Zero Tolerance = Zero Common Sense

Chemical castration?
They do it on "evil" peoples too.

First off, it's not adults trying or fucking children so stop with the over-dramatization cause it's not working. This isn't real life, duh! These aren't real life kids. So to get all worked up over something that's not real is ridiculous to say the least.

Second, it bothers you why? I already ask you that but the answer is simply, do you just want to be seen as someone who cares? Here's a little secret: no one cares whether you do or not. And it doesn't matter because as I already stated it's not real life kids involved.

I'm not endorsing sex with kids. What I'm saying is this isn't about kids at all because it isn't real.

No because no matter how clear it is that something is not allowed, some people will keep prying for loopholes so they can do what they want, no matter how many other people against it or the companies explicit meaning it's just not wanted.

Yeah but you have to dig around in old blog posts to find the rules.


No one is going to take that as serious as the TOS/CS

if it had been in the TOS/CS .. Clearly defined

This thread would be 75% people parroting linking the relevant information.

And thus far less a debate and more a "its the rules dummy"

Do people start Threads about wanting to be allowed to put up racist builds often?

No.

Would it be wrong for two adults in SL to roleplay as a a young girl and young boy showing each other their naughty bits? Or roleplaying a situation like the Blue Lagoon?

According to LL it is, and it's their game, the last policy made it prettuy clear to me they didn't want to see humping 12yo avatars, especially if someone AR's it, and the younger they are the more likely someone will object.

Let's find out.



Now you show me yours..

Actually, Colette, it looks to me like nearly all the energy pushing this issue in SL and the forums is coming from the people freaked out by pedophilia and anxious to ban it, and ban people who even think about it, and even ban people who merely have child avatars. Certain people also seem quick to paste the "pedophile" label on anyone they can, especially on people who dare to disagree with them. Frankly, some of the people posting and ARing about this seem more than a little weird on the subject.

Also, this subject touches on several areas of confusion.

To me, the first and biggest is confusing the distinction between making thoughts a crime and making behavior a crime. The minute you make having thoughts (or worse, in one post here, making it an offense NOT to have a required thought!), you create the necessary and sufficient basis for conducting witch-hunts. You also make reasonable discussion of the offending issue impossible: We have already seen here the game played out - someone says you must be a pedophile to post something like that, and the accused is placed in the position of being obliged to prove to a hostile attacker a negative that is virtually impossible to prove top anyone (How can anyone prove they do NOT have such-and-such thoughts? How can you prove you have not thought of a polka-dotted purple bear, you, you BEARIST?!) RL law is very clear on this subject: Having a thought, any thought, is not a crime; ACTING on the thought may be and in the case of child molesting certainly should and must be. So, in RL, it's pretty clear, simple, and right: Think about molesting a child, and however reprehensible you are, you are not illegal; actually molest a child, and you are toast.

It gets a little complicated in RL because laws establish an artificial Age of Consent that varies from place to place, but is almost always well above the usual age of puberty. There is a BIG difference between being sexually attracted to someone who is prepubescent and being attracted to someone who is very young but is post-pubescent. As someone noted above, adolescence is a gray area in RL that everyone and especially the courts have to wrestle with. But wanting to get it on with a 15-year-old-but-developed cheerleader is not pedophilia. Actually doing it may be reprehensible if you are, say, 40 years old, but it ought to be regarded and treated differently than if you are going after an 8-year-old. That distinction causes some confusion in these forums.

An even more difficult area is kiddie porn: At what point does drawing feelthy pictures or trafficking in them cross the line from thought to prosecutable action? Photos of RL kids in sexually compromising situations are easy: They are proof of crimes against the RL kids. But youthful-looking adults posing as children? Drawings? Computer-generated images? Advertising and selling them, or posting them on the Internet for all to see? How about staging a fake child molestation for a TV program or movie exploring the subject of pedophilia? My view would be that they may be offensive or reprehensible but they do not rise to the level of crimes. People who want to prosecute thought crimes, of course, will look on them as prima facie evidence of the impermissible thoughts they want to destroy. And RL laws differ from place to place in this area.

Now this is where SL comes in. It introduces interactive, real-time, full-motion images (and sound, if you want) with sometimes startling verisimilitude. It is a big giant step beyond traditional porn - ordinary drawings, cartoons, photos, movies, videos, and the like. Naturally, it is going to be even more upsetting to people who are upset about depictions (or even discussions) of sex to begin with. And for those who have deep or at least intense emotional issues about child abuse, it is going to be an even greater freak-out than ever when depictions of it appear in SL.

That German TV station capitalized on that fact, as have others, and LL has been forced into dealing with this matter if it wants to survive in RL. I personally think they have chosen the wisest practical choice available to them: Depictions of sex between adult-appearing avatars and avatars clearly intended to represent minors are prohibited and may lead to accounts being banned - when they are found. (Deploying an army of LL snoopers to investigate every conjunction of two or more green dots on the grid would quickly bankrupt LL, after all; it would take thousands to do this 24/7.) This way, LL is legally covered, sexual ageplay is very actively discouraged in what is an adults-only venue anyway, the obsessive sexual-ageplayers are reportedly leaving SL for other venues, depictions of an immoral and almost universally repugnant activity are gone from sight, and life in SL can go on.

I would suggest one additional policy for LL, however: Suspensions for accounts that repeatedly file false or abusive ARs against child avatars that are not engaging in sexual ageplay. That will do a lot to eliminate the major remaining real problem in SL about this issue - persecution of the innocent.

As for those who are obsessively emotional about this subject, nothing will satisfy them. They are better left to deal with their personal issues for themselves.

I really have nothing to add to this discussion. I just wanted to know: has it seemed to anyone else that it's always people who "never plan on having a child av and have no interest in having sex with kids" that start threads complaining about how you can't have sex with child avs in SL, or is it just me? It's kind of humorous, in a way, if you think about it.

/clap

But i still think LL shouldn't be as spineless as they are currently.
Bending to every little scribbler that tries to get the scoop of the century is not good when you are serving a world wide clientèle.


The main reason realistic CG art is banned is prolly to avoid cops to investigate a crime that never existed.


Well we know from experience that you can't have a debate with peoples if they see you as "not like us"
If you say yes to any of these they see you like some sort of bloodthirsty monster.

It's like being a black man and try to reason a racist...

On the contrary. There IS such a thing as "bad publicity". When a little scribbler crows to all and sundry (via his scribbles, of course) that he saw some roaches in a restaurant, said restaurant's business starts to...well, wane. It is therefore in the restaurant's best interest to keep little scribblers from seeing roaches. And if a little scribbler sees a roach, it is in the restaurant's best interest to publically announce that the problem has been taken care ofm so that business will begin to wax again. Business is business.

Hyperbole aside, are you saying that people who advocate for the "right" to engage in sexual ageplay in SL are being...not entirely honest when they say that they have no intention of ever engaging in sexual ageplay in SL?

Well obviously anyone who starts one of these threads either wants to be involved in Sexual Ageplay in some way -

Or someone important to them does.

Or they are trolling

No one is going to go through the kind of flames it generates unless it is one of those.

So Har are you suggesting that the Seeming Sexual Ageplay Advocates that start these threads are actually ANTI - AGEPLAY , and what they are doing is trying to keep the hornets nest alive and mad enough to keep it an annoyance to LL?

Hmmmm.

Seems workable. The OP is likely a throwaway ALT in any case.

Okay that sounds like a plausible 4th scenario, bit complex tho.

Possible Pro-Ageplay Thread Rationale ....

-Sex Ageplayer
-Friend of Sex Ageplayer
-Troll
-Or Devious Anti-Ageplayer

I just know that one's going to give me nightmares!




Actually kinda like this one.




I misread that the first time as "Indiana!"

Well...one or another. I just think it's funny is all. Like the OP - four posts on the forum, and all in this thread, JUST because he/she "hates stupid rules". All the glitches, issues, and stupid rules in SL, and the only one that is so horrible they HAD to start a thread about it was this one. Oh, the horror.

If I'm not mistaken, the whole age-play ban in LL developed out of some hoopla from Germany.

(Not saying I'm for it, just trying to get the nationalities right )

Being American I am wholeheartedly in agreement with freedom of speech. But it is generally forgotten that it applies to the country in a governmental fashion and generally does not apply to private companies, ie. LL

More like being a burglar trying to reason with a homeowner..........
So you must have a child under 12 I guess to be an authority on what it is ok for an adult to depict pixel images of them engaging in?
It's pretty clear to everyone, incuding you that LL don't want that, if you do simply goto that Wonderland grid whereever it is and play there.

I haven't previously posted on this thread but I just want to say that I disagree and I think we're robbing "trolling" of its meaning by using it to insult people. I don't give a damn about ageplay itself or know anyone who does. But the overwhelming anti-freedom responses are just amazing.

Wrong there, nearlly all the energy is coming from people against pedophila and want it banned. But not those who want to ban people thinking about it or wearing child avatars, and we aren't all tagging some one as pedophile either.
Most of the people getting weird probably have kids of their own or nephews and nieces.
If LL don't want sexual images of infants and prepubescent children, then that's their right, people who don't like it can play on a private 3rd party run grid.
Anti-Freedom? Where's the freedom to kill other peoples avatars and take their Lindens and land? Sounds like an anti-freedom thing to me if 1% of the population wanted it.

I have to admit, the OP has an interesting profile.

"Anti-freedom"? That's awesome.

Look, you don't go to an Italian eatery, demand they start serving burritos, and start calling everyone who disagrees "nationalistic" or "racist", do you? Of course not. The people who own the restaurant want to serve Italian food, not Mexican food. If you feel like eating a burrito, go to a restaurant where the people who own it want to serve Mexican food.

LL is offering a service, and they don't want people using it for sexual ageplay. What's so anti-freedom about that? If you want to do the ageplay thing without risking a ban, find someplace that doesn't restrict it and go there.

I think you must have misunderstood my post

I was speaking as to the motives of the Original Poster.

Who is an inactive poster to say the least at 4 whole posts.

What would their motivations be?

I find the idea they just are speaking up for a topic they have no vested interest in - highly
unlikely.

But if they have no vested interest - why create such a flame fest?

Well people who start flame-fests for the sake of flame-fests --- are trolling.


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

I did not - at any time call anyone a troll on this thread. My personal belief is they have a vested interest. I do not know what that interest is.

I simply do not buy the freedom crusader sudden realization claim.

The OP referenced Bestiality. Read His/her profile.