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

Didn't you ask me a question in that post to which I was replying?

It sounds as though you're upset that I replied to your question.

Ponsonby - I am going to fix dinner now. I said I would do it later tonight, when I have more time. I'm a wee bit agitated that the others were not required to do so....but I'm not going to cower into a corner and play the victim over it. I'm going to eat dinner, and forget about it for several hours....if you don't mind.

Actually, no she doesn't, at all.

I've seen you reduce arguments about privacy to emotional issues, however.

Your post above doesn't even make sense really. If a person is lost why would they try to educate others? Nor did I see Scylla or anyone say that women must educate men. Only that bottom line, no is no. It isn't right to blame the victim.

You talk about people making themselves into victims when in almost every case it's been about someone drawing a line (literally, in the case of ban lines) to stand up for themselves. Does not sound like a victim stance, to me.

Your about as essential as mud. haaa
Ciera(obtuse pep is obtuse)

HEY!! Don't slight mud like that!

..and I was about to take a mud bath, too. *grumbles*

The owner removed the parrot before it got nipped.

The ferret, that is...

Parrots is mean.

In regards to your request, Ponsonby....I chose the following, and provided an explanation.



Implies that adult women are frightening and sad and needy and irresponsible because they are comfortable in making judgments on when right is right for them (based on life experiences and learning)...as opposed to when the timing is acceptable to Scylla without Scylla knowing their exact life experiences and accumulation of knowledge. And I'm not real comfortable with someone exploiting their sisterhood in order to supply an example.



Implies that men are continually at fault for unacceptable behaviors, which I, as a woman, prefer not to perpetuate throughout another century.



No, we are not. I prefer to take action in RL rather than to ramble on in SL and "visualize" action. And have done so.




Implies that an adult woman does not have sense enough to hit the X button to log off.



Whether one is roleplaying or considering SL to be an exact version of RL is often confusing to men AND women on who is playing it one way, and who is playing it another way. To imply that it is a man's responsibility to interpret for both parties.....again, indicates that the woman has no sense or capabilities. And again....promotes bashing of men in general.




No - this is not clear in SL. People attempt SL in very different ways, and this is not a newsflash. To imply that the man is a rapist....is going a wee bit too far, and implies that the woman is a victim. To label the man as a rapist....implies that women do not have the sense to understand many nuances of SL, nor the sense to understand some very simple controls such as clicking and muting.



If you don't understand it....leave it alone, rather than judge and dissect.



Insult. Plain and Simple. This post was followed by an extremely long post, #123, written with the same Tone. And the reason that I did not sugarcoat when stating opinion that set you off. I tend to watch the tones when responding, and respond similarly.



This implies that women who do not wish to discuss the subject at hand...are overly emotional - based on the use of the buzz word "hot-button."



Those who make a separation between Real Life and a Virtual World are entitled to their opinion as well. All my training in Psychology and Life in General lead me to believe that this is the healthier way to approach it, and I don't mind stating so.



I posted an opinion that I do NOT want to see women portrayed this way. It was very clear and straightforward. Yet she uses this exact description of how I do NOT want to see women portrayed to imply that I see women that way. Probably used as a tactic or ploy more so than part of the actual discussion - but it pissed the hell out of me.

I think that the above is sufficient to back up my opinion. Those were merely a few. If more are required, let me know.

Wow, Mickey. You really know how to have a fun evening!

I suppose I should probably go through these various quotes one by one, and demonstrate how pretty much all of them are distortions, misreadings, or have been taken out of context, but I confess that right at THIS moment, I have other things to do.

What I will do, however, is note that you have not really answered Ponsonby's question here. This is what she actually asked you:


She was NOT asking you to demonstrate that you disagreed with me, or even that my views are misguided or wrong. She was asking you to back up your claim regarding my supposed "lack of concern" for women.


To take issue with my ideas and viewpoints is one thing, and entirely legitimate. In fact, it is arguably one of the functions of this forum.

This is not what you do.

What you in fact say is that my MOTIVES are suspect, and that I have no "genuine concern for women." What you seem to be implying is that I am some kind of poseur, or "faux" feminist, who is faking my concern for women (i.e., it is not "genuine" with some other agenda in mind.

To debate me on the merits of my arguments is one thing. To attack my motives, on the other hand, is really nothing more than a personal slander, an ad hominem attack that sidesteps my actual viewpoints, and attacks me as a person instead. Do you REALLY believe that everyone who does not agree with you must, necessarily, be "faking" his or her concern? Is it not just possible that someone can have a different perspective from yourself, and yet be every bit as committed to the cause of women as you yourself?

Whatever else this lengthy response to Ponsonby's request may or may not demonstrate, it does nothing to prove that I do NOT have real concern for the welfare of women. That you fail to prove this comes, needless to say, as no surprise to me, as it is, in fact, an utter falsehood.

Perhaps you'd care to try again, and address the actual issue that Ponsonby asked about?

Or perhaps you'd like to retract the suggestion that I my concern for women is not "genuine"?

In my opinion, a genuine concern for women, would involve promoting concepts that do not continually portray women as examples that I highlighted. I also believe that continually portraying men as some of the examples given above, is of no benefit to women. (or men)

My opinion was also formed by many months worth of your postings. I don't feel it necessary to do the above with each one of those.

No, I do not wish to retract.

If you wish for me to retract, based on you viewing this as slander, then I will. I don't consider it slander. It was requested by Ponsonby, and it's her thread. I thought that I followed instructions, and no, I did not particularly care to spend my evening this way.

I have no problem with people disagreeing with me. I do have a problem with a select few implying that I am not allowed to share an opinion.

I don't believe that it is necessary to hash it out any further.

Mickey, I am sorry, I really DON'T wish to keep hammering you about this. I get the sense that you are somewhat upset over the whole thing, and I am honestly sorry about that. But I am afraid I am not going to let anyone get away with the assertion that I don't have a "genuine concern for women."

Do you not understand how illogical is a leap from a disagreement with my views on this subject, to the conclusion that, because we disagree, I clearly "don't care" about women?

Frankly, I'm not very clear on what your views ARE, as you don't really express them; you simply react to me. But I can assure that, disagree with them as I am sure I do, I DO NOT question YOUR sincere concern for the welfare of women. I believe we can disagree, and yet still have the same end in mind. I am sure you care very deeply. As, believe me, do I.

Why is it so difficult for you to accept that two people can disagree, and still genuinely care?


I don't recall anyone suggesting that you weren't allowed to share an opinion. I think you were asked to back up your opinion with some evidence, with is a rather different thing. Honestly, I have no wish to silence you. Nor, so far as I can recall, does anyone else.

Fine. You did not let me get away with it. You expressed your opinion above, and you're welcome to have that as final word. I already expressed my opinion.

To explain further on how I feel that your views are damaging to women, I would have to give detailed RL information, and I do not do that on the Internet.

I rarely respond to any of your posts. Consider it a Blessing.

WARNING: LONG AND EXTREMELY DULL POINT-BY-POINT REFUTATION!!!

READING THIS MAY CAUSE DROWSINESS. DO NOT READ WHILE DRIVING.

Ok, Mickey, here goes ...


No, it does not imply that “adult women” are anything. It states directly that I have had some friends who have done this. “My women friends,” as popular as I am , do NOT constitute all “adult women.”


This is rather garbled. Where do I say that men are “continually” at fault? Where do I even say that asking for an RL pic is an “unacceptable behaviour”? What I in fact say is that “males will sometimes” ask for pics within minutes of meeting me. Which is, in fact, nothing more than an observation, and one that I suspect other women on this forum can verify, even if you can't.

It's hard to see how an observation about what some men “sometimes” do can be read as a slander on the whole sex.


Well, this remark wasn't addressed to you in the first place, so your assertion that we are “not” on the same page is hardly very germane.

Glad to hear that you are “taking action” on women's issues in RL. So am I.

Next point?


Well Mickey, if you look at the passage you've cited here, you will note that the very first sentence reads “in relation to RL.” Not SL. There is no X button in RL. At least, not that I've ever found.


Again, this is pretty garbled. I'm rather unclear here on how I am implying that it is the “man's responsibility to interpret for both parties.” It is the man's responsibility to interpret what the woman is communicating to him, namely, that consent has been withdrawn. Far from having “no sense or capabilities,” the woman in the scenario that I am describing is VERY vigorously asserting her will, her “sense or capabilities,” by telling the man that she has withdrawn consent.

It is also something of a leap to proceed from my statement “A man who misreads ...” to the suggestion that I am promoting “bashing of men in general.”


Well, again, the subject of the particular post that you are quoting is RL rape, and not SL, as a reasonably careful reading of it should have indicated to you.

In this very same post, I make it quite clear that the situation in SL is very different:


My next sentence unambiguously turns the subject of my post, including the quote you cite above, to the topic of rape in RL:


This post was almost entirely about RL, in fact, yet you continually reference it as though I was talking about SL.


Sorry, what is there in this comment that indicates that I “don't understand” BDSM? Can you be more specific? What detail have I got wrong here, exactly?

And what does this have to do with your overall point, that I don't “genuinely” care for women, anyway?


Yep! Based on my apparent misreading of Dana's post. And for which I apologized (see Post #136).

I'm not sure what this has to do with anything, however. Are you suggesting that I am insulting all womankind by being nasty to Dana?


No, it implies that a select few in this forum, including “you, and for a number of others,” find this a hot-button issue, because you respond so virulently to it. I make no generalization about “women who do not wish to discuss the subject at hand.” In fact, such women probably DON'T join the thread at all, and hence are not even at issue.


I frankly have no idea how you have arrived at your response, based on the quoted segment of my post. I don't say anywhere, and certainly not in this posting, that separating RL and SL is a bad thing.

To study SL as an “interesting and popular social phenomenon” does not imply a merging of RL and SL, any more than a study of TV sitcoms or detective fiction suggests that they are seamlessly interwoven with our RL experiences.



Sorry you got pissed.

What your opinion in fact implied is that I viewed all women as “victims,” and that, as such, I viewed all women as "sniveling, groveling, [and] weak." What THIS characterization of victimization inadvertently reveals is that YOU view all women as "sniveling, groveling, [and] weak."

Let me put it another way: even assuming that I see all women as victims (which I do not), why should you assume that that necessarily means that I see all women as "sniveling, groveling, [and] weak"?

In point of fact, I see victims as . . . victims. Their victimization has nothing to do with THEIR qualities, and everything to do with those who have victimized them. Anyone can be a victim.

Mickey, you'll understand, I hope, that I had to respond to these, as they are pretty much all either straight-out wrong, or distortions. I'm quite willing to let this drop.

Please do, however, try to have a bit of respect for those with whom you disagree.

I understand you having to respond, Scylla. I would have done the same thing. Enjoy your evening, and don't lose any sleep over it.

Thank you, Mickey. And the same to you.

Yet, you don't start threads about violence against women anymore. Why is that?



While you have toned down the remove all objects/skins/animations in some of your previous postings- it is the feeling that my interests/SL experience etc. might be silenced that make me react. We all have the ability to tailor our SL experiences as we see fit. Trying to silence the activities of others is no less damaging than trying to silence the opinions of others.

Reading through this, I am a bit lost as to where you are feeling silenced? Just because others have strongly opposing viewpoints makes them no less valid than yours.

Funny you should say that, Melodie ...


I don't recall EVER having called for the "removal" "all objects/skins/animations," etc. But that said, I will agree that discussion with others here, and elsewhere, has led me to soften my views somewhat in some areas.

Pretty much the only concession I've ever asked for from BDSM and rape play users is that the RP be carried out in private, away from the public eye. Does this really constitute "trying to silence the opinions of others"?


I have never suggested that opposing viewpoints were less valid; in fact, in a number of places in THIS thread, not to mention others, I have suggested the contrary. I might provide an example from the very block quote that you cite:


The reference to the attempt to silence me derives from two things: firstly, from the insistence from a few that I "stop derailing threads," an accusation that the OP herself here refutes, and that is pretty rich in any case, given the way that most threads in this forum progress. Secondly, from Waterstar's rather transparent appeal to the "troll" principle:


Which translates pretty accurately as "Gosh, sorry I fed the troll, folks!" The highly suspect apology to "everyone" in a thread where, in fact, the majority including the OP herself were quite happily contributing to the discussion, is, again, a bit rich. What Waterstar is pretty directly requesting here is that "everyone" ignore me. I call that an attempt to silence me, by means of ostracism.

Pep (Well?)

ETA I am used to people not reading the posts of other people, but when you don't read your *own* posts . . .

I think it's just you and me now, Pep.

*YAWN*

Shouldn't you be busy eating a nutritious breakfast of bangers, eggs, and beans? And fried bread?

Interesting thread!

I have thought about that but don't really care as after all it is second life and up to them who they want to be and I don't think they all do it for that reason and it probably happens the other way around - 'Man' to Man but not so often

You can't be serious.

Waterstar is "pretty directly" announcing her intent to silence HERSELF. In labeling your posts a derailment and crusade, she is simply expressing her opinion of your topic and manner. Waterstar did not use the term troll -- a troll is a person who makes statements solely for the purpose of causing disruption. You have an agenda which you make fairly clear. You derail threads, but you do so with a purpose.

Your exaggeration of Waterstar's words in order to cast yourself as her victim is good debate technique. But ultimately it's bad tactics, because it is as absurd as your wish to protect SL sexplayers from themselves. In many interactions there are no victims. This is true of not only Waterstar's post but also of consensual sexplay between adults in SL. No one is forced to witness violent sex in SL, let alone engage in it. So far as I have always been able to tell, all participants either have fun or they hit that omnipresent Quit button. It is, therefore, unlike gratuitous violence which is forced on unwitting watchers during RL newscasts, TV ads, or soap operas -- which are much more the sort of embedded exposure to which the research you've mentioned pertains.

Long ago, people were derailing multiple threads to be silly about panties. It got old, and I (among others), said so. Your derailing multiple threads to advance your political activism is also getting old. To me, it is more objectionable than thread derailments for silliness, because you are proselytizing a set of judgments that could easily lead to censorship.

Breathe. Go for a walk. YOU might try answering a few threads about banister textures - it's very calming.
.

No eggs!

Pep (Have you *seen* where they come from? )

They tend to come from female chickens, though eggs of other critters have been consumed over time by humans; the eggs seem almost always to be from the female (I do not know of a critter that has eggs come from the male, but there are some strange creatures out there, like the egg-laying mammal platypus (female there)). And I know how much you dislike women.

Hmm, I just learned platypus have venomous spurs on their webbed feet. Everything seems to be poisonous down there in Australia.

According to Scylla’s outbursts, that would appear to include me!

I’ve spent the past six hours, on and off, musing whether to post one more time. Pep’s response seemed almost too good to displace as a final post, but now that it’s been dislodged from that enviable position, I will make my final contribution to this thread.

Scylla, I would have to be especially adept to ‘have ignored your views’, while at the same time adopting you as a ‘special project’. I have done neither, nor have I attempted to silence you. Unfortunately, you perceive personal attack where there is none.

Both Nika and Mickey, among others, were able to correctly interpret my posts; you could not, which I think illustrates nicely my point about what can get lost or misinterpreted between writer and reader, actor and acted-upon.

Nika was spot on about my intention - my decision to withdraw from the discussion came right after I recognised that, despite your seemingly measured and sage tone, you use myriad small devices to indicate that you have little respect for women (or men) who do not share the view that this is the hot-button issue of the century in a virtual worlds forum.

In fact, my post was a pretty open expression of my annoyance with myself for getting drawn into discussion about an important subject in an inappropriate place, in which justice cannot be done to such a complex issue.

Your response, sadly, was to adopt the stance of victim by complaining about ad hominem attacks, to snipe at my supposed self-appointed role, sneer at those whose opinion differs from your fast-held one, and claim that I am inciting ostracism.

To top it off, you accuse me of applying ‘school-marmish gravitas’ - I suggest you take a good long look in the nearest mirror.

Really? So how come? Obviously its an issue that you are passionate about, yet it comes across as thread hijacking when it shows up in other threads rather than on its own. While this and the banline thread may have developed that on their own; shouldn't it warrant the start of its own thread?



Was this before or after wanting the sexually violent content to be even further removed than just at Zindra? I did not say you were trying to silence the opinions of others, I said:


It comes across more as a crusade to sanitize SL for the protection of women when reading a cumulative amount of what you have posted here and elsewhere on the subject. As for the "all objects/skins/animations"; that is how it comes across when you are in a BDSM sim ARing the poseballs there.

As for feeling that those who keep saying that you are hijacking threads are trying to silence you, that is just the impression others get when seemingly unrelated threads turn to this. If it is possible for so many threads to become this subject then it must be important enough to be examined on its own, isn't it?

It does get hard to be casually following, kind of laughing at the thread this started out as, and suddenly find that it has turned into another about rape and assault. It takes a bit of backtracking and figuring out where the heck that came from. Some might not back track and just groan with a "here we go again" reaction. Personally, it does more damage to me as a survivor of such violence to see it crop up again and again in threads where I don't expect it.

Well, speaking in a generically anatomical sense, they come from the same place that you did ...

Scylla (No, I am not calling you a chicken. Although you can be awfully fowl-tempered )