Inclusive Communities and Representations of Violence against Women

There is a big difference, but it's not in the intent of the material, it's in whether the viewer is poorly in the head or not, and if you want to actually kill women (or men, or kids) then you are very poorly in the head. If necrobabes or whatever was not available, those killers would probably have got their jollies watching the aforementioned films, and if they were not available they would have found something else. Conversely, there are a huge number of people who do view extreme pornography and who do not commit violent crimes (almost all of them) and large numbers of violent sex offenders who don't have huge collections of snuff porn under the bed.

I know that the Jane Longhurst campaign tried to model itself on the successful campaign to ban child pornography, but the comparison falls down because child porn is pictorial evidence of actual crimes being committed.

I'm sure you'll find that mainstream films have been associated with far more crimes than Necrobabes has.

"Natural Born Killers" alone probably accounts for more.

Let me shine a light on that for you.


1) I asked for some clarification, which was ignored.

Particularly in regard to usage of quotation marks. As anyone around here can attest to, I've never been a pedant. But quotation marks shade meaning substantially, e.g. there are massage therapists and, you know, "massage therapists" (wink wink nudge nudge!).

I have the distinct sense that I am missing some metaphors. If the quotes were just for emphasis, hey, that's fine too. Casual writing is fine. I just need to understand what the hell we are actually talking about.


2) I had some serious questions of my own, which were ignored utterly.

Instead, the obvious pokes that should have been ignored were met with replies.

That's a lecture, not a discussion. As for talking down, well, if I were worthy of an answer, I'd have been answered.

This is *precisely* where I'm coming from.


It can be easily cleared up by something like "Oh, I missed your post, just ignore the quotes, let me address your points."



I don't take this commentary as condescension, nor am I attacking you personally. That is a complete misread of my character.

If your topic and yourself weren't worthy of engagement I would have simply ignored you. As I was summarily dismissed. See my response to Ponsonby above and it may go far to explain the vibe people are feeling here. It's not just me.

* * * * *

Regardless, and more to the point, it simply does not matter if we like each other, dislike each other, &c. A civil discussion is beyond that. As it stands, I don't know you at all, and don't actually have an opinion about you. A few forum posts don't make my mind up about anybody in either direction.

See my first post in this thread if you want to engage in an actual discussion, and I shall see that as sincerity and intellectual honesty. Likely others will too.

If I don't respond rapidly it is no slight. I am quite occupied in all manner of other things.

Oh man I wasn't even gonna weigh in on this one.....but it's a crappy day here....rain's pouring in buckets (so much for laying in the sun when I was done with my projects, pphhhfff)

I do not, in reference to the OP......have any real reaction to any of the RP type violence that I see in SL. I don't go out of my way to expose myself to it.....but when I first joined I explored every seedy nook & cranny out of sheer curiosity.

Real images of violence...whether they are contrived or from news footage, are far more disturbing to me then avatars and all their accessories. SL is purely a world of imagination and a huge part of that is people acting out their own fantasies. A fantasy is a very very different thing then an actual act of violence. SL is a safe zone for people to role play in....and that's just fine. I see no porblem with it.

With regards to whether LL needs to address the issue of some of these images of violence offending others......yeesh.....now we're talking about a type a censorship that's not all that well defined yet in terms of 'virtual reality' venues. I see some pretty nasty crap in some of the PS games my nephew has......I've seen some seriously disturbing stuff on the web that has zero safeguards against children viewing it....... SL is already insular......LL already takes steps (however faulty at this stage) to make sure kids don't get in......now they're wanting to totally separate adult content so folks can be snug in their pg world if they so choose.

How people react to something is never going to be entirely predictable. Once censorship begins....because there's a 'possibility' that 'someone' will take offense.....it becomes this runaway train. I'm pretty democratic on many of my views.....but I really kind of hate the PC crap. It just gets so over the top. This word might offend that one and this phrase can't be said on that holiday cause it might offend those who don't celebrate it...... and now here we are in F A N T A S Y world.....discussing whether or not some of the activity should be censored. My knee jerk reaction is no.....no way.... let it go....noone is deliberately trying to offend or degrade anyone with the violent sexual RP.

On the contrary.....racial slurs or grafitti or discrimination.....that stuff IS there to offend....that is the intent of those that use it....that say it.....that feel like they have to spread their small minded opinion......all of that is meant to offend. So, naturally, it's going to have that effect. I'm pretty white bread american girl....and I've definitely been in places where 'my kind' were not looked upon well at all. THAT was pretty uncomfortable.
But the RP.....in the context of SL is not designed or played out with the INTENT to offend women. To my way of thinking.....that's a very different thing and totally tolorable. In fact, it is far LESS offensive to me then simply having a conversation with someone who turns out to be a total cheuvonistic pig, and having to deal with their attitude toward women.

So, what did murderers use before that site existed? What did murders use before the Internet was invented? What about Jack the Ripper, what caused him to murder women of ill-repute in London? The Newpaper? Music? Maybe he was crazy to begin with?

Maybe he saw a ladies' ankle.

fairy tales and nursery rymes


Try looking up the origins of them....

Don't you mean right-wing Feminists?

I'm going to burn for this....


Or maybe wingnut feminists!

I was flicking through the recent topics to see if there was any more on the last thread of this nature, and spotted this. I considered it a little coincidental, but started to read with an open mind.

The more I read, the more familiar this was sounding.

Then someone did the work and found a clear link between the two threads. I can't say I was at all shocked.

The previous instance of this agenda met with widespread condemnation and ridicule, and lo, we have a more toned down and cleverly constructed form. Taking out the emotive tirade against fantasy rape, and instead constructing an argument that on face value nobody with an ounce of compassion and moral fibre would wish to argue against. The only problem was, people on here are too insightful and intelligent to take everything at face value, and instead digersted and understood the real message. Which was one of censorship of behaviour from a subjective bias viewpoint, and an agenda to impose an arbitrary moral code on the world.

It's a common tactic, launch your campaign with an outrageous and always doomed to fail stance, and then tone it down for a relaunch where it will seem far more acceptable by comparison. Use the lessons learned from the reactions in phase one to manipulate your message in phase two.

This campaign is divisive, oppressive, and for something allegedly pure and true, incredibly disingenuous.

I feel an urge to comment on some of the issues raised in this thread, but at the same time don't wish to feed the flames of this insidious crusade.

ETA: Oh, and wasn't "A Clockwork Orange" banned in the UK until very recently? Since someone mentioned that film in particular.



On the first statement, (certain) sex offenders are not supposed to even have that sort of material lying about, for that very reason. Pretty hard to regulate now due to the internet, though. I doubt most parole officers have nearly the amount of time it would take to keep an eye on sites visited that are comparable to a kids' clothing catalog. They used to be able to just drop in and look around for contraband magazines.

Your question is unanswerable, really. There are varying opinions and studies. I'm with Andrew Vachss (a man who's dedicated his life and work to this cause) in that any depiction of pedophilia is dangerous and questionable. I'm well aware others disagree.

Back to the OP(s): Well, if you still have no clue why you've been almost universally badly received, and your ideas as well, I doubt any amount of explanation can suffice. I did mention some reasons in one of these threads, but it wasn't enough for Posonby (never know who's who, if that's an alt of one of the OPs who knows. But their ire seemed to match both OPs, so for all intents and purposes consider this to all three). Why should any of us devote more time to trying to help YOU understand why we don't want to hand over our choices to you?

But here. There are other possibly more positive ways you might've gone about this. Consider the following as addressed to both OPs (Ladoof and Scylla) as well as any who agree with their tactics.

1. Opened a real dialogue, instead of a coy question you knew the answer to. Instead of passive aggressive digs, displays of glee at our reactions/annoyance to things posted, how about a show of sincerity or respect. Also instead of (in the 2nd thread) a polemic.

2. Assumed that others in the forum have at least as much knowledge and/or experience in 'causes' and even with feminist causes and actions, as yourself. Act accordingly.

3. Listed your wishes for change in SL in a simple, clear, factual way.

4. Do not talk about how much you want to remove things and then insist you're not wishing to censor or tell anyone else what they can or can't do.

5. Do not state your assumptions as if they are a given - i.e. "hatred against women." How could you possibly know the reasons/motivations for all participants? Someone asked if you'd done any real research into this or even spent real time or participated in these sims you've named as offensive. Which brings me to

6. Answer questions people ask if you really want our opinions on this issue. Otherwise people begin to think this is all about you, your opinions and your grandstanding on an issue.

Ways for possible positive action

1. Appeal to creative types by doing some sort of performance-oriented action. Spoken word, live music, performance art, fine art installation.

2. Along those lines also, publish a zine. Shakespeares Sister book store is a good outlet for it.

3. Light a candle, stop cursing the darkness.

Maybe you've already done or are doing all of those. But the types of snide, sneering comments aimed at the people you are trying to 'save' - who by the way are the same ones you label as 'the sick few' - are not going to go over a treat.

Seems pretty logical really. Stop insulting the people you are trying to help - i.e. the residents, or 'community'.

As for "inclusive communities," all communities by definition are inclusive! There is just no such thing as an ALL inclusive community, unless you broaden the definition so widely as to include people on the basis of their humanity alone. You will never get all of a population to agree on ANYthing.

Answering speech with more speech is free speech. If you have a problem with that, then you have a problem with the entire concept of free speech. Which--based on the rest of your post you clearly do.

No one has attempted to "silence and intimidate" you or the original poster. Closely examining the logic and motivations of a speaker is just common sense. Neither is mockery an attempt to "silence and intimidate". An attempt to "silence and intimidate" would be more like filing an AR because your speech offended me. Which I have not done, will not do, and strongly doubt anyone opposing your viewpoint in this thread would do so either.



Since several posters on your side of this issue--including yourself--have come out in favor of further restrictions on allowed expression in SL, it is scarcely paranoid to fear that people would want to do just that.



Strawman argument. That's not what people are saying, and you know it.



No one's searching our your real names, phone number, or addresses. The only information on a SL profile is information the creators of that profile put there. If they don't want it known or discussed, then don't post it.



Strawman again. Just because people have responded to your views does not mean that they said or believed you should not have the right to express them. Disagreement and/or disapproval of some form of expression does not imply the desire to censor it. At least for most people posting here.



Do you have actual cases of new members of your group joining to harass others? If so, then that is ARable. On the other hand if your defintion of harassment is "someone disagreeing with you and stating so in public", you are probably out of luck.



We appreciate your restraint. Doing so would not be conducive to the dialogue you claim to want.



Please note that a few paragraphs earlier in your post you accused people responding to you of being paranoid.



While LL is a private company and can do what they like, such legistlation in the US would be nearly impossible to get past the courts. It has been tried--multiple times.

Why on earth should people be compromising their freedom of speech just because some things in the world make you uncomfortable?

You are using an old--but transparent--debate tactic of stating an outrageous position, then offering a slightly less outrageous position as a compromise, then criticizing you opponents for being unwilling to compromise.

Save it for the CNN/MSNBC/FOX talking heads and politicians. People THINK here.

They weren't called the Brothers Grimm for nothing.

Just on the topic of "silencing" - since one or both of the OPs to these two threads have said that these roleplays are "silencing women" - I'd really like to know how they think that is possible, since text based roleplay is all about what people say.

They do realise the difference between actual force, and someone choosing to sit at their computer, and type their own dialogue? Sounds pretty much the opposite of being silenced, to me.

Refusing the same women that right, however, would be silencing them!

Re: Grimm's fairy tales. Yep. The original Cinderella had her stepsisters slicing at their own feet. Read Bettelheim's analysis of fairy tales, though, OPs, before you get in a lather about that one. (Although, it could also be said it reflected societal values which could be seen as oppressive...nvm. Circular argument. Still an interesting read, though.)

There is a female murder victim who was found in the La Brea tar pits. Her skeleton dates to prehistoric times.

What prompted that violence, I wonder? A cave painting?

Might as well comment.. they seem to ignore any serious questions, rather just answer the off the wall and easy to ridicule questions..

No, they claim to be leftists, and their desire to protect us from ourselves fits the bill.

The answer is: there is no right not to be offended. Deal with it.

Edited: see later

Gives me chills how often, if we played a twisted form of Mad Libs and just switched around certain nouns, the far left and the far right speeches sound exactly the same.

honestly from the first post of the thread it is pretty hard to tell..
it went so back and forth that it looked like someone trying to use every angle..
i've heard less head spin from the guy that sold me my jeep hehehehee

They pretty much are, they use different means, but their goals are pretty much the same.

Sadly such muddleheads seem always to be in charge of my county's government.

Wouldn't that realisation horrify both types? I thought they were natural enemies.

Maybe the moderates are more likely the 'natural enemies' of both, who knows.

I think so far left (or right) I'd say just moonbats.