Why do men pay for sl sex when there're so many orgy rooms?

Phil, how is it sad that some people find pleasure, happiness in viewing an avatar?

But Phil, your language towards Isabeau and your attitude toward women show that you are an ill-manner boor and in a more civilized time your behaviors would not have been tolerated by gentlemen in the same room. Good day to you and welcome to ignore.

I think you're cutting the bologna too fine, to be honest. Is it the avatar that is arousing in isolation from everything else? Maybe not, but it *assists* arousal. It's a total package. For example, when I see a well put together avatar, it interests me in the person who put it together, and that leads to conversation and over time may lead to physical intimacy. Now the arousal or attraction was not "based" on the avatar, but the avatar had something to do with it, and to be honest I would be much more interested in being intimate with a typist who had a nice looking avatar than one who had a not nice looking one. It definitely plays into the mix of attraction in SL. It isn't an either/or thing -- it's not avatars or text, it's both put together that create the experience of intimacy in SL. Yes the avatar is a vehicle for the typist, but an important one, and its appearance matters in creating attraction, arousal and intimacy. Again, not in isolation, but together with the communication between the typists. I think that simply saying people who are aroused by avatars are sad both underestimates and overestimates the role of avatars in SL attraction and sexuality. In other words, I don't see why it would be sad that someone is attracted to a typist in part because she has a sexy AV, and I also don't think it's realistic that anyone remains attracted to someone solely based on their AV. It's simply the case that AVs play a large role in attraction and arousal but not an isolated one.

Then I suggest you don't read in this thread any more

Your theory is completely wrong, although I can understand the thought. I've never been 'shot down' is SL - just the opposite. Actually, not quite the opposite, because I don't hit on SL women - they hit on me.

My "dogmatic determination to place blame elsewhere" is because the blame IS elsewhere. I wrote one thing, and people have posted as though I wrote something different. They are to blame. If you can find fault with what I actually wrote, please do, BUT go back to the start and be sure to find fault with that. Don't assume that what some people have thought I wrote is true - it isn't. But you won't do that - you're only interested in sticking a knife in, regardless of truth. Not a good quality, huh?

Well Phil, seeing as I'm not the only one who 'misunderstood' you on this thread, it would seem that I'm not the only one with communication problems.

Also, you needn't swear when replying to me. It doesn't accomplish anything except making you come off as rude. I brought up the father-daughter thing because people were discussing it. Since it's rightly none of my business if you DO have any children, you didn't have to mention that you did.

As for the generalizations I understood you to have made about women - well, what can I say, that's exactly how I read it. Maybe if you had written 'some, maybe most' about people in general and not women, I wouldn't have thought your statement to be a bit sexist. Of course, this has been your experience in SL , who am I to doubt you. It simply hasn't been mine.

I can only wish that you spend some more time exploring SL, and maybe meet different kinds of women.

Yes I did take offense at it. I said that ages ago. I said that I have a thing about it, and the post aroused it. Anything else you'd like to drag up?

That's so stupid, Colette. So very very stupid. See what I mean about it being your nature? You don't need to go out of your way to be insulting - it just comes naturally.

Isabeau brought my RL family into it, while continuing the myth that I wrote something that I didn't write. She didn't deserve anything else. In fact she deserved much worse.

I don't have an attitude about women. That's a stupid thing to say. I have an observation about many SL women, which is shared by other people here.

I haven't said anything that disagrees with that, Victorria. I talked about getting off on graphic drawings, which is completely different.

No Phil.

I INTENDED to call you a crybaby. I did go out of my way to call you one. Because the phrase fits.

I should have thought that was obvious.

Hello, I'm Yosef Okelly and I'm sad.
It has been 5 minutes since I was sexually aroused by an attractive avatar.
/me notices Isabeau in the audience.
It has been 1 second since I was sexually aroused by an attractive avatar.


What is SAD anyway?
Sexy Avatar Dreamers?
Smooth And Dapper?
Sentimentaly Affectionate Devotion?
Sick And Demented?
Sexually Aroused Desires?

It would seem so. And that's not my fault. But when the first person misunderstood what I wrote, I pointed out the misunderstanding, and I've been pointing it out ever since. But some of you choose to ignore it and to continue as though I wrote what you prefer it to have been. You don't like it that many SL women wrongly think so highly of themselves, so you insist that I said most women think so highly of themselves. But what I said it still there - in plain english.

You leave my RL family of it, and you won't get sworn at. You deserved it. I don't care why you did it - you did it, and that was enough. You deserved the response.

And all the posts I've made that showed clearly what was written, and that you misunderstood it, made no difference to you at all? Don't make me laugh. You WANT me to have written a generalisation about women.

I'm not interested in your SL experience. There are several people in this thread who have seen what I described. You think it was sexist because you want to think it was sexist - not because it was. And you think it was a generalisation because you want to think that - not because it was. Your attitude sounds more sexist to me.

Why? You still think I made a general statement about women, huh? Learn to read for goodness sakes.

Alright, explain what you mean. Am I crying to someone? Am I crying alone? What are you talking about? I don't see any tears here. Your'e just stupid.

Hmm. What did you mean by this then:



This seems to say that avatars have *no* sexual power. I think that over- and underestimates the power that they have in the mix, as I wrote above. This whole debate started when you insinuated that women are stuck up because they think men will be attracted to them solely on the basis of their AV. Leaving aside my own anecdotal experiences here for the moment, I think that misrepresents the whole process of attraction. In SL, before any words are spoken, AVs are looked at. That's just the sequencing reality. They are a part of the attraction -- they can't *sustain* the attraction, or even arousal, but they are certainly the kick-off and a key part of it. If you agree with this, fine, but I'm having challenges squaring it with what you wrote earlier.

Well, my first thought was: nice, he replied to my posting, maybe he gave it some thought. Reading your reply, you did not, at least your writing doesn't imply anywhere that you did. You keep on defending your words and intentions, which is your good right of course. Nevertheless a disappointment.

Last example:
- You are in a group with 25 people
- You make a statement
- 22 people not only disagree, but are offended by your words (read well, your words, not what you may have intended to say)
- 2 people declare they understand what you wanted to say

When this happens once, I would say, well can happen. But I have seen this happen multiple times in threads where you were active. That is why I say: those 22 out of 25 cannot be wrong each and every time. In my opinion, that is the same as starting to drive left, and declare all the other drivers are wrong.

If you cannot see some truth in this way of thinking, I would suggest to not post in too many of this kind of threads, as it does you damage. They do you damage as a person, and maybe in the end even for your business.

Regards, Marcel

A bunch of people took exception to what you said and you are lashing out with repeated personal attacks at multiple people.

Just like a baby throwing a temper tantrum.

Oh I see. Not a crybaby then. I wish you'd make up your mind.

I think I've only made personal attacks against two people in this thread. you are one, and you merit it for your admitted insults. The other is Isabeau, who merited it for bringing my RL family into it.

Ohh give it a rest.

You are also going ---"I didnt say that!", "I didnt say that!"

Even when in some cases you seem obviously to contradict yourself.

------

How about a temper throwing crybaby? if the other definition is so difficult.


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


If you posts were as well crafted as you seem to suggest,

far less people would have taken them the wrong way.

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


Ive read Isabeau's comment all she seemed to wonder is do you make the same generalizations with your own daughters.

I don't see why you'd lose your cool over that. Especially when you claim you aren't making generalizations.

While this is not a defense of Phil or what he has written (honestly haven't paid much attention), it is a well-known phenomenon of "mob mentality" (a la "groupthink" that does allow this to happen, probably far more often than it should in places like this. One person really gets ants in his/her pants over something someone else posts, blows it out of proportion, and then everyone who doesn't share an unpopular view descends on the poster like a bevy of banshees based on that misinterpretation. Sometimes it is fueled by knee-jerk reactions to specific posters based on their posting history, too. I've seen enough of that myself to know it is true.

Very true, even if it isn't a conscious gang up it happens. It may be only a case of 10 individuals holding the same stance against someone who takes the unpopular side of the argument and they are merely stating their view as opposed to any active ganging up, but it still comes out the same. In this case, I think both sides of the argument have been played out and should just take a time out, they've both made their points sufficiently.

Honestly, I don't know why anyone cares what people do in SL with respect to sex. As long as it isn't hurting anyone (and the two people involved are consenting adults giving consent (not possible otherwise anyway in SL)), who cares? Sad? Why? If one finds it sad, then one should not participate in it; that would be hurting oneself, and that is a bad thing.

It's also a well-known tenet of English that there are such things as popular implied interpretations. If I say "Humans are stupid sheep", there is a popular implied "I think" or "It is my opinion that". There is also a likely implied "Some". It is easy to read absolutes into everything and assume everything is meant as a generalization. It makes for fun argument and flamewar fodder (and I sometimes play with it myself ), but does not make for very interesting discourse on the subject otherwise.

The proper thing to do in the situation where you are not sure if there is an absolutism or gross generalization is to, well, ask. Ask the poster to clarify, just to be sure.

Well when he says something like this -



I don't see how he didn't expect a lot of people would have a contrary opinion on it.

Yes, it's happened in other threads, Marcel, but if I'm not mistaken, the topics of the other threads were such that the majority of people that posted (not the majority of the SL population, or even in the forum) are against certain things in SL - temp rezzers and traffic alts/bots. I defended both of them against the tide of thread opinion. I am a person who will adjust his views when persuaded by discussion, but not when I am not persuaded, and with those, i wasn't persuaded. The majority views in the threads represented only a few people, so they weren't majority SL, or forum user views.

In this thread, there are other things going on. What I wrote about many, perhaps most, SL women is true. Nobody has claimed that it isn't true, and a couple of people have agreed that it's true. But there are people posting who don't like it, and have chosen to object to something that I didn't say. And they insist on continuing to object to something that I didn't say. If I'd said that SL women in general think too highly of themselves, as they insist I said, then they would have good reason to object to it, but that's not what I said, and they know it. They insist that I made a statement about SL women in general, and object to it, but they know that I didn't. You tell me why they insist on continuing the falseness.

What would you have me do? Change my mind, and say that I was wrong? Other people in the thread have said that they've found the same thing, and nobody in the thread has said that what I wrote isn't true. All they've done is criticise soemthing that I didn't write, and I've explained it enough times to them. What would you have me do about it? Let's try this...

To everyone:-
I am sorry that some of you misunderstood what I wrote about SL women. It was not a statement about SL women in general - it was a statement about *some* SL women.

Is that ok, Marcel? It won't make any difference, because I've explained it several times already. They just don't want to know. For whatever reasons, they only want to criticise.

I think we're long past the point of actually discussing the intent of the comments Phil made. At this point, it's pure exasperation it his unrelenting stubbornness in the face of overwhelming opposition... And while it might be fun to keep picking at the scab, it's really not worth it. Just a thought.

Avatars don't have sexual power in themselves. It's people behind the avatars that have sexual power - male and female. Avatars are poor graphic representations of humans.


Correction: this whole debate started when a few people *thought* that I "insinuated that women are stuck up because they think men will be attracted to them solely on the basis of their AV." I've pointed out numerous times since then I wrote about *some* SL women - "many, perhaps most". Even now you are making the same mistake - "women are stuck up because". I didn't say anything like that. Why do you do it?

QFT!