An Experiment in Psychology - those who know me, and nudity

Another disappointment - I thought that was me.

You'll never take me alive!

Yea, I would kind of want to go slooooooooow and easssssssssy

Very true.

Yeah, don't worry, Scylla... I'm sure she's not losing any sleep over it... Well, not any more than she does normally with those things on top of her.

If I could I would like to be a child again in RL, and have the kind of childhood that was described earlier as "---brilliant". As someone else stated not everyone has a great childhood, and I don't mind saying that for me that is truly an understatement. I have a child av in SL, and a family, and they mean a lot to me. I aslo have a very good therapist and we talk about SL, and he isnt the slightest bit against it. I have found being a child in SL to be very helpful and enlightening, and has filled an empty place for me. Just my two cents.

HEY! That's MY seal pup! You bring Zoe back right now, you fuzzy alien abductor you.

Just for the sake of clarification - because some confusion has been brought to my attention.

My purpose in this thread was to explore the concept of how kid avs are viewed by other people, and whether that view changes when the av changes, or whether it lingers. Obviously whether it lingers or not is as varied between people as the impressions of child avs themselves. But I should emphasize that the example of showing up in a bunch of nudity was a very extreme and purely hypothetical example, used because it would most dramatically highlight peoples' different points of view. I'm not in any way trying to advocate that kid avs should be able to chill at the Hangout while everyone is nude. I'm not speaking for "child av nudity" - this thread had nothing whatsoever to do with that.

Also, I'm sorry if people got the impression that nudity is something that happens a lot at the Hangout. It's actually very very very rare, and when it happens usually people are joking about it in group chat, so it's not as if I COULD "accidentally" stumble into a situation like that. And even if I did - Brenda is right; I would leave.

I don't want to give people the wrong impression of me or kid avs. Or the Cartel. I tried to emphasize with the OP that this was an imaginary scenario for the purpose of discussion only. Sadly, some people will skip all the qualifiers and disclaimers in the OP and make the straight connection between kid avs and nudity and freak, like the example in this thread (I'm not mentioning any names, but her initials are Ciera Spyker).

So yeah, read the whole OP before passing judgment.

Also, Pep is old.

You gotta remember.. that particular person has a history of being able to read sentences and paragraphs that the rest of us are unable to see. Really, the mute is the best way to prevent that person from being able to add pedophilia meaning to the words "Good Morning".

Not trying to be rude BUT if it was so awful, why go back and do it again? Isnt it like banging your head against a brick wall? Its feels a lot better when you stop doing it (or revisiting it?)

Not that I know you, or hang about at the Cartel hangout... but if I were in that hypothetical situation, I would simply put clothes on while you were in a child av. Also if other people chose to remain nude I would leave. Primarily because having child av plus nudity on my screen at the same time can put me at risk of British paedophilia laws. If you changed to an adult avatar then I'd be comfortable staying, because I'd no longer be at risk from those laws.

Mind you, the likelihood of me being naked in a public place is close to zero anyway.

I'm glad you posted this, afte rquite a few replies not mentioning it, I was beginning to wonder if I was the only one that doesn't get the assumed connection here between nudity and sex.

nb: Clothed sex can be way hotter than nude sex

What?

British naturist beaches and clubs are full of whole families with no clothes on. Paedophilia laws are about sex, not nudity.

I've seen you at the hangout a few times, and read what you've said for a couple years, so I think I probably can add a view to the sum here.

As for the OP's hypothetical situation: If you showed up and DIDN'T change (or leave, but I'd never want someone to feel they'd have to), I would feel the need to dress because of the proximity thing (LL's rule and all that). But because of who you are, and that I know something about you I probably wouldn't feel too threatened by it. Not sure I could say the same thing about a full on RP'ing child AV that I didn't know of, because then the conditions are changed (for me) to a point where I might consider leaving (assuming the atmosphere was just an entertaining mature one suddenly interrupted). Might be a trust thing born from unfamiliarity, or possibly just a desire to continue with how things were going, dunno.

If you DID change and stay, I'd agree with what Nika said on page 5 I believe, and treat it like you viewed the company present more important than the AV, which is a compliment. I can't say that I wouldn't tone down any adult conversation though, because realistically, I do that with everyone who'd show up until I feel comfortable again.. shyness and all that junk. I always try to treat people as they present themselves, so I'd honor a change to adult AV and not be put off by it at all. Even though immersion, and in many cases realism is what I feed off of in SL, it's never to the point that I'd sell short the person behind another keyboard, or their intentions. It would be "hello Mr. adult", not "ewww, you're just a kid in disguise".



Hilarious!


Edit: I think there's one UK pedo law covering digital art and depictions that's snared some technically innocent people because it's written in such a vague manner. At least that what I gathered when I read about it a while back *shrugs*

I dont think you have confused anyone who has stayed with the thread. I think this has been a very important topic and my really witty and funky comments have added to it don'cha' think?

But joking aside, the presence of child avs in any adult gathering makes many adults uncomfortable in sl. As in rel, adult conversation is chilled and the false chit chat applied Whereever the situation adults really do censor themselves whenever a child is present or even an animated image of a child is present.

To "play" the child restricts the av - I suggest a sense of distrust is immediately felt. After all, it's not regarded as a "fun" thing to do for the average adult to revert back to childhood behaviours and activites. People answer with "well, we're minotaurs, cats dogs also" but that is somewhat different. We can NEVER be a dog or a Satyr so we create scenarios just as I do in my real work but we have BEEN children. So we are NOT inventing as a child but rememberng our own expereinces and applying them.

The presence of a child focusses each of us on our pasts or our immediate families and memories of past. I don't encourage children to be in my real presence. Friends know that. I have too may precious objects in my real environments for them to break! And they are germ factories that I must avoid if I am to work at what I do without interruption.

There ARE laws which forbid specific interaction with children and animations of children. I wholeheartedly agree with them. When we reject teh child in our midst or if we vacate the party when a child appears, it is not that we don't like or respect children, it's that we feel we must acknowledge there are situations that could occur the average av or person doesnt want to be involved in.

I will reiterate that I do not believe playing the "Fool" (as Shakespeare might see it) is a safe or wise thing to do. Regardless of our childhood (many have felt offended that I wrote that mine was "brilliant - it was - whereas their was awful) I truly do not feel that playing out scenes here or anywhere else for that matter are really going to unwrap all the pyschoses and trauma-related issues taht adults might feel in terms of their own pasts.

Playing at children is playing with fire. Read William Golding's "Lord of the Flies" instead.

I wanted to do a follow-up and I couldn't resist to quote myself. Apologies in advance if I am contributing to the highjacking of this thread... but I think it might be petering out and will tolerate my digression.

I wanted to add to my statements that I do not believe that having a child AV on SL is a therapy replacement, but I would certainly expect my therapist (who is a PHD) to tell me if it was in anyway dangerous. On the contrary, in my own personal experience with this paradigm (child/family) is that is has been empowering for me, and made me think about my past experiences in different terms.