Inclusive Communities and Representations of Violence against Women

Oh great, she's back. Can you answer this please? I posted it a page or so back but it got lost in the flood ...

Can we get clear exactly what you are arguing for? In your OP you say ...



Together with your subsequent posts, I take this to mean that you are OK with public sex as long as it isn't of the type that offends you. Please could you clarify.

After a while in the forums you tend to get cynical as so many post with Alts, sarcasm doesn't become you though lol

In the interests of fairness I linked your blog from our wiki regarding these changes as I think it fair to see both sides of the coin so to speak, feel free to add any other links to those opposed to the changes as a balance is good even if the views oppose

http://www.slapt.me/wiki/index.php/Related_Groups_%26_Protest_Material

Well, Spinster, we are ALL ok with stuff that "doesn't offend" us, aren't we? And we do tend, on the whole, to be offended by things that, well, offend us. I have noted that more than a few people seem to be quite offended by me, many of whom seem quite happy to be calling for MY censorship.

I am, frankly, ok with public sex, in Mature and Adult regions anyway. What I am offended by is public displays of VIOLENT sex. Yes, were such a restriction to be enacted, it WOULD represent an encroachment upon your "freedom of expression." But then, as a society, we accept, within limits that are agreed upon consensually, such restrictions in order to keep that society functioning in a relatively harmonious way. ALL RL cultures do this; ALL "censor" (if this is what you insist upon calling it) to some degree. At issue is simply where we draw that line. And if the price of making SL a bit less threatening or offensive to those who ARE offended by representation of women as "meat" is that you move your pose balls or implements of mutilation 10 metres to the OTHER side of the wall of your house or members-only dungeon, then I think that is worthwhile.

To some degree it is about respect: how much are you willing to sacrifice of your personal freedoms in order to make other people more comfortable, and show that you value their feelings and sensitivities? How much do you care that you are offending or upsetting other people?

Don't really know you, and have never met you that I can recall ... but it's sort of hot when you get all Lordly and all.

Please provide links to any posts calling for you to be censored.

I did not agree to any restrictions imposed by society.
It is not my responsibility if someone else is offended or upset by my words. I am not willing to sacrifice any of my freedom to make you more comfortable.

Maybe it's just the places I frequent in-world but I've seen loads of signs saying age play is forbidden and child avs are not allowed. I don't think I've seen many to the effect that rape rp is banned. Maybe your experience is different.

My argument, such as it was, depended more on the fact that accessing age-play sims would almost certainly be against the law in the UK, at least, and probably in other jurisdicitons as well, which is not the case -- rightly or wrongly -- with other rp sims. Which, I guess, might be evidence that it's held in more general abhorrence, at least by UK legislators.

My main point, though, was that the bans on gambling and age-play, like that on "banking" and "investment" schemes, probably have as much to do with fears of legal consequences in RL as with anything else.

/me yawns, stretches, and takes a sip of coffee.

/me waves at Ledoof.

How nice to see that the party is still ongoing!

I remain sincerely puzzled by the degree of "outrage" being expressed here, and by the tendency to seek a "hidden agenda" in what I have said. I am pretty sure I haven't been "preachy" . . . I have stated opinions, which is not at all the same thing. I have said over and over again that I am interested in other perspectives, and, in fact, I am. That I don't suddenly abandon my own views upon reading yours, doesn't mean that I am "closed-minded" or doctrinaire, or trying to enforce a secret programme: it means that I disagree with them. That's all. I have not asked people to shut up, even when, as in more than a few cases, they have been frankly offensive, because I don't think that is how discourse works.

Again, to those of you who have actually taken the time to read what I have said here, and sought to engage with that, rather than making personal attacks upon my "hidden agenda," my ancestry, existence as a separate person, and my breakfast choices, thank you.

To those who ask me how my "programme," so-called, relates to the notecard that was distributed and has here been quoted, I can tell you that I agree, in PRINCIPLE, with pretty much everything that it says. However, the whole point of this exercise has been (for me) dialogue and consensus; I have NOT, for that reason, suggested that all rape animations or objects be banned. This is called compromise. I am entirely willing to concede that my views are not everyone's, and I am NOT trying to impose my own attitudes on anyone. I am, instead, seeking common ground. WERE I trying to do so, my approach would take a MUCH harder line against depictions of violence in SL than it, in fact, does.

To those who claim that I am holier-than-thou, please note that I have already, on at least two occasions, explicitly conceded that feminism is enormously diverse, that I do not speak for the SL Left Unity Fem Net because IT is enormously diverse, and that I NOWHERE make claims that my "brand" of feminism is "better," or "more feminist" than anyone else's. I would not make such claims because I don't believe them: I VALUE the diversity of opinion among feminists, and within this particular group, because it is through conversation that new ideas are generated.

Oh, there are other things that I should probably reiterate in order to address the way in which I have been misrepresented by some, but it's still kind of early here, and the coffee hasn't fully kicked in yet . . .

This kind of compromise is like the farmer only taking one ham from the pig.

How much respect are you willing to show others in allowing them the freedom to do as they please even if it disturbs you in order to have the same personal freedom?

You have tools to deal with things that disturb you. Use them...

<sarcasm>
Maybe we should ban pink clothing, it's girlish and demeaning to women to wear such clothing... it objectifies them and makes them look girlish. They should wear black tentlike garments, that way they can not be objectified... hiding thier faces as well.

Then any possible rapist would be unable to tell if it's a woman or an ex-nfl tackle under there....

</sarcasm>

A pig like that, you don't eat it all at once.

Ok, Chris. Fair enough. Then tell me what "kind of compromise" you WOULD accept. I haven't seen much suggestion that you are willing to budge at ALL in any of your posts so far. So, let's hear what sort of shift you might be willing to make.

Maybe your experience might have something to do with the fact that age play is explicitly forbidden and rape play isn't? I see lots of signs in rl stating the speed limit but not many saying picking your nose at traffic lights is not allowed. Sorry, but you are going to have to do much better than that.

Pep (I'm not interested in the rest of your argument until you can justify this point.)

Nuts. You say you're for freedom of expression...except for those things which happen to offend you.

You say you're "expected" to experience these things. You are not.

You say, "most" such scenes are "probably" consensual. Correction: They all are.


There are things in SL that offend me, too. But I am much more afraid of people like you than I am of them. Go away, please.

Never compromise!

Pep (Would you sit with your head in an oven and your feet in an icebox?)

I accept no compromise on my principles. Period. So you are right, I will not budge at all. Yes, I am a fundamentalist when it comes to freedom. But my solution to your problem. If you see something you don't like. Leave.

Maybe they are all using the restricted life viewer and can't teleport out

Where, exactly, are you seeing public displays of violent sex in SL? Can you cite some examples?

pixplsthxbai

Pep (Ready to take the list of places down, anyway)

Desmond, I find your discussion of the safe haven fascinating. I'd congratulate you for it, only I sense you'd merely read that as condescension. It wouldn't be, but there you are.

Maybe I am obtuse, but I remain puzzled by these characterizations of me as dictatorial, "preachy," self-righteous, or "intellectually dishonest." I have stated opinions, yes, and I have tried to defend them. When have I tried to call someone out for not being "feminist" enough? When have I labeled anyone as "evil"? Where have I made ANY kind of personal judgement about those who are attracted to depictions of sexual violence? I wouldn't, because I don't believe I am qualified to judge that. I am pretty sure I haven't called anyone "sick" or "demented" or "perverted." I don't think I've even said they were misogynist.

So, why the personal attack on me? And why is it that your only response to me seems to be merely dismissive? As someone who IS clearly engaged with these issues, I'd actually LIKE to hear what you think can be done to resolve what I see as a problem. I'd like to be engaged in a civil dialogue here; instead, I most frequently seem to be subject to this kind of name calling. Can we step beyond this, perhaps?

Chris, I believe you asked me "who was trying to censor" me?

odd, looks more like she is using one of those wonderful tools available to you. Asking someone that is doing something that offends to polite go away.

Respectfully, I think the outrage is not really directed at you or your cause. I think it is a general outrage that we somehow have to do something about the play visualization of something that someone finds offensive.

The outrage comes from the slippery slope of "where will this end." All things done by people, will offend someone. If I went around the grid and passed out Lindens, someone would be offended.

What happened with gambling is a bad example. That isn't something that is happening in-world. It is something that was happening in-world that is breaking the law offline.

As far as all forms of sexual roleplay, my honest opinion is that nothing should be banned in-world. It isn't real ... period. This from a person that generally favors ultra-harsh punishment for these offenses offline.

On that topic, we get to the second slippery slope, when we assign a motive to the people that do these things. A sadist may be fulfilling his fantasy here online with those of a like mind, as a way to salve his unhealthy desires offline. Would we really want to remove this ability to the point where unhealthy desires might manifest offline with someone that was not of like mind? A person that was abused, may be participating in online abuse for several reasons; To make it all more of a game or to make the pain something they can control. It sounds far fetched, but no more than the very high percentage of kids that cut, that claim they do so because it is the only pain in their life that they can control.

None of that is sure, but all of that is possible ... which gives us teh outrage of making universal statements about things that are too complicated to be universal.

A simple request for you to leave. Not censorship at all. You are free to stay or go as you want. I know Lindal pretty well. I know she will support you ranting all you want. But you want more than to just rant. You want to "compromise" away freedom. You want to destroy property rights, freedom of association, and freedom of speech. Tell us why we are wrong......fine. Advocate harming us or our freedom, expect both barrels in response.

Non-Linden land is privately held by the person who pays the tier. It is their choice to allow access or not, and are provided with tools to help them in that. If one were to get banned from Linden owned land, I would suspect that would mean they are banned from SL. I, as a landowner am able to ban etc from my land as I see fit. Same as any other group or individual owning land.

If people acted out a hardcore sex scene in a welcome area, G-Team would be there in a heart-beat with the expected consequences (broadly offensive conduct, mature content in PG area etc.) Were the same thing to occur on my land and I AR'd it as not a free sex area, and then was upset because G-Team never responded, they would likely be busy wondering why I didn't enjoy the use of the freeze button before ejecting, banning and muting.



Did I miss the part on Orientation Island where it says you are only allowed to be on SL if you go to the most explicit sex areas you can think of? Along with the tools a land owner has, there is the land description. Its the little bar on top of your screen that says where you are. Many times you will find lots of key information about what is allowed there, particularly if there is a private sims covenant.

If someone is going TO a BDSM sim to AR their content... they might want to look at what the place is a little better. Making the choice to go to a place is putting yourself where you will see the content. A graphic sex display in a window of a store next to a road where you are walking along, not necessarily looking for such content is different.



Only your view has the right to be expressed? The forum community is expressing their freedom of speech as well. Along with freedom comes responsibility. Everybody here is bound by the rules of the TOS and community standards.

When freedoms get misused is when new rules come about. Likely people using their classifieds and land descriptions for words that had nothing to do with their actual content had a lot to do with search restrictions coming about to begin with.

Last I looked, the ability to TP is not exclusive to anyone. Again, don't like a place, leave. There was a treasure hunt that a store gave out a battered woman outfit, another place gave a bloody skin with a black eye. While I found those to be types of things I wouldn't necessarily surprise someone with, that is what the handy trash can in my inventory is for.



I spent most of the last year standing up for what I believe needs to change in SL. I have well over 10 pages worth of support tickets, likely as many ARs. But I also put my actions where my mouth is by providing an alternative and talking individually to neighbors and others whenever possible.

As far as credentials, well skilled at pinning a grown man to the floor and holding him there til he cries.

We all come to SL for different reasons and from vastly different backgrounds. Trying to force one way as the only way isn't very effective. What alternatives have you or whatever group, cabal etc created? Why is this cause so important that the diverse range of inclusive and welcoming SL communities should arise into one shiny happy people, mouse ear wearing community against it?

Thanks for this posting, Looli; I find it very interesting, and very much to the point.

While I think I do find rape sims even more problematic than you do, for a number of reasons, I do concede that, for whatever reason, women and men in SL DO consensually choose to play this kind of sexual game. And I would at the very least find problematic any attempt to stop that.

I think where we most differ is in our interpretation of the significance of public simulations of VAW. You note the power of words to harm. But we need to move beyond JUST words, and talk about an overall semiotic. I would argue that a public display of VAW operates, functionally, in the same way that words do: whether it is text, image, or animation, it makes a "statement." That "statement" may well not be intended, but it is there in any case. The question then is which we value more highly: your right to engage in this activity in public, or issue of the kind of harm, social or personal, that its public utterance is causing.