Is it Safe to Have Therapy, Baby?

Duly noted. I'll have to consider that a bit more closely.

I hardly think that having a child avatar, or any other type of RP previously cited in this thread, compares with the over-the-top examples that you have given.

It was not my intention to "classify all who have reservations" as judgmental and patronizing. What I objected to (albeit apparently not clearly enough for you) was the heavily biased language that was used by Jig in the original post. It *is* possible to have reservations and ask questions without coming off as judgmental.

Apparently I'm not the only one who felt that way, as others threw in the J-word well before I did.

As Jig has since replied, it was in fact her *intention* to stir up reactions with the language that she used, which answers my post to my satisfaction. (Thanks, Jig.)

To assume that it is never legitimate to object to the insensitive use of language by others is is, quite simply, intolerant.

That crack about being witless clearly demonstrates your immense tolerance for others.

So it's only a pose?

If you don't care one way or the other about a particular issue that's a known hot-button for others, it isn't very sporting to push the button just to see the fire engines come.

I'm witless? Who sez I'm "witless"? LOL!!
hahahahhahaa.

(actually, I am witless - its easier to pretend to be clever than to pretend to be stupid)

PS I know comment wasnt meant for me

THIS is why I respect you (whether I agree with you or not) and feel comfortable to question your statements. You give every question an honest answer, and I can see by your posts that you do take the time to think about what others say.

Your desire to kick the hornets' nest makes me uncomfortable, but since you have stated clearly that this was your intention, I can be OK with that. Life is too short for grudges or bad wine!

***hugs Jig***

Ofcourse its a "pose" - I express views in my real work and interview and comment and do all that stuff. If I believed in everything I said or did in my real life I wouldn't be hired. It's my job to create controversial viewpoints from others.

Thank you, Malia (by the way) I appreciate what you said and hug you back. Now get right back to dissent and debate. Stop hugging now.
Okay, stop.
No stop Malia.
Malia, let go now.
Malia!

Actually it's feeling pretty good. mmmmmmmmmmm.

Nah, apparently I'm witless for having the audacity to sass you back.

I'm actually a sort of a soft, tawny light brown with big, deep, soulful eyes behind my spectacles.

More Watership Down than Thumper, though.

One of my hobbies is snaring bunnies and hanging them up and then cooking them, My Grandfather taught me. I love rabbit stew.

I appreciate what you said and hug you back. Now get right back to dissent and debate. Stop hugging now.
Okay, stop.
No, stop, Malia!
Malia, let go now. Malia, I'm getting turned on by this.
Malia!
People are looking. Okay, let them look. But ...
Malia this is PG for God's sake!

Actually it's feeling pretty good. mmmmmmmmmmm.

Jig, I suspect most therapists would be more interested in helping you discover why the way others choose to present themselves in a virtual world, particularly adults presenting in a childlike manner, bothers you so much.

1) [EDITED TO REMOVE INCORRECT AND SELF-RIGHTEOUS COMMENT - mw]

2) My post was not meant as a personal "attack", nor did Jig receive it that way. As you obviously feel that it was, I apologize to you for my lack of sensitivity, tolerance and tact.

Wowie... I think I need a cigarette... and I don't even smoke.

As for further debate, well... it seems to me that the underlying issue that you were obliquely getting at in the OP was the question of whether people are attempting to use SL as a form of therapy, and if so, is this safe. This question can apply to SL at large, not just child RP.

What is "therapy"?

There is psychotherapy, which when I Googled "define: psychotherapy" I got such a broad range of definitions that it seems there is little agreement as to what it is. I will select the one that seemed the most general.
Psychotherapy would seem to fit your concern of being dangerous without professional support, as it can bring up deep-seated issues and emotions. I don't know if it is possible to perform psychotherapy on oneself via RP... ?

Then there is therapeutic value, which can be found in almost anything, a three-year-old's favorite blanket, reading a good book, sitting in a hot tub, or listening to music.

I suspect that most of us could claim that we use SL for therapeutic reasons at some time or another, and that this is not dangerous (unless we lose balance between SL and RL, which could lead us to a psychotherapist).

My goodness, what a personal attack!

Can you cite any statements or comments I've made that would support your attack?

If you can't, you must realize that the impression you create in your readers is that when you come across arguments you can't refute, your one and only resort is personal attack.

I would guess once you realize that this is the impression you're creating, you might want to remedy the situation. A great way to do that would be to cease the out-of-the-blue ad hominem attacks, and instead actually address the arguments and postions with which you disagree.

Thank you for taking the time to think about it and share your thoughts so openly.

It is a curious thing. I think there are things that may bother one person and appeal to another, and the reasons for it may not be clear at all, just a visceral feeling as you described.

I feel that way about body piercing; even though it's been mainstream for at least a decade, and I know that people do it by choice, it makes me feel queasy. Maybe someday I'll ask a therapist about that... ?

You made some excellent, sensible points (your full post is back on page 5, for those who'd like to read it).

I think it's a measure of the deeply-seated emotional nature of this topic for some regulars on this forum that your very reasonable points have been ignored. The default position, here, seems to be 'anyone who has any sort of questions or concerns or reservations about child avatars is bad and wrong and sick in the head'.*



*(Yes, I can cite examples, from posts made in this very thread among others, that demonstrate that mindset!)

Saw Alexander's post and neither agreed nor disagreed with it enough to post a reply to it, Ponsonby.

Originally Posted by Ponsonby Low [in post 61]:
I believe that point is fairly clear from my post, but in case it is not: the incessant attempts to label those who express reservations about any practice---in this case the use of child avatars in SL---as "judgmental", "patronizing", or easily "disturbed" (to name three attacks employed in the post to which I was replying) constitutes intolerance for the viewpoints of others.








The post of mine that you quote (#61 in this thread) was a reply to your post #56, in which you wrote:

"Perhaps the real question here is, why does the idea of roleplaying a child disturb you so much?"


I'm not sure what degree of self-righteousness of the "Do not falsely quote me" variety is justified as a response to the use of "disturbed" rather than "disturb", but I suspect it's a pretty low one.

Are you claiming that I've expressed such an assumption?

If so, where? (Exact post and sentences, please--no unsubstantiated generalizations about what you think I believe or feel.)

Oh, okay. Then I guess I don't need to respond sincerely or truthfully.

You misread my post (this is #61, the one to which you originally replied to me).

Note, now, that the person I was replying to was NOT talking about whether or not there should be child avatars in SL.

That person was talking NOT about whether child avatars should exist, but about the discussions people have about child avatars.

And I, too, was posting about these discussions---NOT about the topic of whether child avatars should exist. Thus, I was NOT making analogies for the purpose of saying 'having a child avatar is as bad as mutilating children or dogs, etc.'

Instead, I was making analogies for the purpose of saying 'the seeming auto-response to anyone who posts questions, concerns, or reservations about child-avatars, that posting such things constitutes being 'patronizing' or 'judgmental' or is evidence that the poster is not-quite-right in the head-----this auto-response would NOT be given for questions, concerns or reservations about topics that are less...dear to the hearts of some forum regulars. Such as SL depictions of killing/mutilating animals, for instance.'

Okay, I'll admit that it's a relatively subtle point; certainly it's much less commonly-expressed than is the 'child avatars are creepy' versus 'child avatars are healthy and marvelous and YOU are creepy for suggesting otherwise' debate that regularly graces these pages.

Here's the usual kneejerk pattern I'd love to see us examine (instead of simply reiterating again and again):

a) someone posts some question, concern, or reservation about the use of child avatars. Perhaps he or she went onto XStreet and noticed that when inputing 'child' into Search for Apparel, it's virtually 100% certain that you'll get something on the first page (and every other page) like this: https://www.xstreetsl.com/modules.php?name=Marketplace&file=item&ItemID=968408
And the poster thinks this might be worthy of discussion.

b) The utterly predictable drumbeat begins: If the OP thinks this topic worthy of discussion, then the OP is...judgmental! Patronizing! Intolerant! Sick in the head! If these things aren't said straight out, they are insinuated, a la "I suspect most therapists would be more interested in helping you discover why the way others choose to present themselves in a virtual world, particularly adults presenting in a childlike manner, bothers you so much." The general message: if you think this worth talking about, there's something WRONG with you!

c) Someone comes in and says 'hey, I notice that you don't pile on with the There's Something Wrong With You If You Have Concerns About This Practice posts when the practice is something like disemboweling toddlers....which shows that your position of Scolders of Those Who Have Concerns applies only to some practices---not to all. This inconsistency shows that your assumed stance of righteousness, in scolding those who have concerns, is unearned.'


Okay, 'c' doesn't happen very often. But maybe it should.

My post #61 was intended to show that when people start in with the 'there's something WRONG with you if you have questions or concerns or reservations about practice X' posts, they should realize that they've been caught using a tactic. And a fairly cheap one at that.

Ponsonby, we've all been suckered here. This thread was created for the sole purpose of making us fight with each other for Jig's amusement.

Well, I can see your point of view. But I think that if a question is worth discussing (and the potential 'therapy' to be had in SL seems to me to be such a question), then it doesn't really matter if someone, somewhere, is feeling some personal sense of satisfaction over having initiated the discussion.

I mean, Jig's amusement or non-amusement is sort of irrelevant (to me, anyway).