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

Amity, I forgot to address this point, and I had meant to.

I have acknowledged what others have said about the inconsistencies of registration as a "sex offender." I think in my response to you and Melodie I conceded that those inconsistencies make it undesirable to use them as the basis for any action in SL, at the least.

Ironically, your point about my use of "pedophile" echoes something I have thought whenever I read someone in this forum (or elsewhere) insist that sexual ageplay is not paedophilia, because it does not involve real children. As it happens, I agree with you: paedophilia is a psychological condition, not a legal one. I take it, however, that a conviction for something like distributing or using child porn or (of course) child molestation constitutes legal "proof" that the person so convicted does in fact have this psychological condition.

But, again, I concede that having one's name in a sex offender's registry does NOT constitute such "proof," legal or otherwise.

A constructive suggestion, Scylla - why don't you simplify your toolkit for newbie "women" and replace it with the following:

Are you occasionally provoked into hysterical over-emotional over-reactions by such mundane things as suggestions that your bum *does* look big in that?

If so, leave SL and the forums immediately.

Pep (That should sort out most of your target market.)

Melita, the survival kit is (in an earlier version) already available, and actually has been in circulation for about half a year. I'm currently updating and revising the older one; in its unfinished form, it is also available online.

Yes, it is VERY difficult to find the language to properly warn people about emotional and psychological abuse. I have been struggling with this.

ETA: See Mickey's excellent post on this, above.

Doutbless, Pete Townshend will be delighted at your viewpoint . . .

Pep ( . . . among others.)

PS It rather messes up the impact of your OP though, doesn't it?

You are making a mistake here of combining public and private bodies. The right to travel and the right to own a weapon are basic human rights and any GOVERNMENT which restricts either is tryannical. The job at a daycare and the insurance are both private concerns and none of my or anyone else's business. Of course I would ask the daycare if they had convicted pedphiles on staff and if they did or if they refused to tell me, I would take my child and my money elsewhere.

I'm afraid not. It ran circles around my comprehension abilities.

I *think* you might have said you believe "true" BDSM to, "need have nothing to do with physical violence, or with sex, for that matter. "

If so, that's a very limiting definition.

Regardless, it leaves me completely unsure of what you are trying to say, or what comparisons you are trying to formulate. Or how it fits into your agenda. Regardless, others seem to be doing a better job of discourse with you, so I'll leave it to them.

As I said in my response to Mila, you may well be right. Despite the title of this thread, I don't actually have any ideological investment in a connection between rape RP and sex offenders, so I can certainly buy this as a possibility. I wish I knew.


Agreed. It's a morass.


I don't think it need be an either/or. Using the "Rape RP = Extreme porn" model (which, as I say in my post to Des, I have some serious problems with anyway), an escalation can either trigger behaviours from someone who is already a sex offender, or lead to this kind of behaviour in someone who has not yet committed an actual crime.

But again, the proof of causality is far from securely established.


I think that doing this would have to depend on the availability of a RELIABLE registry of VIOLENT sex offenders.


Agreed. I think we should be vigilant everywhere.

LOL! So true ... Thanks for the giggle, I needed that!

Looks like someone needs a Survival Kit.

allow me to be a scary voice...

let all the violent pervs act out whatever scary fantasy they wish in virtual space with willing partners, and if those same partners are willing IRL let them take that there too. the only targets should be the ones that try to lure or decieve unwilling participants.

I've heard the training and escalation arguments, but the numbers just don't support them.... and connecting these people with willing participants should actually reduce the problem, not increase it.

I can speak only of the UK, but here we have things called Sexual Offences Prevention Orders, which are automatically considered and frequently imposed, when anyone's convicted of a relevant specified offence.

These are not penalties -- though I think they must feel like them at times -- any more than is the requirement to register. Rather, they are administrative orders imposed by the sentencing judge (and variable at any time on application to the court), prohibiting or restricting just about any activity the court thinks is appropriate to safeguard the public. These are rather like the temporary licence conditions that apply after someone's release from prison, except they last indefinitely. Breaking them is a separate criminal offence that can -- usually does -- result in a further term of imprisonment.

They not infrequently include restrictions on people's internet activities, ranging from a requirement to register all internet and email accounts and passwords with the police (and these are checked) to prohibitions on using the internet at all except under specified circumstances.

For what it's worth, I don't like much like them (and neither do a lot of judges) because they can become absurdly restrictive in practice. And we've recently had a series of reminders from the Court of Appeal that they should be carefully drafted and comprise the minimum of restrictions the court thinks necessary for public protection -- this after some orders that were successfully appealed and varied on the grounds the effect of their restrictions on internet access was to prohibit their subjects from possessing just about any model of mobile phone on their release, or from using a cash point machine or a self-service terminal in a supermarket.

Anyway, my point is that these orders, draconian though they may be, are at least drawn up at the request of the prosecuting authorities and reviewed by a court, with the assistance of reports from the probation services and post-release offender management teams, with a view to protecting the public from this particular offender in the light of what's known about him and his particular proclivities, while trying not to restrict his liberty, after he's served the penalty imposed by the court, more than is necessary for public protection. And they are still very blunt instruments.

Why might it be the case that Linden Labs -- without the benefit of knowing anything much about the offender, including the details of his offence -- would be better placed to judge whether a Brit's access to SL constitutes a danger to the public -- in general or particular members of it -- than are our UK authorities, or than would be the US authorities if they have similar post-release provisions over there?

That will be made available right after we have put the enhanced butterfly nets into production for trapping the flying pigs.

Pep (Is this a hypothetical discussion or is it meant to be useful?)

Why not create a separate continent in SL and encourage all those who are so inclined to move there and . . .

Pep ( . . . ah, so *that's* what was behind LL's strategy. )

Well, I don't do SL roleplay, I do RL roleplay, and while I have never been as far as a "rape" scene, a fair amount of what I do is probably what *you* would term quite "violent" ... but anyway, in my case, all I can say is that I'd like to see anyone try turning me into a victim! I have had relationship problems over the years (all past now) and have had a lot of relationships, but I have never been in an abusive relationship - physically or emotionally. I can't be going that far wrong as I just don't seem to attract that sort of man.

Oh yes, I see this over and over again.

What I am getting at here is that BDSM need not involve rape RP; that is at best just one aspect of BDSM, and, moreover, a means to an end, rather than an ends in itself. For BDSMers, the "end" should be the emotional satisfaction that comes from the transfer of power and trust: rape is merely ONE way to articulate this. For someone whose interest is purely in rape RP, however, the kick is different, and neither trust nor a true exchange of power is involved: it is more about violence.

Love, this is why I said that BDSM *need* not involve sex or violence. That is NOT the same as saying "cannot" involve those things: I think it can, and frequently does. But there are a great many nonviolent, and nonsexual ways in which that exchange of trust and power can be achieved.

... well, not today (yet)

Gummi, Scylla's ok really. She has some funny ideas about BDSM, but she's quite good to debate with.

We are staring at each again across that great ideological divide, Chris. (And waving to each other, I hope, in a friendly fashion!)

Your view is entirely consist with what I know to be your fundamental political and philosophical premises. They differ vastly from mine, of course: I, for example, find the idea that gun ownership is a basic human right to be an absurdity. But within the context of your premises, what you say here makes sense.

LOL

Yeah, maybe. But that's why I insist on starting these stupid threads on occasion: there's an awful lot to be learned here. In fact, my perspective on this issue has changed quite dramatically over the course of this discussion.

Interesting info, Innula. The system in the UK certainly sounds more logical than the US one (I wish I knew more about the Canadian one: I'll have to do some research). But yes, I can see that it might well be a "blunt instrument." And no, I wouldn't trust Skippy Linden or any of the other Lindens to administer judgments on the basis of such information.

Always friendly. You would know it if wasn't. See Jumpy's second thread for when I get unfriendly.

Yes, I'm confused. BDSM *need* not include ballroom dancing either. It's a nothing statement.

That doesn't really help me understand how you define it.

I personally have an issue understanding BDSM outside the context of sex. I personally feel that it stops being BDSM without sex. I'm not talking about a physical act - I'm talking about a physical response - arousal. But I know that some disagree.

On the basis of my acquaintance with you, that seems a very very unlikely eventuality indeed.

Well, I guess this is what I meant by the problems with defining what does constitute BDSM.

My understanding is that BDSM can be defined as a relationship founded upon a consensual exchange of power, and built upon trust.

This exchange can be manifested or expressed in any number of different ways, ONE of which is through sexuality, and another of which is through a kind of consensual "violence." But neither of these is necessarily an obligatory part of the relationship. The core elements are, again, about power and trust (the latter implying, of course, consent).

I understand that BDSM is most frequently expressed sexually, of course, and violent RP (in RL or SL) is often another means of its expression). But these are the ways in which trust and power are EXPRESSED: they are the means to an end, rather than the end itself.

For what's it worth, I'm not entirely pulling this stuff out of the air . . . I have done a fair bit of background reading. On the other hand, of course, I am hampered by not being a practitioner: I am very much an observer from the (far) outside.

err, why?

It can't help anyone or anything, unless Linden Labs was to say that this particular interpretation had their support. Without their support, it becomes just another opinion. *All* sex involves an exchange of some form, and *all* of it can be equated to a gain or loss of status from *some* standpoint. "Love, Honour and Obey" is an emptily-repeated oath, which people commonly parrot out and then promptly apply selectively, as if it was none of our business who or what they might choose to *obey* - yet it's at the heart of the straightest possible component of society's approach to conventional sexuality...

So if the mainstream can't even get *that* right, or apply it consistently, or desist from killing one another when the failure to observe it's provisions becomes too much to bear - why, then, are you expecting infinitely higher standards from a community which can't even agree on definitions, internally?

Personally in RL I got along just fine for the thick end of a decade, doing BDSM without benefit of published rules and guidelines - in fact, the *absence* of such things made the initial seduction/negotiation a whole lot easier, and the accepted church of what was OK to do was both wider, and milder. The coming of the Net and later, the Web, introduced a lot of codified bureaucratic crap; there are good cultural reasons why this was so and I don't propose to bore on about those here - but the ideas that they introduce, that there is "real" and "fake" BDSM, and so on, are ultimately corrosive, and pointless.