Zero Tolerance = Zero Common Sense

There is a simple flaw to your entire post here: A lack of disconnect between the real world and the world of the mind/Fantasy World.

The only reason someone would protest anything at all in a fantasy world is quite simple: They are afraid of what being able to actually disconnect yourself from reality actually means for them.

Personally, my defense is of and for those with a healthy enough mind to actually be able to do things in such a context and not mistake them for reality, or act on them in real life.

Some Role Players (not all I am afraid, as far too many mix the real with the fantasy) actually understand this.

Many here are right however in that this discussion is rather moot: This was a business choice made by Linden Lab.

sadly, this does set a precedent and a method for which to edge all other forms of role Play in all genres off of the Grid, leaving only those here to make money, those here to socialize, and those who honestly think that Second Life is somehow 'real'.

I have always looked at it this way: Almost everything in second Life can be considered Role Play, granted Play you can spend money on and possibly make money from. If something occurs out of character and a relationship or other thing is built on it, then and only then does it become more 'real'.

I myself have Role Played with several people in Second Life, some of them became close friends of mine, one of them was my real life girlfriend, someone I had met while Role Playing on AOL.

I do have a bit of a warning for the Role Players out there of all types: If your imagination is so in depth that a scene affects you physically, be careful how you continue. If you have doubts about your own sanity - stop at once. I have seen far to many fall prey to this problem.

A very thoughtful post. I agree with it totally.

Interesting how this thread is turning into a pretty good compilation of all the Usual Excuses for sexual age-play. And how, when each in turn is discredited, one that was discredited even earlier is cycled back into the discussion.

So here we have the 'oh, if you object to sexual age-play, you must be too stupid to distinguish the virtual from the real, and also emotionally disturbed!!!!1!!!!1' excuse.

And I'd like to treat it with all the respect it deserves.

...


I notice that you completely ignored the point made by Brann Georgia ("To condone it as a fun time here in SL is suggesting that it is not to be taken seriously in RL."

You also ignored the point I made in my most recent post: that saying 'it's just virtual!!1!!!' is, fundamentally and basically, hypocritical.

If you advocate depictions of child sex, then you are advocating child sex.

I don't see how you can get around that.

Yeah -

From a overall freedom standpoint stopping this activity between ADULTS presents a lot of problems.

From a within Second Life business standpoint it instead is completely understandable.


-----------

Unfortunately after some of the stuff I've seen recently.

I am no longer as convinced as I used to be that RL minors would avoid Sexual Ageplay.

The arguments against it tend to fail because they're only being used for that one instance and they look rather silly when used for anything else.

There's an unavoidable contradiction if anyone thinks that adults engaging in sexual ageplay are a danger or are encouraging a train of thought that will eventually lead some of them to commit the act in real life but that adults engaging in non-consentual violent sexual acts are just having harmless fantasy fun with absolutely no ill effect in real life.

The fact that one involves a child and the other involves an adult really doesn't make a rational difference, only an emotional one. Rape and abuse are always equally heinous regardless of the age, race or sex of the victim.

That doesn't mean it should be allowed, but simply realize that it's no different than any other kind of roleplay and that it's simply an emotional response that makes it unacceptable.

I agree Colette, it gets very tricky when limits start to get put around "freedom". The question of who decides what the limits are becomes a real problem as some of what I support (gay marriage for example) would really make some people uncomfortable.

Maybe another approach would work better.

If we value innocence or the right of the part of ourselves that is innocent a safe place in our culture then can we limit the depiction of child rape as an assault on that value?

So innocence and the right to a safe place joins freedom as a value.

And child rape is not a freedom but an assault on the freedom of others to grow safely into their own sexuality?

Rape is obviously built on cruelty and violation which is contrary to the ideals of freedom.

And the depiction of it for sexual pleasure would say to me that the "adults" involved were themselves violated and robbed of his part of themselves at some point too. I think stats bear this out as my understanding is that many people who enjoy or act out child rape were also at some point violated themselves.

Maybe we need to focus on helping these people to restore them to a inner freedom in themselves to be innocent and safe again rather than having to act out over and over again some damage they did not choose to experience?

There are a number of questions involved here; the one that I was trying to address directly in my last two posts was "is 'virtual' really NOT real?"

(For instance, if I had a website for depictions of animal torture, yet protested that 'I know animal torture is wrong', wouldn't I be a humongous hypocrite?)

The question of any particular type of behavior in a virtual setting being inclined to lead people to participate in that behavior on a non-virtual setting is certainly related. And very much worth discussing. But it's not exactly what I was talking about with the 'hypothetical a.t. website' example.

On the issue of violence: as has been previously mentioned in this thread, many studies DO support the position that participating in 'virtual' violence does predispose a person to participate in non-virtual violence. As the study at the top of the Google search I just did says:

"An updated meta-analysis reveals that exposure to violent video games is significantly linked to increases in aggressive behaviour, aggressive cognition, aggressive affect, and cardiovascular arousal, and to decreases in helping behaviour. Experimental studies reveal this linkage to be causal. Correlational studies reveal a linkage to serious, real-world types of aggression. "----from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WH0-4B9D74R-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=7c15d759907fd30cc1cec6791fe1e146

So is the fact that many people object more strongly to SL depictions of child sex than they do to SL swordfights, evidence that those people are bad and wrong and sick?

I think you'd have to work pretty hard to make that case: a drive to protect children from exploitation seems to be a basic and almost universal one among humans. Most people are just going to react more strongly to anything having to do with threats to children, than they are to anything having to do with threats to adults.

Just the way most people are, I guess.

Those 'points' were read and dismissed as being those of a mind too wrapped up in the "Second Life is real and thus anything done in it must be tacit approval of it in Real Life" fallacy.

Kitty has nailed it rather well - to a point anyway.

The simple fact is this Pon: Advocating any form of Role Play is not advocating the real life counterpart in any way, shape or form. Those that think in that manner are always those who would be the most prone to losing themselves in their own fantasy world.

I liked to Role Play on AOL as a shape shifting, demonic creature that could manipulate the shadows of anything around him, including those within a body. These were often used when a sexual situation came up to pleasure and otherwise tease a partner.

Does this mean I advocate the use of tentacled creatures for sex in real life? No, it does not.

Another example: I have also role Played as a nine tailed fox anthro with a penchant for using his tails in a similar manner to the character above.

does this mean I condone (shudders with revulsion) Bestiality? Nope.

see, I keep a very open mind when it comes to Role Play and have been known to give a person what they want kink wise - so long as it does not fall into a specific list of what I find unappealing or have a serious problem with.

All of this said, I'd like to hear your own experiences that made you formulate this view of yours.

Perhaps that would help me to better understand this mindset filled with a logical fallacy.

Kitty, it is these emotional responses that are the real danger for a Role Player. This is why I do not teach others to Role Play anymore ... A few of those I took under my wing got too wrapped up in their fantasies and started believing they really were their characters.

Unfortunately Pon, such studies are quickly met with ones that show the exact opposite. I am willing to bet that in the search that generated that example, there were others saying the opposite was true.

It is however an interesting case study to make: The decline of the rational mind and the breakdown n recent generations of that fine line between fantasy and reality.

So for the second time running, the only defense you have to offer is 'if you object to sexual age-play you must be sick'.

Not very convincing.

You keep mixing apples with oranges here.

The depiction of child rape is not the same as enjoying life as a 9 tailed fox.
The desire to enjoy child rape is not the same as the all other role play.

I don't understand why you uphold the rational as superior to the emotional when making value judgements.

Is not our conscience basically an emotional response that triggers rational results like laws?

And when a culture suffers because people in authority rape, abuse and violate others, is that rational?

And is not the desire to rape a child an emotional choice? A desire?

I think we have both the rational and emotional equipment to spend the time, effort and observation to draw the lines between different kinds of role play and what informs them.

These fines lines and choices are what define us as having values that are more than useful for either avoiding hard choices or defending inclinations we are fatigued by.

Not methodologically respectable ones, though.

Of course the video game industry (for example) is always going to be able to produce 'studies' that say there is no link between participating in virtual violence and participating in non-virtual violence.



This is a red herring.

The 'oh, you're just too stupid/sick to see that virtual environments like SL aren't REAL!' argument is disingenuous.

If SL is utterly distinct from what is 'real', then why does its TOS prohibit building, say, depictions of black people being lynched? After all, SL 'isn't real'....so where's the harm?

If SL is utterly distinct from what is 'real', then why does its TOS prohibit building, say, depictions of gay men being strung up on barbed wire fences? After all, SL 'isn't real'.....so where's the harm?

If SL is utterly distinct from what is 'real', then why does its TOS prohibit building, say, depictions of Jews being burnt in ovens? After all, SL 'isn't real'.....so where's the harm?

How does your assertion that it's a "fallacy" to believe that "Second Life is real and thus anything done in it must be tacit approval of it in Real Life", survive the fact that Linden Lab DOES have Terms of Service that prohibit all these things?

Isn't it the case that LL has TOS that prohibit these things because, like any other rational people, they recognize that what happens in SL is NOT distinct from 'reality'?

That like any other rational people, they recognize that 'reality' cannot be partitioned off and made distinct from what people do on the Internet?

That like any other rational people, they recognize that 'reality' is EVERYTHING that happens outside our heads---whether it happens on a street corner or on a computer screen?

Nope.

My argument is simplistic: "Role Play between two adults is not something that should be controlled, provided said adults can keep reality and fantasy separate."

If you cannot, do not after repeatedly attempting to explain in in simpler and simpler term, or simply refuse to understand that .... Then I don't have anything further to say to you.

I've attempted to make this as clear as possible and thus far all you have done is looked at it and fallen back on the same, tired and narrow minded view that most who have never Role Played and/or have never had Role Playing friends get lost to their fantasies have.



Dhali, I am mixing nothing here. role Play is Role Play, and Rape of a Child (someone younger than, let us say 15/16) is not one of the things I do or condone in people. Nor is it something I have mentioned here at all.

I do so love however that the moment someone sees Age Play, they assume young children.

It all boils down to one thing though: I have no right to tell someone what they can and cannot Role Play. I DO have the right to tell them what they can and cannot Role Play when they wish to engage in sexual scenes with my character however.

Aside from giving my personal opinion, those are the only rights I have over another person's Role Play. They are the same rights any person has.

All the prohibited content in the Terms of Service is there based on emotional responses Pon - not rational ones.

Any and all studies done on any effect a virtual anything has on a person can be considered suspect. One side wishes to control what we think, the other wishes to remove all controls (a bad thing, some must remain.)


You have proven my point rather well in regard to the entire "Second Life is Real" camp. Thank you.

I am done with you now, as everything you have just said has been hashed, rehashed, debunked, debased and made to seem quite irrational in a good number of topics both here and elsewhere on the internet.

I will leave you with this: Stripped of all the emotional impulses, no image or depiction anywhere in Second Life would be an issue.

I ask that you not come to me with anything else until you can debate this with a rational and logical mind. I am not debating the emotional aspect of this.

Even granting that there are a lot of issues floating around in this thread: this seems like a distortion of the basic question of whether depictions of child sex can rationally be considered to be 'bad'.

(The question of whether LL should permit such depictions is, as many have pointed out, moot: they are bad for business and so they won't be permitted.)

The issue of whether depictions of child sex are bad, has nothing to do with the degree to which people "can keep reality and fantasy separate".

Why?

Because if it happens outside your head, IT IS REAL*.

If you are participating in role play with another person or persons---on the Internet, on the telephone, in person, it doesn't matter where---then you have left the world of Fantasy (the world inside your own head) and entered the world of Reality (the world in which you act: speak, type, move, etc.)

Hence the concept that 'ability to separate reality and fantasy' has anything to do with anything, is just as moot as is the question of whether LL 'should' permit sexual age play.


*remember, "real" is NOT limited to "physically harms a child", because you have no way of ensuring that, say, a child seeing depictions of child sex on a computer screen, won't be harmed. "Harm" can't be limited to physical injury.

But in RL there are no such things as shapeshifting demons and nine-tailed anthropomorphic foxes. How can you think these kinds of roleplay are even analagous to the topic?

How seriously do you expect us to take a Star Trek fan, for instance, who comes to us with a statement like, "In SL it's OK, but in RL I wouldn't condone beaming down to an unexplored planet without an environmental suit."

What is the distinction between Emotional and Rational?

Who is to determine it?

What criteria will this entity use? Please be specific.



Not a very gracious way of conceding that you can't counter any of my arguments, perhaps, but it will have to do.




How would you go about accomplishing this 'stripping'?

Would really suggest reading the OP's profile.

Dakota, the principle is the same. As I said to someone else, Role Play is Role Play.

All areas are bound by the same stimulations or lack thereof.

The use of Star trek however has no relevance to this topic by the simple factor that it is not a reference to the sexual aspect of Role Playing.

something that must be understood is that Role Play makes use of the Imagination and is thus bound to the realm of Fantasy. It is not real no matter what reactions your mind and body may have to it.

In short, the answer to your question is quite simple: There is no distinction between types of sexual RP except that which resides in the mind of the Player.

YOUR OPINION. Unless you can see into my mind, you have absolutely no idea what various images mean to me.



I do find people that want to have sex with children to be very very sick individuals. But I will not go so far as to say that if they want to Role Play that in a virtual world that it means they really want to do it in RL. I have tried a variety of things in SL that I do not want to go try in RL, for many different reasons.

I do hope that I never come across an adult image in a virtual world having sex with an obvious young child image.





I did not ignore it, I was working on how to reply to it. In my opinion, if you are in to beastiality, then you are a sick person and need some help, but we let that happen here and most of us ignore it. I do not think that by ignoring it, we are condoning it as being fun nor saying that it is alright in RL.

A better example -- we allow Rape, Kidnapping, Torture, and Slavery in SL -- does that automatically mean that we are saying those things are okay in the real world? Does it automatically mean that those people really really want to rape or be raped in the real world?

It seems for the OP that the rape/humiliation fantasies he/she enjoys are extended to experiencing a sense of being worthless whether as a child or an adult.

Strangely enough I'm okay with that unless he/she was violated as a child and this is his/her only way of expressing his/her pain..if so I would hope that he/she gets help.

That is something he/she would have to sort out for him/herself especially as he/she gets older and youthful energy subsides and consequences start to pile up. He/She says he/she is 40 in his/her OP but he/she doesn't look 40 in his/her profile pick...at least not to me.

One of the things I'm grateful to SL for is that it has forced me to think about things I would have normally avoided. There have been some compelling arguments about the differences between roleplay, fantasy and RL crimes. Its an ongoing process for me to refine my values into something I can live with and defend. During this process, I have had to face parts of myself that the freedom SL offers have brought to the surface so I would not want to take away the possibility of that self knowledge from someone else.

But I do believe that a simple live and let live policy is not enough...I believe we do have to think these things through in the face of the freedom SL offers and determine where the lines are not only for ourselves but for some sort of overarching cultural value system that includes safety for innocence as well as freedom in its value system.

The problem with child rape or child seduction is that is counts on the knowledge that the sensations of the body will overwhelm and confuse the undeveloped self of the child before the child has develop enough sense of itself to make a decision what role those sensations will play in its life. This creates a person where sexual sensation is connected with a sense of being overwhelmed or violated...something I can enjoy as a adult when I choose but it must be a choice not the only option because someone took advantage of a child.

The OP has chosen a very rough path in determining where his/her sense of self will reside
and besides seeking this experience over and over again, does not seem to have much more use for SL. Perhaps he/she has an alt that builds or scripts so that he/she does not have a life (RL too it appears) that seems to be completely involved in repeating this one experience over and over again.

Does it say in the OP that he is 40?

Not "bad and wrong and sick," just wrong. And it's not their fault: social norms have told them that it's perfectly okay to watch pretend violence, despite the overwhelming scientific evidence (and as you rightly note, it *is* overwhelming) that this behavior is psychologically damaging. (For that matter, they were probably exposed to the same sort of virtual violence all their lives, so perhaps "sick" is just an ungenerous characterization of their collective disorders.)Well, perhaps, but there are two different possible releases of that drive. The first is to find the subject matter disgusting and to avoid it, which is a perfectly legitimate response (and one that I happen to share), and is ultimately why it makes perfect commercial sense for LL to ban the activity.

It's a second response that's problematic: Jumping to any kind of conclusions about the RL ill effects of sexual age play without any kind of relevant evidence, or to use that argument to pass RL laws against it. That's simple hysteria, "burn the witches," etc.

On a completely different post:Yes, quite; in my initial response to your post, I was referring to "many responses in this thread," not to the original post. But point well taken: this has drifted rather far from answering anybody's actual question.

So, yeah, time to pull out of the thread, but before I do, a personal comment: I have never argued in favor of sexual ageplay, and don't condone it. I have claimed that banning it is silly, but that's not really how I feel on the subject; rather, I think that RL laws against it are dangerous. In fact, I think the in-world ban is useful, but mainly for a reason that is rarely cited: the ban makes it a bit easier for some people to have kid avatars, and I think that's actually kind of important--or as important as anything in SL, anyway.

heh not everyone is you

heres a nice heartwarming story of a man, who after playing GTA 4 decided to see how easy it was in real life, stabbed a cabbie to death

http://current.com/items/89167583_thailand_bans_grand_theft_auto_iv_after_cabbie_murder

this just proves WHY, as some one said there are people who will act out their pedophile dreams in world, and when thats not enough someone will ACT IT OUT

ok please continue your pointless argument about something you cant change