a signal that you are interested in attracting attention . . . and possibly sexual attention. But that's still a LONG way from saying "I want to have sex with YOU, even though we haven't talked, I don't know you, etc. etc. etc." So the person who hits on you with "Wanna have sex" in SL in that context is NOT communicating properly, and assuming WAY too much on the basis of a very simple and ambiguous sign.

My free will does NOT reside in my clothing. For that reason, what I am wearing is NEVER a sign of my "consent": a skimpy tee shirt and tight skirt cannot say "yes, I want to have sex." That is MY job, thank you very much. At most, my clothing can intimate that I am interested in the possibility.

There is another point here, in relation to RL. Consent, however it is signalled, is NEVER irrevocable. Even if I DO agree to have sex with you, I am NOT simply surrendering my free will for the duration. I don't care WHAT you are doing, or where you've got your John Thomas: if I say "STOP," that is my right, and you'd better do so immediately, or you ARE guilty of rape. The argument that a woman who signals that she wants sex is then simply at the mercy of the man until he's done his business is, frankly, appalling; the man who argues that he "can't help himself" is lying.

So, two different issues: 1) how clothing functions as a "sign," and 2) the issue of consent, which is what is really at the heart of the definition of rape. And both, I think, are very applicable to RL and SL, even if there are subtle differences between the two in the semiotics of clothing, and mechanics of consent.

There *appear* to be postings from lots of *female* nerds here (which may be misleading) because, from my observations:

1. if you are a male faking female, when you have time to consider what you are posting it is easier to be consistent and convincing than when you are typing on the fly in chat or IM

2. if you are a male faking female, it is a lot safer posting here than inworld, as you are not going to be called out on your gynaecological or other information where your knowledge is likely to be sketchy in what is supposed ot be a PG forum.

3. *females* appear not to feel the need to read threads and hence post what someone else has already posted anyway, just for something to say.

4. *females* appear more ready to post "me too" observations, contributing nothing but satisfying their misguided desire for self-promotion.

5. *females* quote large inconsequential vanity pictures even when they have been displayed several times, presumably because of thoughtlesness or in the hope of mutual attention.

The above don't apply to *all* females obviously, but enough to swing the balance in the direction you note, Nika.

Pep (presumes that some actual females pose as males in the forums in the hope that their assumed gender will lend their opinions more gravitas.)

PS I have never worked out why female builders would want to wear high-lag avatars. Functionally and to avoid unwanted attention a basic n00b would make considerably more sense.

Or builders of any gender, for that matter.

I'm relatively new to SL and understand that perhaps more experience of the environment is necessary before I take an informed view on all this.

From a RL perspective however Scylla your inclusion of semiotics in your argument is interesting, particularly in a world where (it seems to me) that reliable "signs" are scarce and easily misconstrued. This is particularly true where there is such a predominance of RP interactions.

Also your argument appears to duck around the issue of mens rea relied upon to gain conviction in a rape case... at least in the UK. This requires, I believe, that a rapist must know or be reckless as to whether the other party is not consenting. "No means No" works well as a rallying cry but proves woefully deficient in the real world when dealing with the complexity of real world cases, where the Morgan test provides (rightly I believe) for a 'mistaken belief in consent'.

I appreciate your standpoint and agree that every vulnerable person be made aware of the dangers (whether they be male. female or simply RPing those genders), and I am in no way an apologist for rapists.

I think however that the argument is done a disservice by painting men on the whole as misogynistic and women as only unsophisticated gatekeepers.

As someone who has the sophistication to bring semiotics to an argument would probably agree, we are all responsible for the signals we give out.. how they may be interpreted.. and most of all an understanding of their potential repurcussions.

Stephen I didn't get that at all from Scylla's post. She hasn't portrayed women as the gatekeepers. She has simply (and eloquently, btw) said that how a woman is dressed does not have anything to do with her consent.

Some guys can't get it in their heads that women do not 'owe' them sex and it may not even be on the table. Some guys think it is always 'on the table' just a question of 'which guy' and skimpy clothing only intensifies the feeling with *some* guys. I never saw Scylla say 'all men' or 'all women' anything. That was how I saw her post - I'm sure she can reply for herself, but that's how I saw it.

It just puzzles me sometimes how a very clear post can be misconstrued - I think men do not understand our position in life as women at all, sometimes.

I won't even address Pep's post Lol, except to say it isn't 'self promotion' when women show support by saying 'me too' it's support. And yes even just simple agreement.

BTW I can't help but think of the recent 'gym shooter' blog when I read some of the posts, because it reminds me that some people actually do think sex with a given person is, well, a given.



I find that statement scary in its implied meaning - is that not a fancier way of saying 'if you dress sexy you deserve it?'

If one avatar with chichi hair causes enough lag for you to notice even in the middle of the most complex building job there's something wrong with your computer. I mean something seriously wrong, even my old Mac Mini G4 didn't behave differently because of all the twisted truncated toroids in my tail.

I don't notice any lag when building regardless how I'm dressed.

tl;dr but I agree anyway, and here's a picture of a sweet bunny rabbit.



Pep (waits for a deluge of "I agree with Clarissa" posts.)

Me too - I mean to Clarissa's post. I'm empathtic and there's no cure.

If that's how it came across, then I apologise, because nothing could be further from the truth.

As I say, I've not been in SL long enough to know if there's an entitlement culture of any variety .. let alone one relating to sex.

My point is that from the view point of semiotics (of any flavour) verbal signals make up only one relatively small thread of a complex and often difficult to interpret web of understanding.

Bearing this in mind, and bearing what I believe is a fair statement of the law in this matter as regards the mens rea of consent (admittedly based on the actions of a "reasonable" person), the most pragmatic advice would probably be to keep your signals as clear and unmixed as possible.

I think the simplistic perceived entitlement to "No means No" regardless of circumstance or previous behaviour actually puts more people in danger than a more realistic commonsense approach to behaviour.

Rape is a terrible crime, all sex should be consentual, but consent may be implied (even by a reasonable person) from a myriad web of concurrent messages.

A verbal "NO" will always be interpretted within a context and I think people should be cautious about the context they imply with all aspects of their behaviour.

/me Controls myself...No! I'm not going to write "me too".

The acid test is whether they are multi-tasking. I'm dealing with my grocery delivery, cooking my lamb and typing on this forum - so I must be female.

I suck at multitasking, but that's typical for ferrets, we're easily distrac...

Hey, put me down!

atually I think you were on a better track with your real world example....

I don't think the way anyone chooses to present themselves is necessarily an indication of anything past that they wanted to look that way. clothing (or even lack of it) is not an implied invitation, (unless they happen to be holding a sign that says "I want the sex!" or somesuch)

What proportion of male avatars in gay mens' clubs are RL women? Probably not 99.999recurring%, but about 20% is my totally off-the-top-of-my-head guess.

One thing that I suspect some clubgoers of both genders do is to have an avatar of their real gender and create an alt of the opposite gender as a partner for them. No, I haven't done that but.........................maybe one day, temporarily, perhaps for CD3R (Conifer Dada's third rez-day)!

I am male in all worlds and I have a sizeable album of 'samples' of unasked pics by overanxious females. My point is, there is no difference between men and women...

I have a few thoughts on that point:

Perhaps such a person has a nearly empty sim on which to work where lag is not a problem. It's also likely that she will be photographed next to her work, to give scale to her creation.

It's possible that this person creates shapes for avatars, and intends to make clothes and possibly hair in the near future.

Having a n00b avatar gives the impression that one actually *is* a n00b, which attracts unwanted attention of a different kind.

Maybe she doesn't want to be distracted by looking like crap while she's working.

.

/me faints

.

/me sends Pep a nice miniskirt and a "Welcome to womanhood" kit for when s/he gets her first period.
.

Ah, deep waters indeed.

The mens rea approach, at least when applied on its own, provides only a hideously simplistic test to judge whether or not rape has occurred: it holds, at least as it was defined in the Morgan case, that a man cannot be convicted of rape if he “in fact believed that the woman consented, [even] if such belief was not based on reasonable grounds.” (My emphasis.) What this means, in practice, is that a man need not even demonstrate that it was REASONABLE to think that consent was given. As Catherine MacKinnon has noted, it is in the INTEREST of the man to be oblivious to the signals being provided by the woman. In the instance of the Morgan case, those "signals" including screaming, struggling vigorously, and calling to her children to phone the police ...

One way around this pretty obviously misogynist approach to rape law is to tighten the test by making it necessary that there be a REASONABLE assumption of consent. And THAT brings us to the approach that I (and, needless to say, others) would use as the real acid test: clear signals of consent.

In SL, it is actually pretty easy to signal a lack of consent: you can hop off the pose ball. That won't necessarily stop the texting or other forms of griefing, but in ALL cases it unambiguously says that the woman has withdrawn consent.

RL is, as you note, a much more complicated affair, in large measure because the semiotic is much more complicated than clicking on "Stand Up." That said, your suggestion that a woman remains "responsible" for the signals she sends is only valid to a point, because it overlooks the ability, and RIGHT of a woman to change her message, clarify it, or issue a new one, at any time.

In the "good old days," a man didn't have to worry about that happening overmuch, because there was an implicit assumption that once a woman said "yes," she had more or less ceded control over her body to the man. That no longer applies. I agree that women today have to be MUCH more careful about the signals they are sending if they wish to retain the right to say "no" at any time: if a couple are playing at "rape" rp, and "no no no!" is being spoken "in character," then obviously "no" is no longer a valid signal as a means of stopping the proceedings. But THAT is why BDSM routinely employs the use of "safe words," which can be employed by EITHER partner, at ANY time, to end the RP.

In the context of non RP sex, the signals need not be so artificial: if a woman, in the course of normal intercourse, goes from shouting "yes yes yes" to screaming "no no NO, STOP!," I'd say that constitutes a pretty unambiguous withdrawing of consent. And THAT, in turn, is why the provision that the man must have a "reasonable" cause to believe that consent has been given is so important: precisely so that the semiotic can function properly. A man who misreads that is stepping outside of the established language system, and insisting upon his OWN (mis)reading of the signals being sent.

Human communication is, as you note, always complex and fraught with difficulties. But there ARE clear and unambiguous signs that consent has been withdrawn available to the woman: the man who ignores them is doing so, 99% of the time, willfully, and is therefore a rapist.

As a woman in FL (but not always in SL ), I believe this is a very important point. Unlike Clarissa, I do think Scylla descends into the simplistic, which inevitably portrays women as gatekeepers and men as unmitigated predators, which is unfortunate since the semiotic argument is a complex and interesting one.

However, to keep it simple, saying that a woman has the right to say 'no' at any stage is to ignore two very important factors, of which personal responsibility is one. Neither a woman nor a man can act, dress, or behave anyway they like without reference to the situation. This has nothing to do with the right to wear what you want, or to suppose that you're somehow 'asking for it', but everything to do with a sense of perspective and an understanding of actions and consequences. The pendulum of feminism has swung too far when women absolve themselves of that responsibility in favour of heaping blame on the opposite sex.

The other - and I mean this seriously - is hormonal. It's all very well to think you can lead a man to believe you'll have sex with him right up until the last minute, then expect everything to stop dead the moment you say 'no', but this shows a woeful ignorance of the power of testosterone. Most men are truly decent and do put the brakes on, but women would do well to understand that it's not all that easy to control this most powerful of male hormones. After all, we expect EVERYONE to understand that we 'can't help it' when we turn into the harridan from hell with PMS.

Not that I think this has much to do with SL at all - Scylla already knows that this is where she and I part company. All the empowerment I need in SL is contained in the power to teleport or log out - and that assumes I'm not the instigator of some wicked act in the first place

More importantly; how many of those SL women are actually all the same sweaty guy?

Heeeeee's Baaaaaaack!

Just when you thought The Metaverse (tm) was safe!