The Lord of the Flies - Child AVs and the Nursery Syndrome

Ultimately, I think it all comes down to tolerance and respect on both sides of the table. Representing oneself as a child in-world is a perfectly legitimate form of roleplay and is allowed in accordance with the community standards.

I think we were doing reasonably well staying in that direction until someone dropped in advocating the total ban of child avatars in SL. That is what set this thread off its rails.

Ultimately, I think it all comes down to tolerance and respect on both sides of the table. Representing oneself as a child in-world is a perfectly legitimate form of roleplay and is allowed in accordance with the community standards. Everyone needs to accept that fact and respect their right to be present anywhere they are not specifically banned. There is no reason why one cannot roleplay in "public" (that is, outside a specific roleplay region). However, that respect *must* go both ways. Child avatars must respect the fact that there are people on the grid who are not comfortable around child avatars, and respect their right to be on the same grid as them. This means toning down the roleplay outside of designated areas. Launching spitwads at passersby is not an appropriate level of roleplay in public areas, for example. It also means not imposing oneself on someone who has indicated he or she is not interested in "playing along".

Honestly, this does not apply just to child avatars. This applies to Gorean, to vampires, to nekos, to furries, to Elizabethan people, and every other aspect of roleplay in existence. One of the consequences of mixing a population of roleplayers and non-players together on the same grid is that each has to learn to tolerate and work with or around the other. This includes the idea that if one TPs into a setting that makes him or her uncomfortable, it is THAT person's responsibility to leave quietly, without passing judgment or stirring drama.

The analogy is certainly simplistic. It is not necessarily "false." I don't think that Des intended to suggest that EVERYONE placed in this kind of situation would necessarily eventually be driven to act out their fantasy. Yes, most people DO draw the line. But an awful lot don't. (I do agree, however, that fear of getting caught is not the reason why most don't.)

Again, what you say applies to the majority of people. But not to all. Convicted sex offenders DO frequently report that they used pornography frequently or compulsively, and that it sometimes fed their urge to commit RL crimes. That is NOT to imply a simple cause-effect relationship between porn and sexual crimes, but there is some kind of linkage there, clearly.

I think that this is probably, to some degree, true. But it is reductive in the extreme to suggest that there is therefore NO mental link between the fantasy and the reality. If there were not, why choose THESE kinds of fantasies at all?

This is a rather key point, isn't it? Is it only sexual abuse if it moves from an online molestation to an RL one?

One final point. As of 2008, MySpace alone had 29,000 registered sex offenders. The number would certainly be significantly smaller for SL, but we don't, of course, have a comparable statistical breakdown. The odds, however, of RL sex offenders using SL to act out their own interactive paedophilic fantasies is probably not insignificant. That lovely family man who is "consensually" RP a child molestation may not be so "lovely" after all.

I suppose so BUT being the FIRST child av. in sl must have been like being the first person to eat an oyster on a primeval beach. It took some daring.

Interesting analogy! There's a lot of things we eat that make me wonder what prompted the first person to eat it to do so. For example, what prompted the first person to eat a chicken egg, or drink cow's milk?

That is a rather bleak view of humanity. Most people have morals. Only a small percentage have no consciences whatsoever and are capable of doing anything.

Does anyone have any doubts that these people would not be committing crimes even if there was not a shred of porn on the planet? Cause I don't.

It's easy. If you can't tell fantasy from reality, you crazy.

No, but it's only molestation if the RL person is a RL kid.

Should we not be concerned more with exposing these individuals who are actual predators or should we just make a blanket rule so everyone feels sunshiney and happy like something was actually done about it... when in reality I would posit that most kids who would log in to SL would try to pass as adults but stand out like sore gesturbating thumbs to the predators doing the same in an attempt to gain their trust before IM'ing "A/S/L"?

Well Jig - it's probably not for you, but some of the most fun I ever had in SL is hanging around Mari and her buddies when they are doing something utterly innocent and silly, like having a blurtophone concert. (These have to be seen to be believed - complete silliness.) I suppose we could have been as silly in adult form, but maybe not so innocently silly.

For instance, we adults can be silly at the Hangout, but inevitably the conversation turns to adult innuendos. I enjoy these too, but it is just a different flavor of silliness than the kid avatar silliness.

I know I for one would find SL a sadder place without its kid avatars - though I have no desire to be one myself and I'm a little creeped out by kids in RL.

Sorry f'r my someone confrontational tone, I'm tired and a bit disappointed to have to go through this same topic over and over and over and over. I get it: you hate kids here and in RL. Yer welcome to do so.

Mari

But back to the main point...children AVs in SL have just as much a right to "your world, your imagination" as someone else does being an escort, stripper, or prostitute. I personally would rather hang out with the children.

Hmmm. In general, I agree, but a more committed "immersionist" might not, no? There are degrees to everything.

But back to the main point...children AVs in SL have just as much a right to "your world, your imagination" as someone else does being an escort, stripper, or prostitute. I personally would rather hang out with the children.

Hmmm. In general, I agree, but a more committed "immersionist" might not, no? There are degrees to everything.

Undeniably this is true. However, given the sheer numbers of children who have been molested, that 4% is still pretty significant. Do we sort of shrug our shoulders, and agree that "only" 4% is an "acceptable" casualty rate among our young?

When you think about it. That's 96% of kids that you are shrugging off as well. Is that acceptable to you to ignore the sheer amount of children being molested by people they know and to focus on the 4% ? How often have we gotten threads about the other 96% in here? Oh that's right. Zero. When was the last time that I've heard about child sexual abuse in the news that has focused on prevention within a family or a close circle of friends? Hmmm.. About zero. I mean it's great and all if we can get that percentage of kids molested by strangers down to zero but that just makes the 96% change to 100% doesn't it?

Otherwise leave people the hell alone. Other wise it's a nasty blurring of reality and fantasy going on and it's unhealthy for you and Lias and annoying and potentially damaging for the people you attempt control.

There are a variety of ways of dealing with such situations, and the first recourse should always, of course, be a polite and private IM requesting conformity to whatever the rules of that sim are. The respect has to work both ways.

I tend to agree with you, actually. But that doesn't mean we should just ignore the whole issue, and accept that the potential for damage is just part of the cost of freedom. There are other ways to approach this than through bans and legislation, most notably, education.

There are plenty of behaviours in SL that I find deeply objectionable, and I reserve my right to be vocal about why I think they are wrong, or dangerous, or what-have-you. (Your basic child avi is NOT one of those, btw.)

But, in the final analysis, it should be possible to disagree with someone's choices without going nuclear on them. I despise extreme right-wing politics, but to attempt to "ban" it would be even more objectionable than the phenomenon I am trying to get rid of.

Does this mean that we should ban porn? No. But it does mean that we should actively combat the attitudes that it may be instilling. The best way to alleviate any negative social behaviour (witness drinking and driving, for instance) is to educate people so that it becomes increasingly less acceptable. It won't stop the sociopaths, but it will help us guard against them, and recognize them better when we see these behaviours in action.

Except when they throw you off the train at the border for violating the region's dress code.

Oh no!

Second Life is not reality.

Kthxbai.

I am NOT opposed to child avs "per se"

Ian, I DO wish that sometimes you'd actually read my posts, rather than simply jumping to your customary conclusion that I am running around ARing people, and calling for bans.

And so, once again, I am left to ask the usual question of you: WHERE, exactly, in this thread, or in any other, have I signalled ANY interest in attempting to "control" people with child avis?


I'm not sure how I could have been clearer than this. So, unless you think that "educating" people about paedophilia is "controlling" them, perhaps you might rethink your attitudes towards me?

Please stop demonizing me, or trying to force me into your stereotypes about feminists. It's intensely boring.

If you force education upon people, by insisting constantly that we have be considerate and behave sexually by your standards it's wrong of you... My standards are very different.

Jig,

I respect your opinions on this, and feel no need to go over all this yet again. You've read my replies to you on this topic before the last times you went down this discussion path. I have also offered to discuss this inworld with you, even to the point of offering to adjust my avatar for your comfort.

If this is such a big issue for you, then own it, much like others (Lias, above, for example). Know that the issue *is* yours, and move on. Trying to make this a "discussion" yet again is not, IMO, going to get the answers you want. It is simply going to fuel yet another pitched battle. Perhaps this is what you wanted, I dunno.

Sorry f'r my someone confrontational tone, I'm tired and a bit disappointed to have to go through this same topic over and over and over and over. I get it: you hate kids here and in RL. Yer welcome to do so.

Mari

I stopped reading at this post. It says all that needs to be said, in my opinion.

Q: What do you get when you cross a word processor with a communications satellite?

A: A six-tonne Wang that wants to reach out and touch someone!

(if you remember when this actually made sense, I'll see you in the nursing home)

Of course. But again, that should not be an excuse to simply shrug off the problem, right?

Does this mean that we should ban porn? No. But it does mean that we should actively combat the attitudes that it may be instilling. The best way to alleviate any negative social behaviour (witness drinking and driving, for instance) is to educate people so that it becomes increasingly less acceptable. It won't stop the sociopaths, but it will help us guard against them, and recognize them better when we see these behaviours in action.

Hmmm. In general, I agree, but a more committed "immersionist" might not, no? There are degrees to everything.

Isn't that like saying the people who play Second Life are not real?

Second Life is something that real people, in real life, in real homes, play.

For the people who's lives have been ruined through divorce, family breakup, stalking cases, and assaults, all through SL being carried over into RL, I would say they have a very different idea about what constitutes reality.