Zero Tolerance = Zero Common Sense

are you a pedophile? why do you even want to pretend to have sexual relations with a person of that age?

The issue that the law tackles is the one of desire. The argument is that any desire to play out a paedophile scenario should be quashed, and never satisfied. The claim is that somebody who is happy to do so in SL but does not want to do it IRL, probably only does not want to do it IRL because it's illegal, immoral or hurtful. But that means that if someday they are in a position where the law, morality or hurt no longer matter to them, it could happen. So the idea is to quash the core desire.

On SL it's also a political issue of course. There is no way that SL could have continued without responding to the allegations that it was being used as a centre for paedophile activity.

its a common sexual fantasy expressed in countless 'teen' xxx webites and millions of bedrooms in the rl world. men dont love schoolgirl uniforms out of appreciation of tartan.

creeps.

This is actually an interesting point - SL is actually stricter than the web at large about this kind of thing. Very often the girls on "teen" sites are aged 18 or 19 (and thus technically "teens" although still of legal age), but on SL, it's nearly impossible to make an avatar that looks like this exact age, without having him or her look like a child to many people - and unlike RL, the avatar doesn't have a real birth certificate which the authorities can check in case of any allegations. So essentially SL becomes stricter than RL on that issue.

we call that pedophilia.

Hold up.

It can hurt people in rl........ A fantasy played out once will be played out again, and the temptation after doing it virtually will be strong to play it out in rl.
Also, acting out that fantasy is acting upon a strong desire you have in RL and once that desire has been met it will be wanted again and the thrill will not be good enough so these sick freaks will take it into rl. There is no reason with pedofiles do you understand this?

A person that has these desires for a child has some serious issues.... and it wont be long before they are preying upon rl kids.

Listen, I adopted a child that was abused. I see how her life is effected from it. So do NOT in anyway shape or form say it is ok virtual or rl.

I think this is a proper rule and should be strictly enforced to protect those that play child avatars and the children that slip through the cracks and get on SL in the first place.

Bravo to Sl for this I say!

It's like saying that riding a motorcycle at 130 mph on a deserted road at night doesn't present a danger to the public. It doesn't alter the fact that it's illegal.
Same with 'ageplay'. In SL we don't want people doing things that are of questionable legality in either SL's spiritual homeland (USA) or in its other major 'client' nations.

We can't worry too much if a Yemeni resident would be committing an offence by having a wolf avatar or not, after all even joining a virtual community is probably illegal somewhere. Clearly we can't cater for all eventualities, or SL would be reduced to grey spherical avatars floating around a grey, featureless abstract grid.

Not necessarily, as some girls of that age are highly developed.

You have to be careful with the terms here: a "paedophile" is somebody who feels sexually attracted to childlike attributes (which normally are _not_ sexual), while a "child abuser/molester/rapist" is somebody who commits the crime of being involved in sexual behaviour with someone under 18, regardless of their appearance.

Although the law doesn't support it, there is a gray area there - I'm sure you've heard the joke about two teenagers out in a car who are sat knitting and playing board games when a police officer comes by at 11:58pm, and then three minutes later are making love, as it's 0:01am on the girl's 18th.

Certainly somebody who was excited by sex with a 12-year-old would be a paedophile, but someone excited by a developed 18-19 year old almost certainly isn't.

Anyone who is ARing Avatars that look like they could be 18 ..

for having pixel sex ..

with no other mitigating factors ..

Needs to get a dam SLife.

But what about an unskilled attempt to make an avatar that looks like that?

ahhhh *silent scream*

((the following is all my opinion I have no idea what LL's rules on this are since they don't communicate them clearly))


I would say if you look at the Av and there is any doubt in your mind its not a child Avatar - you should not AR .. period.


If the Av looked to be in its late teens and nothing in the profile indicated Sexual Age Play- I wouldn't think ARing them would be a good idea either.

-----------------
Personally Id be far more likely to Warn someone than AR them anyhow -

"Hey you know Sexual Ageplay is banned .. you can get in trouble for that .. just a FYI"

Since I am not LL's in-world traffic cop.

I fully support their right to ban what they want. But I don't have to go around reporting adults for what they do in a adult place like SL either.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/08/21/duncan.slayings.ap/index.html

In light of that, I cannot help thinking it impossible to "think about children way too much".

I don't necessarily agree with the "gateway" theory, although it's certainly possible. My primary objection to the behavior of acting out child abuse in SL is that it is morally reprehensible, and it paralells what happens all too often in real life, to real kids, real families.

But this is the big problem - it's all about "how it looks to you" which may be different from what the avatar maker intended.

I have some vendors in adult-type areas and I was really surprised when somebody told me that people were avoiding me because they thought I was a child avatar, even though I was using my regular av at the time which wasn't intended as a child at all. Even though I didn't "do" anything in those areas apart from updating vendors, I had to make a new av to visit them, just because I didn't want that reputation.

Evidence for this claim?

How about some common sense: if a website (or any other entertainment medium) says 'depictions of child sex are A-OK here', then they are saying that child sex is A-OK. Here or elsewhere.

And: it's not. All the self-serving justifications in the world can NOT make it okay.

Yes, the SL ban is ultimately about money: a reputation for being a safe harbor for transgressive behavior is bad for business.

But aside from that, many at Linden Lab may simply agree with those who believe that permitting something is implicitly equal to saying it's okay.

Yes

This perceptual problem to me is the only good reason to argue a lift of the Sexual Age Play Ban

Because people innocent of doing anything wrong are getting reported and potentially punished- which is nonsense.

But then again theres a lot of stupid people in the world - and it doesnt help that Linden Labs wont CLEARLY tell people what the rules are.

There a lot of people for example who think Child Avatars are Banned entirely.

Dangit, 2K, I just choked on my coffee.

What a thread to wake up to! Here we go again, eh?

OP, PLEASE edit your posts for language.

It is weak because there is little evidence -- that's my whole point. There is no evidence to say that virtual sexual ageplay does or does not cause RL underage sexual abuse. It's all conjecture, hence weak. If you have evidence to support that it does cause that, that would be good to note and also very scary.

If we want to extrapolate as best as possible, let's look at the BDSM/fetish community for a moment... the one in RL. There are RL fantasy RPers who engage in sexual age play. This is not to say all fetishists do, but there are those who dress up as a little school boy/girl and engage in sexual intercourse with a consenting adult who is interested. Again, not to say all fetishists who RP a youth also desire sex -- for some it's just image or mindset etc. (infantalism is a whole other ball of wax altogether and nothing to do with sex period). Of course there are always exceptions to the rule and crazies out there, BUT, anyone in the RL Scene will tell you that these fetish RPers are not out to truly engage a RL youth in a sexual situation.

SL is a virtual world of real people. Fetish play is a real world of real people role playing and dressing up (sometimes with and without sex involved). SL has only been around for a few years. Fetish play has been around for centuries. IF there is proof that RL fetish age play leads to child molestation, I would think that this would have been brought to light in a major way (or maybe I haven't stumbled on such reports).

I do apologize if what I'm saying is disturbing or making me out to seem that I'm supporting heinous acts, but I'm not. All I'm trying to say is that LL's motivation is financial and the rest is up to each person to decide for themselves how they feel and there will never be a solid consensus or agreement on this subject. Black and white just doesn't really work here.

Nearly everyone can agree that RL child molestation is evil and wrong. But who are we to judge or say what are contributing factors? I am no specialist in the field (wouldn't want to be... ICK). We can bandy this one around forever and never come to any solid proof.

Blah, this kitty is going to go do something fun because this thread (which I admit I shouldn't have paid attention to) is too depressing for me. *sticks my head in a catnip plant*



Agreed, for sure.

When I spoke of ARing I am talking about someone out and out asking I be a child for sex in SL and asking during sexual activity asking very personal things about my experiences with childhood abuse not just wearing a avatar not sure if any of that was reportable. I didn't but next person this happens to in that matter yes I will do something..
The experience has totally turned me off any sexual activity here. I won't do it again.
So yes it did hurt me but no children were harmed so its okay.

You seemed to be making a claim that IF no one can provide reputable research PROVING that virtual or RP enactments or rehearsals of child molestation 'leads to' actual child molestation, THEN all virtual and RP enactments of child molestation are basically OK.

I may have misunderstood the degree to which you made that claim, and if I've misinterpreted, then I apologize. But the fact is, many defenders of various types of pornographic or RP depictions of transgressive acts, use this defense: 'if you can't prove it leads to real behavior then you have to allow it!'

But this is fallacious thinking.

For one thing (as you yourself pointed out), an individual business is under no obligation to provide opportunities for people to do age-play or any other form of play. The business has every right to decide what behaviors it will permit--end of story.

But more importantly (and this is where the logical fallacy comes in), the argument 'if you can't prove it's bad, the lack of proof that it's bad means that it's not bad' is a poor one.

This is, I believe, the fallacy "Denying the Antecedent". The claim is:

"If it can be proven that virtual child-sex leads to actual child-sex, then virtual child sex is bad. Since it can NOT be proven that virtual child-sex leads to actual child-sex*, then virtual child sex is good."

This is fallacious thinking. A less emotionally-charged example shows how: "If I have the flu, then I have a sore throat. I do not have the flu. Therefore, I do not have a sore throat." This is fallacious thinking because of the fact that other illnesses may cause sore throat---so, drawing the conclusion about the presence or absence of flu is not justified.

Okay, enough from Professor Ponsonby (^_^) for this post, except to come back to the *: there is no reason to expect that it CAN'T be proven that virtual child-sex is likely to predispose people to commit actual child-sex. It may very well be proven by many studies---but reputable research takes time and resources. Such research studies may eventually appear in large numbers, if the public will is there to fund them.

Interesting .. BUT ..

Their additional premise is that the default state is the one of Freedom of Choice ..

And to take away that Freedom of Choice, you should have to prove that such choice is harmful.

----------------------------

Not saying its the right course, Just throwing some logic right back at ya Prof =p

The easy answer is (and I know you know I'm going to type this), "it's a business and the business has a right to make the rules. Customers who don't like the rules can go elsewhere".

And that easy answer is the ultimate answer here.

But in the larger world, the 'freedom of choice leads to a better world' argument is a very important one, and one on which there will never be complete agreement. Because we all define the terms involved differently, and because human interaction is inevitably full of gray areas.

Most societies do come together on the concept that people under 18 (or thereabouts) deserve special protections not afforded to people over 18. Not all having to do with sexual matters, either. But all these societal rules, broadly, concern the observable fact that kids are easier to exploit, and therefore deserve protection from those who would exploit them.

In this specific example, the argument might be made 'it's not actual kids being exploited, it's consenting adults who have a right to do what they want'. Putting aside the argument that 'the business providing the service is the one with the rights, and customers who disagree are free to leave', there's the remaining problem that if the business lets the consenting adults do the specific activity, then the business is saying the activity is OK.'

And you run into that 'bottom line' with most media over which people who want to depict transgressive acts, argue that they should be able to do so because of their alleged 'freedom of choice'.

The medium of transmission has a right to decide what may be transmitted.

The consequences of this are pretty icky in the case of, say, China deciding no one inside its borders can know what's going on in Tibet.

As I said: gray areas of human interaction. Censorship is not a pretty word. But societies all make some decision or other on what can be sold or transmitted over the media available (broadcast airwaves or Internet or cable or telephone wiring, etc. etc. etc.)

I mean: in Western culture, at least, two people are always free to go into a private home and draw pictures of children involved in sexual activity.

But does their Freedom extend to transmitting those pictures over media owned by others? Not really--the owners have the right to decide what is transmitted. Does their Freedom extend, even, to standing on the street corner and holding up the pictures they've drawn? That's a stickier issue, because the easy 'the business involved has the right to make the rules' answer can't be applied. The answer there is going to come from the collective decisions made by the society in which that street corner exists--by the laws of that locale.

It's a tough question. What is repression of legitimate expression, and what is protection of the vulnerable (children)? Where is the line drawn?

I dunno.

(Think I'll go work on my new texture organizer...^_^)

Of course that is true - but the Pro Sex Ageplayer always try to gloss that part over.


I of course agree LL should be able to decide on whats allowed - Its their playground.

And with all these Opensource competing Grids starting up its really academic. Its obvious now that there will be places the Sexual Age-players can go besides the Second Life Grid.

----------------------------

What I don't like is Linden Labs not clearly defining the rules. Not for the sake of the Sexual Age Player wannabes.

But rather to protect those who are not violating the ban.

I think protecting the innocent and their ability to enjoy Second Life is more important than punishing the guilty.

I've tried..I really have to follow the arguments of the folks who see more wrong in the ageplay ban than the ageplay but I just can't.

I think that it is the 40 year old woman that needs to seek help. Getting off on watching a 12 yr old even in pixel form having sex is just not okay to me...to me that woman is already damaged and needs more than a forum consensus that "freedom" trumps all other considerations.

You are already hurt IMHO and because you aren't facing that you will spread hurt to others one way or another.