Zero Tolerance = Zero Common Sense

theres a lot more going on than bestiality in that profile.

0.0

QFT

There is a difference between meaningful discussion and pointless flaming.

When the first statement on an issue includes an insult of anyone disagreeing that statement (i.e., anyone who disagrees has "zero common sense", then that statement is much more likely to lead to the pointless flaming than meaningful discussion.

Whether one or not one should touch a hot stove, or look both ways before crossing a street, are issues that are within the realm of common sense. The psychological and social consequences of depicting children in sexual situations may be issues of research and deliberation, but certainly not within the realm of common sense.

It's probably true that, overall in these forums, the cry of "Troll!" is used more often as an ad hoc attack, rather than true concern over whether a post was made to merely provoke emotions. But this particular original post does look more like an invitation to an insult war rather than the springboard to a meaningful discussion.

Wow. An profiles are also s'posed to be PG on the system. Jes sayin'.

Explains a lot, though.

I think everything is okay as long as nobody gets hurt.

That's fake. They don't make prim penises that small.

Except that many responses in this thread have indeed been "anti-freedom"--in spades. Reading them, there can be no doubt that all right-thinking adults should welcome the "inconvenience" of having Nabokov banned from the bookshelves on the off-chance that might spare some imaginary child some hypothetical mistreatment.

What LL does is quite rightly a commercial decision. In the larger world of real laws governing real lives, one should hope for higher standards of proof that something prohibited has deleterious effects. It is shameful that, instead, some countries have laws based on hysteria and wishful thinking (that banning some toon sex saves teh childrenz), while at the same time ignoring three decades of strong scientific evidence (that violent images increase aggressive behavior).

The threat to RL freedom arises when laws are based on commercial convenience (e.g., the motion picture industry lobby) instead of science and rationality. But that's hardly new; humans have a longstanding habit of anointing a caste of ne'er-do-wells to dream up new prohibitions.

My son is weeks away from turning 13. I care. I care A LOT. If I knew for a fact that adults were raping and buggering children on SL and LL didn't care, I would immediately cancel my membership and report the violations to law enforcement.

I'd be more concerned about who your 12 yo is talking to, and about what, on Bebo/ Myspace/MSN or the multitude of other social sites and chatrooms if I were you. Or at the local mall.

--
Aes

Hey, it's just the way some people feel about the issue. As a point of view, the notion that sexual ageplay should not be permitted is at least as valid as the notion that it's fine and should be permitted, is it not? If not, why not?

For the record, Nabokov is not in danger of being banned from any bookshelves where I am from, no matter how many people would rather it was.



Which countries are you describing?

For violations of what law exactly, assuming (as is the assumption in "ageplay" that the typists involved are both 18+? It isn't a crime for an adult to roleplay as a child having sex. It may be revolting (I personally find it quite disgusting, actually), but it isn't a crime. The only way adults would be "raping and buggering children on SL" would be if there were actually children involved -- children typists, that is. Now of course, these are not supposed to be on the main grid to begin with, and if they do find their way into the main grid we can pretty much rest assured that it *won't* be in the form of child AVs.

The ban had to happen as a result of the bad press LL was getting in Europe, particularly in countries that have tough laws regarding the cartoon portrayal of children in sexual situations. That made perfect business sense for LL. The rest of the debate is really just irrelevant -- this was a business decision based on LL's exposure in the media and, potentially, to the laws of some of these countries.

I do think that the word "pedophilia" is somewhat misused by many in this context. I would wager that many men find some 18 year old young women attractive sexually, judging by the porn sites on the internet. I don't think someone magically becomes a pedophile if he thinks that the girl was also attractive a week earlier when she was 17. The law has a border there, because the border has to be somewhere, but it clearly isn't pedophilia one week and not pedophilia the next. Similarly, the man who is turned on by seeing his wife in a schoolgirl outfit is also not a pedophile. Pedophilia, properly understood refers to the desire to have sex with pre-pubescent children. A man who finds a ten year old sexually attractive is a pedophile, but one who finds a 17 year old attractive is not -- both situations are "illegal" (in most US jurisdictions at least), but they aren't the same.

It's also interesting the role that culture plays in these issues. Japan, for example, has fairly strict laws on pornography, from what I understand, but nevertheless has a thriving pornographic comics industry, at least some of which is devoted to depicting sexual acts between adults and sexually developed teenagers. I don't understand the attraction, to be honest, it's quite beyond me, but I do find it interesting that some of the triggers of revulsion seem to be rather culturally driven.

Second Life isn't real Tundra. There are no real children involved, the only violation of current laws you could turn in would be concerning the depiction of such things in a virtual world setting.

As has been noted by others, there are not supposed to be any children logging into second Life on the Main Grid.

sometimes it's not just culture either however. I will freely admit that in a past relationship I would Role Play with my partner (a long distance relationship that did not pan out for various reasons and that suffered a betrayal - some time after we met face to face) intimate scenes involving girls in that same range you have described for Japanese culture.

It was something she and I discussed and found to be a mutually exciting thing - the tables were occasionally turned and she was sometimes the one Role Playing with a male of that age range.

I should probably clarify this to state that the roles would be either my character being the older of the two, or hers.

In some cases this stems from our own personal development. As stated in an earlier post, I developed a wee bit early for males, though truth be told I was far too shy to pursue anyone.

The same could be said of my partner at the time (more like girlfriend - we never had sex and .... well, I won't give you too much information. Suffice it to say I only recently lost that physical innocence). We had decided to give that kind of Role Play a shot and we found that we liked it. This was not an every day occurrence for us and we only played in that manner when the mood struck us.

This does not mean however that I would go after someone of that age range in real life. Yes, I am heading some of the more vehement people off at the pass here. The occasional fantasy? Yes. Sometimes I even fantasize about what it may ave been like for me at that younger age too.

Here's the thing with that: I know quite well that a fantasy is just that. I have a damn good imagination and have no need to pursue such things. Then again those fantasies are always at the age of sixteen plus .... anything less just makes me uncomfortable.

As a point of view, sure: people can believe (or prefer) anything they like, but freedom of expression is not the freedom to say that which people want to hear. (Again, this is in reference to RL laws, not LL's perfectly valid business decisions.)For the moment, perhaps. If you live in the US, though, it's probably separated from that fate by just one administration-worth of Supreme Court justice appointments. Then it will be time to hide the Salinger under the mattress again--but it'll be perfectly legal to pull the Derringer out from under there.[In reference to banning underage pixel porn] Germany. (The US tried, but it's not entirely clear what if any of the law may remain constitutional.)

QFT

I thought the OP was specifically talking about LL's perfectly valid business decisions...?



Yes, but this same danger has been warned against every four years for at least the past 24 years. It's ALWAYS "one administration-worth of Supreme Court justice appointments" away from being banned, and always has been. But the prophecied administration has never arrived, nor have the appointment opportunities. Considering that the current administration is the most blatantly and unabashedly conservative administration in recent memory and failed to get anything banned (including cartoon kiddy porn), I think it's unlikely any bannings will come to pass, and the danger to poor Nabokov is...immensely exaggerated, to say the least.



The US "tried", but did not. So it's just Germany. Out of how many countries? Doesn't seem like such a widespread, immediate problem after all.

That derringer will come in handy, to quote Solzhenitsyn:

"The Gulag Archipelago"... on how to resist fascism & tyranny. The lesson that's just as important today as it was half a century ago.

"During an arrest, you think since you aren’t guilty, how can they arrest you? Why should you run away? And how can you resist right then? After all, you’ll only make your situation worse; you’ll make it more difficult for them to sort out the mistake. And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say goodbye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand? The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! We didn’t love freedom enough. Every man always has handy a dozen glib little reasons why he is right not to sacrifice himself."

Wow, how many ways can we say this?

"It's not common sense that made LL ban sexual age-play.. it was business sense!"

Every one of us has pointed this out to the OP.

It's irrelevant to point out that it's based on RL laws. It's not. It's based purely on the fact that if you google "video games" with "pedophilia" Second Life is listed not once, but several times! This is something LL does not want from a business standpoint.

It's irrelevant to point out whether virtual sexual age play is moral. That has little to do with SL and more to do with RL. And again, LL makes the rules for SL.

It's irrelevant to throw down the "freedom of speech," and "freedom" cards. This isn't a RL government, it's a private company. They can ban pink ponies wearing purple shoes in the middle of the day on the 5th of September and there isn't a damned thing we can do. You can try suing, but I'm pretty sure you'll be laughed out of court.

It's irrelevant to throw in the "saves the childrenz!!11" card as well. Any minor caught on the SL grid is considered trespassing via the LL rules. They are subject to removal.

It is also irrelevant to toss down the, "this is fantasy, not reality," card. That card is only for the mentally healthy to play AND is automatically trumped by the "must protect the idiots from themselves," and the "company has to cover it's behind," cards. A company must think of the worst case scenario. Example: Blow dryers have warning labels to not use the dryer while in the shower or bath.

So my post is probably also the most irrelevant of all. I trumped you!

You forgot ad farms, camping on ad farms!

I care nada about politics or RL laws or business practices on this subject.

But once allowed, then what? Do I have to see ads for kid-porn animations? Oh, then how about BDSM apparatus for small AVatars? Will I be treated to the sight of kid Avatars wearing the latest in sexy lingerie? Will I have to wonder if someone like Dakota or Mari are here for teh sechs instead of accepting them simply as kids? Will I be hiking about someplace and stumble upon someone making out with an 8-year old? Very nice. That ain't MY SL, for certain.

I am extremely tolerant of people's preferences but I'd prefer that people with pedophile tendencies in SL remain behind closed doors instead of trumpeting their rights to be deviants.
Yes, whatever, there is a diff between pedophelia and wanting to get it off with a 15-year old but how do you think LL is going to differentiate that?

The bottom line is that sex with underage people when you're old enough to know better is reprehensible. It's offensive to the majority of clear-thinking humans. Unlike personal preferences that have been touted as deviant in the past, this one is a crime with real victims. To condone it as a fun time here in SL is suggesting that it is not to be taken seriously in RL.

Thoroughly read and look at the OP's profile.

It might change some of the respondent's opinions on this topic.

Yeah I looked at it. Aren't profiles supposed to be PG? That's one of the most obscene profiles I've ever seen.

It could be that the very fact that so many of us find it reprehensible would keep it mostly hidden. We don't really see a lot of advertising and such related to beastiality in SL, even though we know it is a fetish that is out there.




QFT!!!!

Yes. I think this is the ultimate answer to those whose defense is 'hey, it's just virtual--no real kids are involved!'

The distinction that sexual-age-play defenders are trying to make is a false one. At best, it's disingenuous.

Let's say, for example, that I create a website that solicits depictions of animal torture. Drawings, computer-generated 3D depictions, stories, whatever.

And people come across my site and say THIS IS AWFUL!

And I reply: No, it isn't---it's only words and drawings and CGI! No real animals involved! I would never condone involving real animals because I know that animal torture is wrong!

Now.............would most people receive my statement "I know that animal torture is wrong" as a straightforward and honest one?

Or would they classify me as a gigantic hypocrite?


I think we know the answer. And so it is with the 'hey, I would never involve real children!' defense. We know how to classify that, too.