Inclusive Communities and Representations of Violence against Women

My answer would be none. That is, I am *not* willing to sacrifice any personal freedoms simply to ease your sensitivities, and I could care less if you are offended.

Originally Posted by Scylla Rhiadra
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?

Overall, Milla, I think you are right. Please note (and I HAVE said this before) that I am not "attacking" role players, or ever role playing.

But I HAVE accidentally walked into Gorean sims, or inadvertently found myself at dance clubs that feature sexually violent animations or images. And I know others who have as well.

If you were from saudi you would say the same thing about the pixelated depiction of gay acts (in fact, SL is allegedly banned in saudi). What defines a nation of true freedom: If the law doesn't care about what two or more consenting adults are getting off from. The OP keeps forgetting that while most Gor slaves and female RP characters are probably guys in female avatars there *are* women playing slaves and rape victims and "getting off" from that. The OP wants to take away women's rights to express their fantasies in freedom.

(I am fully aware of the fact that SL is not a country but a privately owned business and that LL may decide to ban whatever content they deem detrimental to their goals. What we want to see in SL is actually moot to discuss because it's not our decision. The only decision we can make is about leaving or staying.)

I am 100% behind all the laws we have in Britain that ban the depiction, in whatever form, of the abuse of women or children.

Precisely the same arguement could be made for people who wish to express their ageplay fantasies in freedom.

Could you please explain how you can condone one without condoning the other?

Is it in all our interests for SL to die to satisfy the 'freedoms' of a sick few?

Would you support these freedoms if it meant the demise of SL?

What people do in the privacy of their own home I generally support, but not when it comes to minors, and not when it comes to vunerable women.

<.<


One does not simply walk into Gor...


>.>

To me, Second Life is a community. Or, perhaps more accurately, a community of communities. I value that diversity enormously, just as I do the cultural diversity in the city in which I live in RL: I think that new perspectives, even those that challenge my own views, are a vital part of a pluralistic and democratic society.

But communities DO need to establish "rules" for themselves. For a pluralistic culture to work, most importantly, every voice needs to feel welcome. This is why most free and democratic societies have rules against hate speech: it is not about banning free expression, but rather about preventing intimidation and threat from silencing those who are the targets of hate. If I see a hate message directed against my ethnic background scrawled on a wall, I (naturally) feel unwelcome, and as though my voice and perspective are under threat. If I see a representation of violence committed against an ethnic group, I know that there is an implied threat there, too.

In this context, I have a question about the continued prevalence of representations of violence against women in Second Life. Here, I am expected to encounter, and countenance, the depictions of graphic and often gruesome violence against women all the time. I see a number of cultures that devalue and degrade women, or that make "games" out of simulating torture, mutilation, and murder. But I am not supposed to take this "personally." SL does not allow swastikas or racist slogans; it doesn't permit sexualized age play. Nor should it. So why is it permissible to express hatred against women through representations of this kind?

Most importantly, how can we make our "community" here work in such a way that NO one feels censored, repressed, or unwelcome? I would really value your thoughts on this.

In order to forestall the inevitable stock responses, let me say the following:

-- I am not equating SL depictions of rape with RL rape. Yes, SL rape is a sim; yes, in most cases it is probably consensual. I am concerned about the REPRESENTATION of rape, not the whether it may or may not be actually occurring in SL.

-- I am not anti-sex. In fact, I'd prefer to see representations of consensual sex in the "Mature" areas, rather than on Ursula. I actually like sex. And it likes me.

-- I am not pro-censorship. See above. The only kinds of self-expression that worry me are those that contain an explicit threat of violence and hate, and an associated implication that other voices should be silenced.

-- I am not the "thought police." I have absolutely no interest in your private fantasies, fetishes, or prejudices. My concern is when your PUBLIC expression of them degrades and silences others.

So much for "Silence of the Lambs", "A Clockwork Orange" and "Psycho" in Britain.

What people do in the privacy of their own home I generally support, but not when it comes to minors, and not when it comes to vunerable women.

Rock

Of course.......... snipped for brevity.

No, the images that have been banned are defined as images which are "of such a nature that it/they must reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal". The law therefore explicitly excluded "mainstream films, documentaries, war footage or instructional videos".

Rock

No, the images that have been banned are defined as images which are "of such a nature that it/they must reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal". The law therefore explicitly excluded "mainstream films, documentaries, war footage or instructional videos".

What she said.

But if I had the money to sponsor an enterprise like SL, I would have no restrictions on speech or voluntary actions. But I don't see me coming into that kind of money any time soon.

Perhaps I can interest you in these Ginko Bonds

No, the images that have been banned are defined as images which are "of such a nature that it/they must reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal".
Rock

No, the images that have been banned are defined as images which are "of such a nature that it/they must reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal". The law therefore explicitly excluded "mainstream films, documentaries, war footage or instructional videos".

Even assuming that the hidden assumption that ageplay is equivalent to pedophilia is correct, would you rather J Random Pervert getting his rocks off with a computer-generated image or a real kid? You don't get a third choice, even the UK doesn't have sparrowfart-level panoptic surveillance yet.

Precisely the same arguement could be made for people who wish to express their ageplay fantasies in freedom. Could you please explain how you can condone one without condoning the other?

However, the 'freedoms' that individuals want affect us all, especially after a news or TV organization has published an exposé on these activities in SL.

Is it in all our interests for SL to die to satisfy the 'freedoms' of a sick few?

Please answer this question explicitly: Would you support these freedoms if it meant the demise of SL?

I am 100% behind all the laws we have in Britain that ban the depiction, in whatever form, of the abuse of women or children.

What people do in the privacy of their own home I generally support, but not when it comes to minors, and not when it comes to vunerable women.

Rock

That's not what you said before.

Anyway, just give it time. Not like there's a big difference in watching something like that for sexual gratification or just garden variety entertainment.

And someone challenged me when I said the UK was little more than an open air prison.

I disagree entirely.

Graham Coutts's conviction in 2004 for the killing of Jane Longhurst, in the UK, and Patrick Anthony Russo, a Texas Church leader, who murdered Diane Holik in 2001, were both notorious for the perpetrators' collections of pornography from such sites as necrobabes.
Rock

I disagree entirely.

Graham Coutts's conviction in 2004 for the killing of Jane Longhurst, in the UK, and Patrick Anthony Russo, a Texas Church leader, who murdered Diane Holik in 2001, were both notorious for the perpetrators' collections of pornography from such sites as necrobabes.

I have seen all the movies you quoted, but I most certainly did not whack off to any of them. There is a big difference, as the law states, in what the aim of the creation was intended for.

Rock