So, really . . . who IS that nice man "raping" you?

I wouldn't guess that: in RL at least I have found that generally, female fantasies are "darker" than mens and this is one of the difficulties - the fantasy aims of the two genders, when given equal rights to sexual self-determination, don't necessarily line up to compatible aims or interests.

In any case, snuff fantasies are flat out hilarious to watch. Shortly after what we might as well term "le petit mort", the operator will enquire of the subject "so, are you dead?"

"oh, err, yes"

"was it good?"

"umm..."

Which in context (as with so much kinky sex that gets treated with grim solemnity by those with no direct contact with the subject) turns the whole matter from evil rehearsal for real-world slaughter, into high comedy with a heavy salting of ludicrous idiocy...

Hear hear. In fact, our friend Scylla is a serious black belt in NewSpeak. It is a great shame that there's no single word - yet - for the perversion we can summarise as "the kink of finding ways to characterise other people's harmless behaviours as damaging", but she's got it, name or no name for the condition.

What she effectively says is that if you get good results from Rape RP - a term so wide it includes practically every form of submission in the entire BDSM rulebook, and beyond - then you should stop, because being good at something makes you want it some more. Woah, hold the front page, etc etc. Personally, I have found that all the RPs I've done - RL, SL, top, bottom, whatever - are far too prone to random effects (mood, health of participants, time available, interruptions, accidents) for the whole idea of "re-enactment" to be pretty much invalidated.

But; it's clear this topic isn't about what to *really* do about Sex Offenders. It's what to *really* do about the fears of people with no contact with the topic.

Sorry spinster, the problem here is in some measure about language. I agree entirely that rape RP is not sexual abuse: by "virtual victimization" I mean someone playing the ROLE of a victim. I use the term by analogy with things like "virtual sex," which is also NOT "real" sex, but a simulation of it. So, really, I agree with you: rape RP is a consensual form of play, not an actual form of sexual violence or abuse. It becomes difficult to find language that isn't awkward sometimes to express the complexity of what is going in SL, so I probably get lazy sometimes, and use an ambiguous term like "virtual victimization" when what I more precisely mean is a representation or simulation of victimization.

Bree would need to explain exactly what she meant by this idea herself, but as I took it, what she was suggesting that taking on the ROLE of victim in SL might make one more susceptible to passively accepting that role in RL. Again, the model here would not be the "stranger" rapist, but rather ongoing sexual assault and abuse by someone in the family, friends, or what-have-you.

Is there any evidence to suggest that the people engaging in the "extreme" sexual activities in Second Life are anything but ordinary people who happen to have some dark fantasies?

Going from my own experiences in Second Life (anecdotal evidence, take it for what it's worth) I think the focus on extreme sex is barking up the wrong tree.

I have encountered people who are easy marks for a predator, but they are not extreme roleplayers. They are desperate, lovesick individuals who will latch onto the first person who shows them any attention. A pretty avatar + halfway decent sex roleplay = true love in their eyes. I believe this is the type of person a predator would look for and victimize. One could easily take advantage of them. Sucker them into meeting for some nefarious purpose, control them, or simply leech them financially in a purely online relationship.

While extreme sex gets attention for being shocking, the potential for victimization in romantic relationships is probably far greater.

Gummi, read my response to spinster above, please.

And while I will say, again, that role playing a victim is in no way itself a form of sexual assault or abuse, I am not going to concede that it is therefore necessarily "harmless."


I'm sorry, when did I say this? I found Bree's question an interesting one. I still find it an interesting one. I am pretty sure, however, that I have not, expressed an opinion about whether or not it is true:


I don't commit to any opinion on the subject here. Please make a distinction between the voicing of open questions, and a more positive assertion of an opinion.


Well, you are of course welcome to read my motives in any way that you like. Personally, I think that if you read my comments throughout this thread, you will see that my opinions about this subject are pretty open. I don't think I have launched a "crusade" against rape RP here. But you'll read into my comments what you want to read, I suppose.

By analogy, you are not making a "real" argument, then. And you have virtually convinced me.

Pep (is playing the role of someone who is convinced by a complete lack of academic rigour, and simulating agreement; is he a victim of pseudo-violence and will he be abused for it?)

PS Maybe "the problem here is in some measure about language"; the misappropriation of emotionally charged words and their unpredefined and ambiguous use in a non-collaborative environment, rendering the discussion pointless except from a promotional point of view.

None whatsoever, that I have seen. I don't think research on this subject has ever been done, and I'm not sure how you could do it. One of the reasons why I find the issue of the presence of sex offenders in SL interesting and potentially significant is that it opens up the *possibility* that not all of those engaging in these activities ARE "anything but ordinary people." But that remains nothing more than a possibility: as I say, we don't have any real data to conclude either way.


This is much what Qie has been saying. You may very well be right. If so, then it is of enormous significance to me, as someone who tries to arm newbies with information about safety in SL, because it suggests that they may actually be more vulnerable to emotional abuse than I would have otherwise thought.

Oh, now i see...

Are the safety kits ready yet? Seems like a candidate for places wishing to distribute free items. If they contain solid advice and tips they should be made as widely available as possible.

It is a good basic policy to NEVER share real life information. But, social engineers are very good at wheedling. How to arm oneself against wheedling in the information age? That seems hard to put into a simply-worded treatise.

Unless there are a *lot* of people lying through their teeth here and in SL I think that "possibility" is a euphemistic way of saying "I don't want to admit the obvious inaccuracy of an essential assumption critical to my biased viewpoint".

Why restrict your misconceptions to newbies?

Pep (My own perception - and experience - is that a not inconsiderable subset of relatively longstanding participants in these forums, at least, is over-sensitive emotionally and susceptible to hyper-reaction in a completely irrational way.)

PS That is why having members of the lunatic fringe stalking these forums wishing death and pain on others in cold blood is an unacceptable situation, matched only by the apparent complacent acceptance by others in the forum of what is completely unacceptable behaviour.

I worry more about this. But not everyone that encounters a mental predator is an easy mark. Not all are newbies. Not all are emotionally unstable. Not all are weak. Not all are desperate. Or whatever qualities you would attribute to someone who falls for it. And it doesn't always have to do with a romantic relationship.....often times it is just a mental mind game for jollies or attention. Most cases would not transfer to a RL meeting. But....a manipulation of your time, and your head.....and that's a RL effect. Not always so easy to click the off-button with some people....if you have a human heart.

Was reminded recently that these people can pull out all the stops, and go as low as a human being can go......and effect people that you would not normally place into a "victim" category. I can only imagine what kind of effect they would have on someone less jaded and less guarded. But happens every day. I don't mind a reminder every now and then, and I don't think it hurts to watch out for some of your friends here, and remind them....if you suspect it is happening. It comes in all forms.

but "doing the same" would be RL "rape" RP, not RL rape. People _do_ do that in RL and they are not rapists or victims.


I agree with you that there can be negative emotional consequences from RP but I think you are focussing on the wrong things. For lots of people, SL is their first introduction to BDSM and it alarms me that some seem to jump straight in at the deep end when in RL this is something that most take very slowly and carefully. If I were to offer advice in this area it would be stuff like taking things slowly, working out where your limits are and discussing them beforehand, using safewords or OOC and making sure you get some sort of aftercare. While that dom(me) may be a perfectly nice, well-intentioned person, they may be doing this for the first time too.


Again, you seem to be confusing abusive relationships with BDSM. What Des described is abusive relationships. They happen across the board, sadly.

In a sense, this is sort of a tangential issue for me, as the idea of LL using sex offender registries really had not occurred to me when I posted the OP. I'm honestly not sure how I feel about the idea: part of the problem is, as many have indicated here, that the registries themselves are not consistent, and possibly misleading. On that basis alone, I'd want to know a LOT more about them, and about how they were to be used, before I'd really advocate letting LL employ them in any fashion.

That said, for the sake of argument, and because it IS an interesting question, let me throw out a couple of analogies and examples that might confusify the issue somewhat.

Should someone who has been convicted of violent crime with a firearm be permitted exactly the same rights of gun ownership as everyone else, once time has been served?

Should a daycare centre NOT have the right to deny a job to a convicted pedophile?

Should a driver with an established record of dangerous or drunken driving have the same rights to a driving license as everyone else? Should insurance companies be denied the right to increase his or her insurance rates, on the basis of past performance?

If you answered "Yes" to all of these questions, then you have taken an entirely consistent, if (to my mind) rather reductive approach to this issue. But if you said "No" to even one of these questions, you have essentially acknowledged that past performance CAN and, for societal safety, SHOULD be seen as a way of measuring probable future behaviour. You have, in other words, admitted to the possibility that, in principle at least, sex offender registries might serve a useful purpose in preventing a future offence.

Now, again . . . I acknowledge that, in practice, the existing registries sound woefully inadequate to the task. And even if they weren't, the mechanics whereby they might be used in SL would be problematic, to say the least.

But we already do, as a society, use things LIKE sex registries to restrict the rights of citizens on the basis of the probability of them re-offending. The question, then, if you accept that this is a valid way of proceeding, is rather one of practicalities rather than ideologies.

I also try to arm newbies iwth information in SL. Disabled ones at that, many using all kinds of assistive technologies. (my newbies are needier than your newbies) Kidding. Point is that it's a fine line, to walk, to 'arm with information' rather than to micro-manage, hover, and decide for another adult what is ok behavior for them to choose to indulge in, in SL. I am not being facetious, it really IS hard to walk that line. I always try to keep in mind, these are grown ups, these are not my kids, I am not babysitting here. I can provide the information as I know it. In fact I would love to have your package when you are done with it. How they then choose to use it, is up to them. I am available to IM anytime they see me, and will help any way I can *if* my help is indeed requested. But I think I have to be careful that my so called help is just that, and not being all up in somebody else's chosen SL playtime or lifestyle.

That was my impression too.

Scylla, it would help to put your comments in context if you declared your views on BDSM. Perhaps you see it as abusive? Perhaps you believe there's a stronger correlation between practitioners and abuse? Perhaps you really think they're different?

1. It depends on the person, the circumstances of the conviction and the specific laws involved.
2. It depends on the person, the circumstances of the conviction and the specific laws involved.
3. It depends on the person, the circumstances of the conviction and the specific laws involved.

Pep (Next questions?)

/me waves at Mickey. Hi! Haven't seen you posting, wb!

Hi Treasure

They are both "asking for it" in SL.

Pep (And as per my previous post, perhaps Scylla's argument suggests that members of both groups are also "asking for it" in RL as well.)

I have to agree with Pep (also keep in mind, blanket 'convictions' that cover all sorts of things, all bunched up together, that have nothing much to do with this conversation at all) I do wish the courts would look more at individual circumstances, case by case basis, rather than these blanket convictions/penalties. But as long as it is this way, I have to agree with Pep even though is not likely something that will actually happen.

I would place both D/s and rape RP within BDSM


So now I am really confused. Are you saying they are the same or different? You seem to allow for RL D/s roleplay but not for RL rape roleplay.

An excellent point.


This is also an excellent point. Someone (and not me) should produce a primer on the subject of SL BDSM. The SLLUFN Wiki already includes links to documents by RL BDSM groups on distinguishing between real BDSM and abusive relationships. I put them there: I have read them, and agree with them.


No, I don't think I am. I'm certainly trying not to. As you'll see (I think) in my response to Des, I am actually not very happy with the equation of sexual RP to pornography. This is one of the reasons why I am not.

I think too I should say that I find talking about "BDSM" at all to be difficult because so many people define it so differently. I have had conversations with Dolcett players who insist that THEY are "BDSM" too. On the other end of the spectrum are those who insist that BDSM need have nothing to do with physical violence, or with sex, for that matter. When I use "BDSM," I generally mean the latter, which I tend to think of as "true" BDSM. If I "slip" in my usage sometimes, it is because of this confusion. Let me say unambiguously that I do not think that consensual BDSM, in RL or SL, is a form of abuse. I DO think, and I have (again) backup here from RL BDSM organizations, that abuse can be mislabelled "BDSM."

Love, see the last part of my response to spinster, above. I hope that makes it clear?

So are you going to stop referring to the "Campaign Against Violence Against Women" and start calling the manifesto "Campaign Against Most Non-Consensual - but not the use of rulers - Violence Against Women, Men or Persons of Other Unspecified Gender Orientation"?

Pep (Not quite as snappy, eh?)